Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Russia/Ukraine conflict

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
This was not discussed among the many Youtube channels at all, including the "News" channels. At least I didn't see anything. Maybe they were all waiting for official confirmation and the Ukraine military didn't confirm? Or, maybe, the report is BS.

I saw it on Nexta (Twitter). I was wracking my brain remembering the story with a bunch of the rest of you.

Your analysis assumes that only a few Republican's would change their vote. Given that McCarthy (the R's leader in the house) voted for aid in the past and he is now claiming he won't in the future, why do you think he won't be able to line up the votes? I mean supporting Russia is the ultimate "stick it to the libs" plan which seems to be the one and only thing anybody (excepting Liz and Adam) in the GOP house cares about.

I believe the Republicans have said they will stop aid to Ukraine if they win.

The Russians know they are going to loose Kherson, and soon. They are terrified it won't stop there and that the Ukranians are going to roll through and south to Crimea. That's why they are flooding the river, probably going to kill thousands doing so, and taking out the electric infrastructure. It's all a stall tactic.

No mercy, again, bullies respect only one thing. Ukraine needs to totally decimate every last Russian soldier and piece of kit on their territory. Once that is done, and the losses engrained in the Russian psyche, perhaps Russia will think long and hard before they try anything like this again.

If the army is ground to dust and they are unable to rebuild because they still can't get the parts, they won't be able to do anything like this again.

Hhmm...old man/Vietnam era veteran here. During the Vietnam era and post, most Democrats were against wars (to be fair there was a Southern Conservative Democratic wing at that time that were supportive) and US pro-involvement were often driven by the Democratic Southern Wing + Republicans interventionists (although they had a "liberal" wing & one that didn't support getting involved).

Also, Republicans represented business (big and small) with both parties having representatives that supported the US Military Industrial complex (typically driven by jobs in their respective states and/or their philosophical views).

Interestingly, the Parties have flip-flopped over the years. Today, Democrats are the Party of today's big business (Tech, Banks & others) and are driving the "intervention".

FWIW: USA was much better off when both Parties had Conservative and Liberal wings/members versus today's highly divisive setup.

The Democrats still have a conservative and liberal wing. The same Senate caucus has Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders on one end and Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema on the other. There are also less radical liberals and conservatives in the caucus like Jon Tester from Montana who is conservative, but less controversial.
 
Back in June Pentagon Press Release: Romania Arrival
"Army soldiers assigned to the 101st Airborne Division arrive in Mihail Kogalniceanu, Romania, Jun. 28, 2022. Units from the 101st will support the Army’s V Corps' mission to reinforce NATO's eastern flank and engage in multinational exercises with partners across Europe to reassure allies and deter further Russian aggression. "

Now they do more press -- in a Blackhawk right to the border:
 
Last edited:
A fascinating thread (started in Feb but recently come back to life) collecting a wide variety of people saying NATO expansion was a bad idea.

The problem was, it was only a bad idea because Russia was so insecure. NATO and its new additions of course had no ambitions to invade Russia but only wanted protection from Russian invasion. But I guess Russia didn't / wouldn't see it that way.


The thread poster then also asks other for additions to the list and there are a bunch. The best item in the thread is after a persuasive inventory of fancy CIA, Defense and diplomats advising against NATO expansion, some rando shares his 1996 senior thesis which amazingly said:


I would share that the above thread came back to life recently when 3L0N tweeted it, but some mod would delete my post because it mentioned the unmentionable so I won't.
 
Last edited:
New Russian commander and Putin

FfjyCBpXkAEJpja.jpeg
 
A fascinating thread (started in Feb but recently come back to life) collecting a wide variety of people saying NATO expansion was a bad idea.

The problem was, it was only a bad idea because Russia was so insecure. NATO and its new additions of course had no ambitions to invade Russia but only wanted protection from Russian invasion. But I guess Russia didn't / wouldn't see it that way.


The thread poster then also asks other for additions to the list and there are a bunch. The best item in the thread is after a persuasive inventory of fancy CIA, Defense and diplomats advising against NATO expansion, some rando shares his 1996 senior thesis which amazingly said:


I would share that the above thread came back to life recently when 3L0N tweeted it, but some mod would delete my post because it mentioned the unmentionable so I won't.

One thing the eastern expansion of NATO critics miss is the reason Poland joined NATO was Poland gave NATO an ultimatum: put us under the western nuclear umbrella or we'll make our own. Other eastern countries joined around that time, but Poland forced the issue.


Echoes of 1917. That didn't turn out well for the Czar...
 
"Reportedly, Russia traded more than 60 Su-35 to Iran in exchange for several thousand drones that they are now using to terrorize Ukrainian civilians and disabling elements of Ukrainian critical infrastructure."

 
"Reportedly, Russia traded more than 60 Su-35 to Iran in exchange for several thousand drones that they are now using to terrorize Ukrainian civilians and disabling elements of Ukrainian critical infrastructure."


That's 40% of Russia's total lifetime production run of the SU-35. They don't have a more modern fighter in production to replace these ones sent to Iran. And NATO is going to deal with the threat from those low-cost, low-tech Iranian drones soon enough. Russia is giving away the milk cow for a handful of magic beans. They must be desparate. If I lived in Kherson, I'd be sleeping with my rubber boots on.
 
"Reportedly, Russia traded more than 60 Su-35 to Iran in exchange for several thousand drones that they are now using to terrorize Ukrainian civilians and disabling elements of Ukrainian critical infrastructure."

That's not a great deal even allowing for the poor reputation of the SU 35
 
Shoigu has spent his Sunday phoning up anyone who will listen to his BS story about Ukraine using a 'dirty bomb':

But it's reassuring to know they were "professional and respectful" throughout the call. We wouldn't be able to put up with any amateurish or disrespectful behaviour by the Russians now, would we?
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: SwedishAdvocate
Interesting perspective from one of the most "independent" observers of our political scene, interviewed by long time fan of Elon* Lex Friedman who has now (like Elon) drifted into politics.

---


(*) Especially for those not familiar with Lex Friedman: Lex first interview, actually #18 of Elon

His intro course on AI at MIT (he's since left academics and moved to Austin) - see his interviews with other AI top scientists too