Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

With the election a hugely under reported story.  As you said, this is an act of war.

This is one of those stories that you have to stop and consider. It just doesn't add up on its surface. 

 

Remember when everybody said Russia blew up their own pipelines? This story sounds like that. If you're going to declare war on the United States this is a very strange and uncontrolled way to do it.

 

"Downing commercial passenger or cargo planes would be a big step up and some Western intelligence agencies have questioned whether such a plot could be the result of Russian spies carrying out a plan without the full authorization of the Kremlin, according to people familiar with the matter."

This is very different than saying "Russia did it."

Edited November 5, 2024 by Lord Ratner

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

This is one of those stories that you have to stop and consider. It just doesn't add up on its surface. 

 

Remember when everybody said Russia blew up their own pipelines? This story sounds like that. If you're going to declare war on the United States this is a very strange and uncontrolled way to do it.

 

"Downing commercial passenger or cargo planes would be a big step up and some Western intelligence agencies have questioned whether such a plot could be the result of Russian spies carrying out a plan without the full authorization of the Kremlin, according to people familiar with the matter."

This is very different than saying "Russia did it."

Yup.  Way too convenient aligning with current events.   What does Russia gain?  What could they lose?  Are they really that incompetent.....

Edited November 5, 2024 by uhhello

[raimius]

On 11/4/2024 at 7:28 PM, BashiChuni said:

except ukraine joining IS a huge provocation and putin has been saying this for decades. we chose to ignore what he said and he called our bluff.

Not an act of war.

Are you arguing that a neighboring nation joining an alliance your nation is not at war with is a valid reason to invade them?

[BashiChuni]

14 minutes ago, raimius said:

Not an act of war.

Are you arguing that a neighboring nation joining an alliance your nation is not at war with is a valid reason to invade them?

It’s more complicated than that. But I’d ask you if China was bringing Canada into their alliance how would the USA react? Monroe doctrine ring a bell? 
 

 

[BashiChuni]

Trump is gonna end this silly project Ukraine. 

[ClearedHot]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

This is one of those stories that you have to stop and consider. It just doesn't add up on its surface. 

 

Remember when everybody said Russia blew up their own pipelines? This story sounds like that. If you're going to declare war on the United States this is a very strange and uncontrolled way to do it.

 

"Downing commercial passenger or cargo planes would be a big step up and some Western intelligence agencies have questioned whether such a plot could be the result of Russian spies carrying out a plan without the full authorization of the Kremlin, according to people familiar with the matter."

This is very different than saying "Russia did it."

One of the mistakes we make is to analyze adversary actions as if they are rationale actors...or that they make choices and decisions using the our metrics and guardrails.  Putin has proven time and time again that he will accept extreme risk in the pursuit of short-term gains, especially when it comes to retribution.  Two cases in point:

1.  On 1 November 2006, Putin authorized the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko using Polonium 210 and UK SOIL.

2.  In March 2018 authorized another assassination this time targeting Sergei Skripal, a British citizen who used to work as a Russian intelligence officer, and his daughter, Yulia, nearly died after coming into contact with Novichok, a military-grade nerve agent originally developed by the former Soviet Union. 

Take a step back and think about that, Putin used nuclear and chemical weapons on the sovereign soil of the UK, our closest NATO ally. 

Perhaps I've read the reports wrong but the story about the airplanes does not indicate they were trying to down the cargo planes, instead they wanted them to catch fire on the ground and cause chaos.  I am guessing the devices were sophisticated a small but important distinction.  There is much we will never know but the point is Putin is not afraid to make dangerous moves well outside the norms of the world order.

 

[Lord Ratner]

6 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

One of the mistakes we make is to analyze adversary actions as if they are rationale actors...or that they make choices and decisions using the our metrics and guardrails.  Putin has proven time and time again that he will accept extreme risk in the pursuit of short-term gains, especially when it comes to retribution.  Two cases in point:

1.  On 1 November 2006, Putin authorized the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko using Polonium 210 and UK SOIL.

2.  In March 2018 authorized another assassination this time targeting Sergei Skripal, a British citizen who used to work as a Russian intelligence officer, and his daughter, Yulia, nearly died after coming into contact with Novichok, a military-grade nerve agent originally developed by the former Soviet Union. 

Take a step back and think about that, Putin used nuclear and chemical weapons on the sovereign soil of the UK, our closest NATO ally. 

Perhaps I've read the reports wrong but the story about the airplanes does not indicate they were trying to down the cargo planes, instead they wanted them to catch fire on the ground and cause chaos.  I am guessing the devices were sophisticated a small but important distinction.  There is much we will never know but the point is Putin is not afraid to make dangerous moves well outside the norms of the world order.

 

I agree, but those were not sloppy operations, and in both cases they *felt* plausible. Why? Because we all know NATO or the UK or the US aren't going to go to war over the assassination of Russians by Russians. 

 

But if Russia downed two planes full of Westerners, especially given the current state of the relationship between Russia and the West, there would be a war. It was just luck back in 2014 that the plane accidentally missile'd out of the sky wasn't a Delta flight full of red blooded Americans. 

 

There are better and safer ways to test the aviation security infrastructure than with actual incendiary devices so poorly designed that they both went off by accident.

 

I have no idea what happened, obviously, But this is not the first time Western forces have attempted to frame Russia for something in an attempt to drum up more support. The pipeline example was much more transparent, but this one has the same smell to it. And with Donald Trump favored to win the election, I can see some "misguided" pro-Ukrainian spies thinking this would be the best way to protect the way. 

 

And before Bashi gets an erection so hard he passes out, I'm still strongly in favor of providing Ukraine with the resources to prolong this fight.

[ClearedHot]

5 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

And before Bashi gets an erection so hard he passes out, I'm still strongly in favor of providing Ukraine with the resources to prolong this fight.

We are in violent agreement, everyday Russia continues the fight against Ukraine helps weaken them for a generation.

[Smokin]

They were intended to be put on a cargo plane, meaning likely 3-4 potential casualties.  My hypothetical was the cargo being loaded on a passenger plane (which does happen).  If the cargo plane was airborne and the fire spread and crashed into the Atlantic, I'd imagine it would be very difficult to reliably point to any single package on the plane that caused it.

A false flag operation is possible, but potentially killing US citizens in a false flag operation is risky to the extreme.  If the US suspected the truth, it would backfire spectacularly.  Destroying an underwater gas line and raising gas prices is a totally different level than potentially killing people.

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

 

And before Bashi gets an erection so hard he passes out, I'm still strongly in favor of providing Ukraine with the resources to prolong this fight.

impossible. it's not that big bro sheeeeeshhh

 

[gearhog]

Not even 24 hours later: 

Awesome.

[icohftb]

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

Not even 24 hours later: 

Awesome.

What's the plan?

[gearhog]

4 hours ago, icohftb said:

What's the plan?

I doubt there is one yet. Putin knows Trump is going to impose one so he's signalling he's ready to negotiate.

The solution has never been difficult. Divi up the territory that's been fought over, call it a draw, keep Ukraine neutral, and agree to hold elections free from Russian and USA influence.

[StoleIt]

On 11/4/2024 at 7:19 PM, Smokin said:

But you know what is an act of war?  Bombing NATO countries:  https://www.wsj.com/world/russia-plot-us-planes-incendiary-devices-de3b8c0a?mod=hp_lead_pos1

Basically, Russia put two bombs in cargo shipments headed to the US.  Luckily they went off while in storage in Germany. 

Imagine if those shipments got contracted out and put on US passenger planes.  Potential to kill hundreds of American civilians and the US government would have no choice but to take some pretty significant actions.  Could have easily started WWIII.

Man, doesn't Purple already have it bad enough with their activist investors and contract negotiations? Now they gotta deal with Putin's package bombs too?!

They can't catch a break...

[O Face]

Don’t forget pilots live-streaming themselves dancing naked during town hall meetings too!

[FourFans]

14 hours ago, O Face said:

Don’t forget pilots live-streaming themselves dancing naked during town hall meetings too!

Wait...do you not?

[O Face]

I’m just jealous. 

[BashiChuni]

https://apnews.com/article/biden-ukraine-long-range-weapons-russia-52d424158182de2044ecc8bfcf011f9c

very irresponsible from the "biden" administration.

 

hopefully we can avoid WW3 until trump takes over and the "adults are back in the room"

 

[uhhello]

I thought I read somewhere that Trump was in favor of removing weapons restrictions on UKR in order to further his peace plan?  Maybe I didn't.  I can't find anything actually quoting him. 

[BashiChuni]

trump is on record wanting to end the war in ukraine quickly.

[uhhello]

17 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

trump is on record wanting to end the war in ukraine quickly.

Yup.  No disagreement there.  My question was of his stance on restrictions placed on US provided weapons.  

I've searched to the end of internet and can't find any quotes so I think I made it up.

Edited November 19, 2024 by uhhello

[Lawman]

Yup.  No disagreement there.  My question was of his stance on restrictions placed on US provided weapons.  
I've searched to the end of internet and can't find any quotes so I think I made it up.

A lot of Trump’s proxy voices have said as much but I’ve never seen anything official come out of his statements.

Basically it’s portrayed as being the carrot or a VERY big stick to negotiate with.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[8BC]

I understand myself to be a simpleton, attack me as such.

There is now great concern that Ukraine will use US provided missile systems to strike into Russian territory.

Wait, what?  But I am a Simpleton.

We either sold or gave long range missile systems to somebody and now that somebody wants to use them but we somehow feel we now still get a vote?  Hello!  They bought them or have them.  They can use them any way that they want.  It’s why they now have the military hardware. We may not politically agree, fear of escalation, but that should now be behind us, or otherwise we should not have given them access to the hardware in the first  place.

As a thought, were these missile systems acquired by Ukraine before or after the Russian invasion?  Maybe it matters in esoteric, or maybe not.

Ford Motor Car Company does not restrict how I use my truck or where I can drive it.  How can the US place restrictions on Ukraine for how they choose to use weapon systems we gave/sold them.  Why else would Ukraine have long range missile systems, if not to use them?  If this is now a problem, perhaps we should not have gave/sold them the systems in the first place.

Common man’s perspective to a complex issue. Just something to think about. 

[Lord Ratner]

49 minutes ago, 8BC said:

I understand myself to be a simpleton, attack me as such.

There is now great concern that Ukraine will use US provided missile systems to strike into Russian territory.

Wait, what?  But I am a Simpleton.

We either sold or gave long range missile systems to somebody and now that somebody wants to use them but we somehow feel we now still get a vote?  Hello!  They bought them or have them.  They can use them any way that they want.  It’s why they now have the military hardware. We may not politically agree, fear of escalation, but that should now be behind us, or otherwise we should not have given them access to the hardware in the first  place.

As a thought, were these missile systems acquired by Ukraine before or after the Russian invasion?  Maybe it matters in esoteric, or maybe not.

Ford Motor Car Company does not restrict how I use my truck or where I can drive it.  How can the US place restrictions on Ukraine for how they choose to use weapon systems we gave/sold them.  Why else would Ukraine have long range missile systems, if not to use them?  If this is now a problem, perhaps we should not have gave/sold them the systems in the first place.

Common man’s perspective to a complex issue. Just something to think about. 

The Ford analogy is flawed. You get to keep the truck after you drive somewhere. 

 

This would more be like you using an Uber to go commit a sexual assault. And then Uber bands you from using them in the future. 

Selling weapons with conditions is nothing new. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't restrict what they do, but the idea that we have no right to limit how they are used ignores the fact that they need a hell of a lot more than one shipment.

[Lawman]

The Ford analogy is flawed. You get to keep the truck after you drive somewhere. 
 
This would more be like you using an Uber to go commit a sexual assault. And then Uber bands you from using them in the future. 
Selling weapons with conditions is nothing new. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't restrict what they do, but the idea that we have no right to limit how they are used ignores the fact that they need a hell of a lot more than one shipment.

Geo-fencing is not a new concept, and we discussed it way back earlier in this thread.

Though with a total post count in the single digits I doubt this is any sort of normal post to just suddenly join in the conversation with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk