Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 03-26-2022

(03-26-2022, 09:23 AM)DC 86 Wrote:  

(03-26-2022, 09:01 AM)ca245 Wrote:  

(03-26-2022, 07:18 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Russian general Yakov Rezantsev killed in Ukraine: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60807538

I think there is a relevant queen song here.

BC

The BBC article says Rezantsev was a "Lieutenant General" and the highest ranking officer killed to date. The article then lists several "Major 

Generals" who have also been killed. Does it mean that, when it comes to generals, "Lieutenant" is a higher rank than "Major", at least in the Russian army?

Right. Brigadier General (one star), then Major General (two star), then lieutenant general (three star) then general (4 star).  There's also General of the Army (5 star). The only Army men to hold that rank were George C. Marshall, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Omar Bradley and Hap Arnold and the rank is no longer attainable.  In 1976, President Gerald Ford "promoted" George Washington to the role of General of the Armies of the United States (essentially 6 stars), so Washington would always have the highest rank. Congress also created that title for John Pershing in 1919 to recognize his WWI work.

In the Russian officer ranking system (as in ours), the highest rank below the various general ranks is Colonel.  The lowest ranking general is Major General, then Lieutenant General, then Colonel General, then Army General.  Marshall of the Russian Federation is a title that has been retired.

Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation - Wikipedia

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 03-26-2022

Russian military ranks are a little different, but it’s pretty similar:

Marshal of the Russian Federation
Ма́ршал Росси́йской Федера́ции
Márshal Rossíyskoy Federátsi

Army general
Генера́л а́рмии
Generál ármii

Colonel general
Генера́л-полко́вник
Generál-polkóvnik

Lieutenant general
Генера́л-лейтена́нт
Generál-leytenánt

Major general
Генера́л-майо́р
Generál-mayór

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Softball Fan - 03-26-2022

The Ukraine military is doing ok thus far.  They could be doing better with more advanced U. S. weapons.  I saw a convoy of Russian supply trucks on a road on a news broadcast.  They would be sitting ducks for a fleet of drones armed with smart bombs.  When it comes to military drones most people think of the Predator which is becoming somewhat obsolete.  There are much smaller, far less expensive drones developed in the last decade.   They are mobile and fairly easy to operate. 

I was involved in manufacturing some components for the Coyote drone which is designed to be used in autonomous swarms.  Originally intended for surveillance; it now has warheads.  

I'm sure there are some good reasons why the Pentagon is not supplying it's most current technology.  There are far more options available than Javelin and Stinger missiles.  I was involved with the Stinger program back in the 1980s.   If the war drags on the US can supply weaponry that is much better than what Russia currently has on the ground in Ukraine.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - martyup - 03-26-2022

(03-26-2022, 06:05 PM)paloalto Wrote:  If the war drags on the US can supply weaponry that is much better than what Russia currently has on the ground in Ukraine.

I wasn't aware of this war.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 03-26-2022

(03-26-2022, 06:15 PM)martyup Wrote:  

(03-26-2022, 06:05 PM)paloalto Wrote:  If the war drags on the US can supply weaponry that is much better than what Russia currently has on the ground in Ukraine.

I wasn't aware of this war.

Sure looks like a flop to me.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-26-2022

(03-26-2022, 06:05 PM)paloalto Wrote:  The Ukraine military is doing ok thus far.  They could be doing better with more advanced U. S. weapons.  I saw a convoy of Russian supply trucks on a road on a news broadcast.  They would be sitting ducks for a fleet of drones armed with smart bombs.  When it comes to military drones most people think of the Predator which is becoming somewhat obsolete.  There are much smaller, far less expensive drones developed in the last decade.   They are mobile and fairly easy to operate. 

I was involved in manufacturing some components for the Coyote drone which is designed to be used in autonomous swarms.  Originally intended for surveillance; it now has warheads.  

I'm sure there are some good reasons why the Pentagon is not supplying it's most current technology.  There are far more options available than Javelin and Stinger missiles.  I was involved with the Stinger program back in the 1980s.   If the war drags on the US can supply weaponry that is much better than what Russia currently has on the ground in Ukraine.

The US is balancing what it provides vs how much we think it will anger the Russians. This is not a "rational" exercise, and I have no idea how we are going to do it. Advanced drones may be considered off limits and/or there are concerns that training will take too long.
The Ukrainians want an air umbrella to protect them from Russian bombing and cruise missiles. A Patriot battery would do that, but training the users would certainly take too long and Russia would probably regard it as an act of war. We are trying to supply S300 systems from other nations because the Ukrainians already know how to use them. They already have some, so giving them more is less objectionable, especially if we don't declare we did it. This really needs to happen. Why it hasn't may be that it actually has and we don't know it.
For Ukraine to have any chance at all of driving the Russians out of their country they need a significant number of surface to surface missiles. They need to be able to project power in a way that will prevent the Russians from just pounding the cities from a distance. Ukraine right now has no answer for the bombardment. Counter-battery and offensive bombardment of their own is needed. We won't give them airplanes to do it, so we need to give them something. We did send them FireFinder radars, but what are they supposed to do with the results?
We are supposedly giving Ukraine anti-ship missiles to defend their Southern coast. My guess is that we are looking at obsolete Soviet missiles (SS-N-2 probably). No time to waste here. Russia may not intend to attack Odessa from the sea, but they have the forces in place to do so. This ties down Ukrainian forces that are needed elsewhere. A means to frustrate such an attack with fewer people is very desirable. SS-N-2s are familiar to the users. They aren't "modern" but a landing ship approaching the coast is a sitting duck. SS-N-2s will do fine in that scenario, especially if the Russians don't know they are there.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 03-26-2022

Russian military ranks are a little different, but it’s pretty similar:

Marshal of the Russian Federation
Ма́ршал Росси́йской Федера́ции
Márshal Rossíyskoy Federátsi

Army general
Генера́л а́рмии
Generál ármii

Colonel general
Генера́л-полко́вник
Generál-polkóvnik

Lieutenant general
Генера́л-лейтена́нт
Generál-leytenánt

Major general
Генера́л-майо́р
Generál-mayór

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - DaBears17 - 03-26-2022

Charles Barkley just talked about Tara's pledge and challenge to donate $10 per 3 pointer made in the Women's tournament to a Ukraine relief charity.  He said he was going to donate $25,000 to the challenge.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 03-27-2022

World’s tinyist violin here…

[tweet]https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1508066313045950464?s=21&t=SVObqNNia3g-dFCu9MwiBw[/tweet]

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - newguy - 03-27-2022

what would help a great deal would be for us to buy some Bayraktars from Turkey and give them to Ukraine.
Ukraine had already bought some from Turkey, and has used them to great effect, but they need more.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 03-27-2022

The nuclear concern has been rising. I hadn't realized that we've stored nuclear weapons among NATO countries quite close to Russia:

Meet the nuke the U.S. keeps in Europe, just waiting to not be used (greenwichtime.com)

"Experts estimate that there are about 100 such bombs stored among five NATO countries, ready to be loaded on jets and dropped by the United States and its allies - old-school style, parachute and all - toward an enemy target. One version of this bomb can carry the explosive equivalent of 11 Hiroshimas."

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - lex24 - 03-27-2022

Support for Ukraine is terrific.  At the same time NATO and the US primary goal has to be to avoid escalation.  Biden doesn’t help things by exclaiming that Putin “cannot remain in power”, at the same time Macron is holding talks with Putin.  

I get that the comment may help him domestically.  But Americans seem to be oblivious to the consequences.  There is no other explanation for Americans supporting a “no-fly” zone.  Biden certainly isn’t, or shouldn’t be, oblivious.  Idiotic comment, notwithstanding. (Apparently, the Ambassador had to clean things up, assuring that we have no “regime change” policy.)

Does Putin smoke cigars…..

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-27-2022

(03-27-2022, 09:13 AM)newguy Wrote:  what would help a great deal would be for us to buy some Bayraktars from Turkey and give them to Ukraine.
Ukraine had already bought some from Turkey, and has used them to great effect, but they need more.

That isn't the problem. Ukraine already has an order with Turkey that predates the war that (as far as is publicly known) has outstanding deliveries to be made. The problem is that the manufacturer can't make them any faster (as I understand it). With the IC shortage being what it is, it would surprise me. For example, go try and buy a Raspberry Pi right now.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 03-27-2022

(03-27-2022, 11:12 AM)lex24 Wrote:  Support for Ukraine is terrific.  At the same time NATO and the US primary goal has to be to avoid escalation.  Biden doesn’t help things by exclaiming that Putin “cannot remain in power”, at the same time Macron is holding talks with Putin.  

I get that the comment may help him domestically.   But Americans seem to be oblivious to the consequences.  There is no other explanation for Americans supporting a “no-fly” zone.  Biden certainly isn’t, or shouldn’t be, oblivious.  Idiotic comment, notwithstanding. (Apparently, the Ambassador had to clean things up, assuring that we have no “regime change” policy.)

Does Putin smoke cigars…..

I watched Biden's speech in Poland in its entirety. My assumption was it would be a historic event that most people alive today will not appreciate in terms of its significance. The speech hit on so many points. It communicated so much, both on the range of topics covered, audiences spoken to, and tone used. Biden isn't a great orator, but the substance and meaning of the words he spoke were voluminous.

Now, let me address the hysteria over "this man must go," and provide the proper context for it.

First of all, the entire speech was themed around democracies standing up against autocracies, that we cannot let autocracies cow democracies - or freedom loving people - with threats and aggression. 

Second, Biden said our goal (NATO/EU) is to reduce Russia's economy by 50%. This doesn't happen overnight and betrays a long term commitment to making Russia a pariah on the world stage. Part of this is moving off Russian oil/gas and to renewable energy.

Third, Biden was speaking to the Russian people when he said Putin can't remain in power. He wasn't speaking to Americans or NATO for that matter. He was effectively saying "if you Russian people want sanctions to end, force Putin out." The "regime change" hysteria is based on a number of assumptions and reading a lot into what Biden said, not on what he actually said in context.

Fourth, Biden closed his speech saying "this man can't remain in power" before saying "may god bless, etc." So he meant what he said. That wasn't "we will remove him." It was a generic statement that he can't remain, while speaking to the Russian people.

I felt strongly that as soon as the Ukraine invasion started, the only way democracies would take their foot off Russia's economic neck would be after Putin is gone from Russia. We have had it with him. That's the message Biden was sending, and I LOVED IT.

Putin is going to do what he is going to do. He lies about everything as it is (like Nazis in Ukraine government), so nothing any adversary says at this point is going to influence his behavior. He has his own calculations, risks, and rewards to weigh. But we control how we engage with Russia. In March of 2022 and foreseeable future, that is not at all until the Russian people rise up and make a change. It had to be said and the leader of the free world said it.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - newguy - 03-27-2022

(03-27-2022, 01:08 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-27-2022, 09:13 AM)newguy Wrote:  what would help a great deal would be for us to buy some Bayraktars from Turkey and give them to Ukraine.
Ukraine had already bought some from Turkey, and has used them to great effect, but they need more.

That isn't the problem. Ukraine already has an order with Turkey that predates the war that (as far as is publicly known) has outstanding deliveries to be made. The problem is that the manufacturer can't make them any faster (as I understand it). With the IC shortage being what it is, it would surprise me. For example, go try and buy a Raspberry Pi right now.

thanks for the info.  
i suppose it makes sense that if there's chip shortages here, then there would be shortages everywhere else.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - lex24 - 03-27-2022

(03-27-2022, 02:05 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  

(03-27-2022, 11:12 AM)lex24 Wrote:  Support for Ukraine is terrific.  At the same time NATO and the US primary goal has to be to avoid escalation.  Biden doesn’t help things by exclaiming that Putin “cannot remain in power”, at the same time Macron is holding talks with Putin.  

I get that the comment may help him domestically.   But Americans seem to be oblivious to the consequences.  There is no other explanation for Americans supporting a “no-fly” zone.  Biden certainly isn’t, or shouldn’t be, oblivious.  Idiotic comment, notwithstanding. (Apparently, the Ambassador had to clean things up, assuring that we have no “regime change” policy.)

Does Putin smoke cigars…..

I watched Biden's speech in Poland in its entirety. My assumption was it would be a historic event that most people alive today will not appreciate in terms of its significance. The speech hit on so many points. It communicated so much, both on the range of topics covered, audiences spoken to, and tone used. Biden isn't a great orator, but the substance and meaning of the words he spoke were voluminous.

Now, let me address the hysteria over "this man must go," and provide the proper context for it.

First of all, the entire speech was themed around democracies standing up against autocracies, that we cannot let autocracies cow democracies - or freedom loving people - with threats and aggression. 

Second, Biden said our goal (NATO/EU) is to reduce Russia's economy by 50%. This doesn't happen overnight and betrays a long term commitment to making Russia a pariah on the world stage. Part of this is moving off Russian oil/gas and to renewable energy.

Third, Biden was speaking to the Russian people when he said Putin can't remain in power. He wasn't speaking to Americans or NATO for that matter. He was effectively saying "if you Russian people want sanctions to end, force Putin out." The "regime change" hysteria is based on a number of assumptions and reading a lot into what Biden said, not on what he actually said in context.

Fourth, Biden closed his speech saying "this man can't remain in power" before saying "may god bless, etc." So he meant what he said. That wasn't "we will remove him." It was a generic statement that he can't remain, while speaking to the Russian people.

I felt strongly that as soon as the Ukraine invasion started, the only way democracies would take their foot off Russia's economic neck would be after Putin is gone from Russia. We have had it with him. That's the message Biden was sending, and I LOVED IT.

Putin is going to do what he is going to do. He lies about everything as it is (like Nazis in Ukraine government), so nothing any adversary says at this point is going to influence his behavior. He has his own calculations, risks, and rewards to weigh. But we control how we engage with Russia. In March of 2022 and foreseeable future, that is not at all until the Russian people rise up and make a change. It had to be said and the leader of the free world said it.

No, it didn’t have to be said,  which is why the Ambassador and Blinken quickly walked it back.  And why Macron immediately said it wasn’t helpful.  Of course every NATO country wants Putin out. That goes without saying.

The Russians “rising up” is a pipe dream. Maybe somebody close to him can pick him off. But that’s doubtful. I’m curious - how did the Russian people hear Biden’s speech? State controls the media and I kind of doubt they ran it. Further, to the extent it “plays” in Russia, it’s filtered through Putin who may use it as a way to show an already nationalistic people that the US wants to depose their leader.

It was a dumb comment.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-27-2022

(03-27-2022, 02:05 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Fourth, Biden closed his speech saying "this man can't remain in power" before saying "may god bless, etc." So he meant what he said. That wasn't "we will remove him." It was a generic statement that he can't remain, while speaking to the Russian people.


I felt strongly that as soon as the Ukraine invasion started, the only way democracies would take their foot off Russia's economic neck would be after Putin is gone from Russia. We have had it with him. That's the message Biden was sending, and I LOVED IT.

It is a distinction without a difference. If Putin can't remain, you are calling for regime change. How that regime change happens is a nuance. While I am pretty sure at least 80% of the Western world agrees with the idea Putin must go, it is imperative that the President of the United States not make such a statement unless regime change is in fact our full on public policy. Making such a statement is an serious error, period.

Quote:Putin is going to do what he is going to do. He lies about everything as it is (like Nazis in Ukraine government), so nothing any adversary says at this point is going to influence his behavior. He has his own calculations, risks, and rewards to weigh. But we control how we engage with Russia. In March of 2022 and foreseeable future, that is not at all until the Russian people rise up and make a change. It had to be said and the leader of the free world said it.

The US will undoubtedly engage with Russia continuously. We aren't breaking diplomatic relations and do not wish to. The hot line is still there. We are going to leave sanctions in place, but that is a step well short of war. Putin can lie about things, but he can now truthfully show the Russian people that the US president is trying to interfere in the affairs of the Russian state by calling for his removal. Not a good thing.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 03-27-2022

Biden said what many of us are thinking, but which couldn’t be said because it feeds right into Putin’s narrative.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 03-27-2022

The whole kerfuffle is silly.

Putin knows Biden wants him out. The diplomatic community that's in a tizzy knows we want him out. But God forbid Biden sort of says it.

We've cut off his economy completely and seized the assets of all his associates, while supplying the arms that are killing his troops. He gets the message loud and clear.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-27-2022

(03-27-2022, 06:06 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  The whole kerfuffle is silly.

Putin knows Biden wants him out. The diplomatic community that's in a tizzy knows we want him out. But God forbid Biden sort of says it.

We've cut off his economy completely and seized the assets of all his associates, while supplying the arms that are killing his troops. He gets the message loud and clear.

I don't agree that the "kerfuffle is silly". You are correct that everybody knows that Biden and the vast majority of Western civilization wants Putin out. Putin knows that too. However, if it is the policy of the United States that Putin must go, that implies that we will take action to enforce that policy, i.e. kill Putin or support those who will. That would be an act of war, and justifies Putin's argument that the US wants to "run" Russia and the world. As was immediately stated by everybody in the "diplomatic community", regime change is NOT the US policy. We aren't going to take actions to remove Putin. If that is indeed the case, Biden's statement is very unhelpful. At best it muddies our policy and it certainly gives Putin the sound bite he needs to accuse the US of trying to depose him. Yes, we could just go to war and dispense with all the diplomatic courtesies, but failing that we had better observe those courtesies IMHO.

---