McConnell on Ukraine proxy war: "We haven’t lost a single American in this war. Most of the money that we spend, is spent on replenishing weapons, so it’s actually employing people here."[paraphrased]
McConnell on Ukraine proxy war: "We haven’t lost a single American in this war. Most of the money that we spend, is spent on replenishing weapons, so it’s actually employing people here."[paraphrased]
The White House on Wednesday downplayed CNN polling showing most Americans oppose Congress providing additional funding to support Ukraine in its war with Russia ahead of a reported administration request for more aid.
Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.
Exact full quote from CNN:
“People think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldn’t be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we haven’t lost a single American in this war,” McConnell said. “Most of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So it’s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.”
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4085063
You're viewing a single thread.
It has been extremely obvious to everyone who isn't an incredulous lib (ie the ledditor refugees from lemm.ee et al) that the US doesn't actually give a shit about Ukraine and is more than happen to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. Why else would the US constantly ship overpriced wunderwaffen that the Ukrainians can barely use due to lack of training time while at the same time gobbling up Ukrainian state assets? And as we saw with how Afghanistan ended, the US will inevitably pull support, most likely because of Taiwan, and the Ukrainian war effort will collapse overnight just like Afghanistan imploded as soon as the US left the country.
The US has to fight multiple fronts against its peer adversaries as well as not-quite peer adversaries. Just recently, there's a coup in Niger with crowds of Nigeriens waving Russian flags cheering the coup leaders. While Western MSM underreport the average Nigeriens' heartfelt desire to kick out the French and overexaggerate Russia's involvement per usual, an anti-France alliance is forming in the Sahel, and Putin has launched a charm offensive courting African leaders. This is the formation of another front between the West and Russia, and the US will funnel resources away from Ukraine and towards various jihadist and separatist groups like Boko Haram in order to destabilize West Africa.
Ukraine isn't so exceptional that the US will be willing to abandon a front and lose say Taiwan for the sake of Ukraine. And from MSM reporting about the failed counteroffensive, we're close to the "US cutting their loses and leaving their allies out to dry while Hexbears repeat that quote from Kissinger" stage.
The propaganda from the west is absolutely baffling if you try to understand it through anything other than pure vibes. America claims that Putin is going to genocide every single Ukrainian and the response from the US is to send a dozen tanks in a year or so? Why not promise 200-300 tanks and promise to send them as soon they can get tankers trained on them? There's literally 2000 of them just standing there in the desert, isn't a conflict with Russia what they were built for? The west is sending just enough weapons and ammo to prolong the conflict but nowhere near enough for Ukraine to actually have a shot at winning.
The west is sending just enough weapons and ammo to prolong the conflict but nowhere near enough for Ukraine to actually have a shot at winning.
That's the crux of the matter right there. And they then force Ukraine to carry out attacks with this lack of equipment and training. Knowing full well that there is minimal chance of victory. Ghoul empire.
It's more like "the West" just has that equipment in insufficient numbers.
The NATO (or "Western") military and political doctrine of the last ~30 years was something like "let's buy most of them with contracts and convenient deals and Desert Storm the remaining few, cause our combined force is so fucking superior".
It's also that to some extent people have really started to believe in this superiority (I mean, it's counterintuitive, an exceptional force of 10k still can't defeat a crowd of 500k, but many people in Europe and USA seemed to believe that the dwarf armies of Europe are prepared for a real war if it comes).
NATO equipment is simply very expensive now (and complex, so takes longer to train personnel for) and not produced in sufficient quantities.
I mean, this war reminds us that all revolutions in warfare happen only on battlefields between comparable adversaries. When you imagine something and then "prove" it with a beating like Desert Storm, again, and pretend that this is what modern war will look like, you commit a mistake.
So - it appears that a real modern war still involves lots of ground forces grinding each other. Who would have thought that? I mean, Turkey and Israel have pretty western-style militaries, yet with conscription and large standing armies.
I wonder whether all those EU countries are going to introduce conscript training and reserve, cause if they intend to be militarily relevant, they'll have to do that over all the "draft is slavery" cultural image.
NATO doctrine relies heavily on airpower for any large military conflict. The NATO ground armies might be relatively small, but their combined air forces are qualitatively superior in every metric and at minimum three times larger than any potential opponent. 10k people can hold off 500k when they have a giant arsenal of precision guided weapons and complete control of the air.
That is verifiably not true. Vietnam and Korea made it very clear that you cannot win a war with air power alone. And precision weapons are effectively useless. The US can't sustain minor campaigns of shelling random cities in the Global South without running out of munitions. And short of nuclear weapons it has no capability to level cities with it's air force. The F-35 has, what, like four weapons pylons?
Add to that, the Russia air-defense systems have proven very effective, which changes the game. And the F-35 that is the lynchpin of NATO's air superiority strategy has a great deal of limitations, not the least of which is how expensive and stretched it's logistical requirements are.
NATO's air force is completely untested and reliant on extremely expensive, hard to maintain platforms with very limited tactical flexibility. It's entirely possible the F-35 fleet will defeat itself through attrition due to it's enormous maintenance requirements.
Add to that, the Russia air-defense systems have proven very effective.
Proven effective against cold-war era planes maybe. There have been a few improvements in the past 50 years. Those same Russian air-defence systems proved themselves effectively useless against the F-117 in the Balkans, and the F-35 is miles above the F-117.
Vietnam and Korea proved that 1950s and 1970s era technology was not up to the task, not that it was not possible. The main issue with both was the lack of accuracy.
The US can't sustain minor campaigns of shelling random cities in the Global South without running out of munitions.
"Running out" in this case meaning dipping below normal stockpile levels.
Those same Russian air-defence systems proved themselves effectively useless against the F-117 in the Balkans
There's been some improvements in the past 20 years too, sometimes even not only on paper.
Anyway, the biggest problem of the ex-Soviet militaries is their incompetence, not their tech. The systems employed are up to the necessary tasks and sometimes more adaptable than NATO systems, it's just that even their normal operation sometimes can't be achieved by people using them.
the Russia air-defense systems have proven very effective, which changes the game
Due to modernization in the course of the current war, and against weapons used in it, specifically those Turkish drones and the small copters everybody uses now in every conflict.
I'm not sure how good they'd be against something launched from F-35.
has a great deal of limitations, not the least of which is how expensive and stretched it’s logistical requirements are
However I should agree that I too just hate F-35.
NATO’s air force is completely untested
Well, again, Israeli and Turkish ones are tested somewhat well, but mostly against much weaker opponents unable to get their sh*t together.
and reliant on extremely expensive, hard to maintain platforms with very limited tactical flexibility.
Yes.
The most important word here is "combined". Consensus is a really bad condition for winning a war, in my opinion.
10k people can hold off 500k when they have a giant arsenal of precision guided weapons and complete control of the air.
Not even then, unless you mean precision guided weapons in similar quantities as late Soviet union had Grad missiles.
Not arguing that air superiority is very important.
and the response from the US is to send a dozen tanks in a year or so
Europe is wondering the exact same thing: Why are the yanks pussy-footing around? They're usually much more hawkish. The reason is that the US are shit-scared about Russia thinking the US is trying to invade by proxy or something.
The west is sending just enough weapons and ammo to prolong the conflict but nowhere near enough for Ukraine to actually have a shot at winning.
Europe is sending pretty much as much as it can without compromising its own defensive abilities. Have a look at the Baltic states, sending over as large as a percentage of their GDP as the US is sending as a percentage of its military budget. It's the US which has gazillions of Abrams sitting around doing nothing but collecting dust and is not shipping them over, not Europe.
And also unlike the US, Europe is sending long-range missile systems to hit logistics etc. in the rear so that Ukraine doesn't have to gnaw through trench lines.
Homework: Go through all your geopolitical takes and get rid of the term "the west" and instead actually be precise.
Why are the yanks pussy-footing around? They're usually much more hawkish.
Because they're using Ukrainians to grind down the Russian military, and economy, by attrition. The goal isn't to "win", the goal is to destabilize Russia. Ukrainians are just ammunition. The longer the war drags on, the more costly it is for Russia.
The reason is that the US are shit-scared about Russia thinking the US is trying to invade by proxy or something.
Russia already thinks that. That's what turned the civil war in Ukraine in to a proxy war between NATO and Russia.
Have a look at the Baltic states
Okay, so? I could match that if I flipped over my couch and counted the loose change. All of the baltics together add up to one medium-large urban area.
It's the US which has gazillions of Abrams sitting around doing nothing but collecting dust and is not shipping them over, not Europe.
That would be very expensive, and I'm not even sure the US has the logistical capacity for it. Plus seeing Abrams burned out by modern ATGMs would seriously harm the US's reputation for military invincibility. And, again, they're primarily concerned that Russia loses. Ukraine winning would be a nice bonus, but it's not the chief goal.
the civil war in Ukraine
You have a very active imagination.
Okay, so? I could match that if I flipped over my couch and counted the loose change. All of the baltics together add up to one medium-large urban area.
Look, it's that Seppo exceptionalism again.
That would be very expensive, and I’m not even sure the US has the logistical capacity for it.
The US only has those Abrams because it's cheaper to produce them than shut down the production line for a couple of years and then start it up again. Realistically speaking much of what the US sends should be valued at negative monetary value as Ukraine taking it means the US doesn't have to pay to dispose of it.
the civil war in Ukraine
You have a very active imagination.
Look up what was happening in Ukraine from 2014-2022. I know the media always refers to the people living there as Russian-backed separatists but they are in fact Ukrainians.
The US only has those Abrams because it's cheaper to produce them than shut down the production line for a couple of years and then start it up again. Realistically speaking much of what the US sends should be valued at negative monetary value as Ukraine taking it means the US doesn't have to pay to dispose of it.
So why hasn't the US sent 200-300 tanks? Why did the US demand that Ukraine launch a counteroffensive with insufficient tanks and air support? Why is the US trickling in just enough equipment to prolong the conflict as much as possible without giving Ukraine everything it could possibly need to win. Why is US propaganda so different from the actions the US is actually taking?
I know the media always refers to the people living there as Russian-backed separatists but they are in fact Ukrainians.
Force-recruited to fight on frontlines with Mosin Nagants or, alternatively, Wagner green men.
So why hasn’t the US sent 200-300 tanks?
Because they're chicken and don't understand Russia. Russia sees such hesitance as weakness and reason to continue on, as evidence that the US isn't really in it for the long run. And, I mean, they're not wrong in that regard proper commitment looks quite differently.
Why did the US demand that Ukraine launch a counteroffensive with insufficient tanks and air support?
When did the US demand such a thing? Ukraine has plenty of reason and grit and will to decide that on their own. Oh and there's a suitable number of tanks for what Ukraine is doing (they're not stupid and don't overcommit), the issue indeed is lack of air superiority, all that fancy NATO hardware is supposed to be used with NATO doctrine which involves throwing air superiority at the enemy until the ground frontline is the enemy's whole territory. But Ukraine is making the best out of the situation and picking off positions NATO would pick off from the air with various artillery systems, both medium and long range. And they're very good at it, which shouldn't really surprise anyone as that's good ole soviet doctrine and Ukraine always was the core force in the red army anyways.
Why is the US trickling in just enough equipment to prolong the conflict as much as possible without giving Ukraine everything it could possibly need to win.
Because they're a bunch of chickens who don't understand Russia. Alternatively, with some conspiratorial thinking, they want to prolong the war -- I frankly doubt it, never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. But that's irrelevant, in any case: Because that should be reason for you to demand that more weapons be shipped, not less.
Why is US propaganda so different from the actions the US is actually taking?
I wouldn't know I don't follow US media way too much of a partisan clown show anyway.
The US is pussyfooting because this was a fight they picked, and did not expect it to be this hard.
All the surrounding nonsense is their propaganda, and the leaders don’t actually believe any of it.
They don’t feel committed because they chose this, and won’t overcommit to a losing battle. They just need to steward the fight into a slow loss that doesn’t eat up many more resources.
Their actions are inexplicable otherwise - if they were truly afraid of Russia, they’d never have joined in the first place.
🤡
The US obviously doesn't care but the aid is helping Ukraine keep it's independence and even if US pulled out Europe would continue it's support. Like Poland is amping up ammo production to the point where it alone can supply Ukraine with ammo. Ex-soviet countries fucking hate Russia for a good reason. Also even if Ukraine got no support it's not like they would stop fighting, they would just be slaughtered and occupied by the Russians which is the worst outcome for them considering what's going on in the occupied regions. Like for once the US military is not doing something completely morally reprehensible and is actually opposing imperialism for once, that's a good thing.
Ex-soviet countries fucking hate Russia for a good reason
No, they really don't have a good reason
Like for once the US military is not doing something completely morally reprehensible and is actually opposing imperialism for once, that's a good thing.
are you really that gullible?I dunno, all the genocide might have given them a reason to hate Russia
- Ukraine isn't independent, they got coup'ed by US-backed Nazis and libs and they're now a vassal or the US empire.
- Most European countries would immediately follow the US, as they always do.
- The whole of NATO cannot send enough arms right now, and you think Poland can do it all on its own soon? What are you on about?
🤡
🤓
use your words
Why waste time say lot word when emoji do trick?
Effort < 0
🤷♂️
- No they didn't. Their president made a play to become a dictator and failed. Any support for euromaidan outside Ukraine happened after.
- Maybe Germany but no earthly force can stop support from the baltics and Poland that hate Russia with a passion due to their bloody rule during the soviet occupation and current antagonism from Russia.
- They can't send enough arms that Ukraine can use. More modern stuff requires training Ukraine doesn't have and most places aren't producing old equipment so what's sent is stuff is stockpile. More training is being done to modernize the equipment but that takes time. Also Poland just wants to produce the ammo, not everything and it was just one example.
I don't know where you're from, but I think you also "hate hate Russia with a passion" and it's clouding your judgement, because you live in some alternate reality if you believe all that.
There's an old clip of Nuland where she says the US spent 5 billion dollars promoting democracy in Ukraine. There's also the famous "Fuck the EU" clip of her deciding who's going to be PM before the coup even happened. Then there's her and lots of other western politicians on stage at the Maidan. McCain famously shook hands with a Nazi leader on there.
Can you imagine what you would say if all these things were done by Russia instead of the US?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=rPVs5VuI8XI&
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I have seen both clips. The 5 billion was over like 30 years as foreign aid which is like pretty common for the US, there are like 50 other countries that also receive aid like this. And the other one I know is when Nuland 'selected' their next leader who was the leader of the opposition who would have been in power anyways.
All those politicians showed up after it happeded as I said.
You can also verify the laws Yanukovych was trying to pass. They pretty obviously are meant to turn him into the dictator of Ukraine. I would protest that.
The 5 billion was over like 30 years as foreign aid which is like pretty common for the US, there are like 50 other countries that also receive aid like this.
Well that's fine then I guess. The US "aids" pro-US political groups with billions of dollars everywhere! How nice.
All those politicians showed up after it happeded as I said.
There are pictures of them on the Maidan. Before the coup. News articles in the western press. What is this kindergarten? Do you have no object permanence?
The US “aids” pro-US political groups with billions of dollars everywhere! How nice.
Yes but what if this time the US didn't want something out of it? If the US did want something out of it there would be evidence of it, surely? Like a website for privatising Ukrainian assets? Or IMF reports explaining how half the loans were given to pay off the previous ones until Ukraine dismantled it's manufacturing industries, military capabilities, and devalued it's currency? Or, I don't know, an article like the one in the OP that quotes someone explaining the US is only involved to quell dissent about it's failing economy among it's domestic workers.
What I was saying is that no, 5 billion wasn't given to some shadowy group in Ukraine to do a coup, it was the standard foreign aid the US throws around to advance it's interests.
Also yes, politicians go around shaking hands all over the place. I though you meant they went to Ukraine to specifically support Euromaidan before it happened but any politician supporting that visited after.
Ultimately the laws that triggered the protests were very protestable. If Kaia Kallas tried to pass those here I would be taking up a pitchfork and torch right now. There is no evidence to suggest it was some group paid by the US but plenty to suggest people protested because their leader was screwing them over.
Obviously protestors have a reason for protesting and the CIA isn't handing out cash to random schmoes. They're just giving money to various groups that organize and support the protest, or they pay for positive media coverage. Groups they've been cultivating for decades. Groups that are coordinated by the US state department and will do basically what the US embassy tells them to do.
Again, imagine you had protests in Estonia, and the groups involved were long-time funded by Russia, and Russian officials made appearances at these protests to hand out cookies and shake hands, and Russian-funded media was riling up the protestors, and some of the people involved are straight up far-right fascists that hate your ethnic group. And then you hear a leaked phone call of Lavrov discussing who's going to be the new PM of Estonia, and a couple of weeks later, shooting starts (no one knows how exactly and nobody is too interested in finding out) and your old PM gets ousted without proper procedure, and the guy the Russians said they liked is in, and the far-right fascists also gets posts, and they hate you. WHAT WOULD YOU THINK?
The initial protest, that were gunned down, were started by students at like midnight because the leader tried to sneakily pass the dictatorship laws... Also as I said the money was given over like 30 years. If they were discussing the new PM and it was the person who was 100% going to be PM then that would be irrelevant as I said.
At best all of this is some slightly sussy things that seem maybe related but if you look into all of them individually they are basically meaningless. But if you look at what the people were protesting it makes perfect sense to protest this.
So the 2 options boil down to:
- For the last 30 years 'the west' has been working to coup Ukraine and they have control to determine who will be leader and they pick the most obvious guy that would already be in power. But they don't have the power to make the protestors take the deal they were urging them to take.
- Yanakovych wants to be a dictator so he passes laws to slowly make himself into one. The students take issue and protest. He reacts the worst way and kills them triggering massive protests across the country forcing him to flee.
Option #2 seems way more believable to me.
Yes, the US cultivates influence groups that then, at the right time, take over real protests involving actual people with actual grievances, as a cover to carry out coups. They have done this many times. They do this because they want to loot and exploit countries for cheap labor and resources, and in this case, also to put a whole army in Russia's face.
Some questions about your explanation: He just wants to be dictator? Why? Who's backing him and why? Why would he be so stupid as to shoot at the protestors?
Have you ever seen that documentary about the failed coup to overthrow Chavez, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"? Private pro-coup TV channels told everybody the pro-Chavez protestors started shooting at the opposition, which was the mainstream narrative at the time. This was used as justification to oust him (temporarily). But the documentary filmmakers (which happened to be there filming at the time) show that it was snipers shooting at both pro- and anti-Chavez demonstrators.
it was the standard foreign aid the US throws around to advance it's interests.
It's quite telling that the US has triggered so many coups around the world that you can call it 'the standard foreign aid'. How the hell do you think coups come about?
Is promoting democracy foreign aid?
the baltics
I've lived in cities with a much larger population than all of the Baltics. What, exactly, are three medium sized suburbs going to do against Russia?
Have an actual military instead of a meat grinder disguised as one.
Wait did you just said Baltics have actual military? Compared to... Russia? All of them combined have less that 50000 active military personnel with pretty weak armament and basically nonexisting navy and airforce (all three combined have literally zero combat airplanes).
Sorry to break it down to you but if your safety DEPENDS from foreign weapon aids, you're anything but independent.
More independant than an annexed country.
Goalpost:moved
That was kind of a joke as there are like 5 countries who produce all their weapons locally.
Goalpost:moved again
He said Ukraine's safety depends on foreign weapon aids
Other nations buy weapons. Ukraine only exists as long as it can continue to successfully beg for weapons.
You sure do like your goalposts...
I'm pretty sure the US at least is providing weapons in the form of a loan so they are buying their weapons too.
Also begging for weapons seems a bit more dignified than having your army steal washing machines and build the electronics of your equipment out of those.
your army steal washing machines and build the electronics of your equipment out of those.
Wait you still believe that was a real thing? It was projection. Missile and drones don't need super powerful chips and China makes anything they do need.
You must not be following the war very closely. Russia is firing dozens of missiles and hundreds of suicide drones every week and the volume keeps rising.
Remind me, which Russian unit goes by "Збройні сили України"?
They are calling their cannon fodder suicide drones now? That's pretty fucked up even for Russia, more honest than normal at least.
Also begging for weapons seems a bit more dignified than having your army steal washing machines and build the electronics of your equipment out of those.
How do Liberals square off the fact that Russia is outproducing America and EU for war equipment with this insane washing machine myth? How many washing machines are in Russia and Ukraine anyway? Must be a lot if they're kicking NATO's ass while still relying on them for parts
Well if by producing you mean raiding their own museums for equipment then yea. Also probably not many left at this point, ukraine should deploy tactical washing boards to rob Russia of their last source of electronics.
Well if by producing you mean raiding their own museums for equipment then yea.
No, I meant Russia literally outproducing the United States and the EU 10 to 1 while also having vastly superior inventories when compared to the dwindling supply America is running through. Libs like to pound their chest and boast that Russia's nominal GDP is lower than places like Germany but they forget that industrial capital is what wins you wars, no matter how many rumors about the Russian army having to gut washing machines for parts you post online it won't change the fact that they are winning a war of attrition against Ukraine and the other 50 or so countries sending them aid.
Remind me, which Russian unit goes by "Збройні сили України"?
Hmm, not drunk enough or poorly equipped enough to be Russian troops, i guess they are saving this poor washing machine from Russian control.
Maybe they're going to trade for some Russian bread and soup like these guys
Liberating washing machines is the funniest shit ever
You're close to getting it, keep going.
No it cant all of nato cant support ukraine with ammo. That is nonsense.
Yes, but mainly that's because NATOs ammo production was very limited. The factories are all designed to be scaled up massively in times of need, but pre-2022, NATO was barely producing enough to maintain stockpiles.
Is it a time of need now?
wunderwaffen
too good a word not to research.... comes from WWII, naturally...
panjandrum (British) - two wheels connected by a sturdy, drum-like axle, with rockets on the wheels to propel it forward. Packed with explosives, it was supposed to charge toward the enemy defenses, smashing into them and exploding, creating a breach large enough for a tank to pass through. But when it was tested on an otherwise peaceful English beach, things didn’t go quite as planned. The 70 slow-burning cordite rockets attached to the two 10-foot steel wheels sparked into action, and for about 20 seconds it was quite impressive. Until the rockets started to dislodge and fly off in all directions, sending a dog chasing after one of them and generals running for cover. The rest was sheer chaos, as the Panjandrum charged around the beach, completely out of control. Unsurprisingly, the Panjandrum never saw battle.
The Goliath Tracked Mine (German) The tracked vehicle could carry 60kg of explosives and was steered remotely using a joystick control box attached to the rear of the Goliath by 650m of triple-strand cable. Two of the strands accelerated and manoeuvred the Goliath, while the third was used to trigger the detonation.
Each Goliath had to be disposable, as each was built specifically to be blown up along with an enemy target. The first models were powered by an electric motor, but these proved difficult to repair on the battlefield, and at 3,000 Reichsmarks were not exactly cost effective. As a result, later models (the SdKfz 303) used a simpler, more reliable gasoline engine.
Being sent back to the drawing board is a disgrace usually reserved for weapons that never saw battlefield action. Goliaths did see combat and were deployed on all German fronts beginning in the spring of 1942. Their role in the action was usually nugatory, however, having been rendered immobile by uncompromising terrain or deactivated by cunning enemy soldiers who had cut their command cables.
The bat bomb (American) Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, a Pennsylvania dentist named Lytle S. Adams contacted the White House with a plan of retaliation: bat bombs.
The plan involved dropping a bomb containing more than 1000 compartments, each containing a hibernating bat attached to a timed incendiary device. A bomber would then drop the principal bomb over Japan at dawn and the bats would be released mid-flight, dispersing into the roofs and attics of buildings over a 20- to 40-mile radius. The timed incendiary devices would then ignite, setting fire to Japanese cities.
Despite the somewhat outlandish proposal, the National Research Defense Committee took the idea seriously. Thousands of Mexican free-tailed bats were captured (they were, for some reason, considered the best option) and tiny napalm incendiary devices were built for them to carry. A complicated release system was developed and tests were carried out. The tests, however, revealed an array of technical problems, especially when some bats escaped prematurely and blew up a hangar and a general's car.
In December 1943, the Marine Corps took over the project, running 30 demonstrations at a total cost of $2 million. Eventually, however, the program was canceled, probably because the U.S. had shifted its focus onto the development of the atomic bomb.
Gustav rail gun (German) The railway-mounted weapon was the largest gun ever built. Fully assembled, it weighed in at 1,344 tons, and was four stories tall, 20 feet wide, and 140 feet long. It required a 500-man crew to operate it, and had to be moved to be fully disassembled, as the railroad tracks could not bear its weight in transit. It required 54 hours to assemble and prepare for firing.
The bore diameter was just under 3 feet and required 3,000 pounds of smokeless powder charge to fire two different projectiles. The first was a 10,584-pound high explosive shell that could produce a crater 30 feet in diameter. The other was a 16,540-pound concrete-piercing shell, capable of punching through 264 feet of concrete. Both projectiles could be shot, with relatively correct aim, from more than 20 miles away.
The Gustav Gun was used in Sevastopol in the Soviet Union during Operation Barbarossa and destroyed various targets, including a munitions facility in the bay. It was also briefly used during the Warsaw Uprising in Poland. The Gustav Gun was captured by the Allies before the end of World War II and dismantled for scrap. The second massive rail gun, the Dora, was disabled to keep it from falling into Soviet hands near the end of the War.
Manichean views don't explain enough, although they do create engagement, which may be the primary goal.
A less angry explanation is that it is all of that at the same time. They want to help Ukraine's democracy, weaken a historical authoritarian enemy and feed their military–industrial complex. It's a balance of all of that in the interest of the people that elected them, like in any democracy. If something gets out of balance, yes they will probably retract their support before it hurts their country in some way, like any other country would. It's just Realpolitik.
-
America doesn't care about democracy.
-
A historical authoritarian enemy?
-
Pipeline go boom. MIC $$$$$$$
-
Why else would the US constantly ship overpriced wunderwaffen that the Ukrainians can barely use due to lack of training
Is that why the US is sending ATACMS?
Where are the fucking ATACMS?
...I know, it's of no use. Germany gave up on bullying you into shipping them so it's safe to say that that ship has sailed. The US has been pussy-footing about since the beginning of the conflict.
While Western MSM underreport the average Nigeriens’ heartfelt desire to kick out the French
There's no need to kick out the French. They readily leave when uninvited.
we’re close to the “US cutting their loses and leaving their allies out to dry while Hexbears repeat that quote from Kissinger” stage.
The US is fickle, news at 11. But that won't stop the rest of Europe backing Ukraine, and then the US is probably going to chime in again as, like with Libya, it's unthinkable for the Seppos for Europe to do anything on our own so that you can keep up the illusion that we're doing what you want.
Classical American exceptionalism from the Tankie side, again.
Europe is firmly vassilszed by the U.S.
That has been the case since the end of WW2. You are free to pretend operation Gladio never happened, but it did.
Gladio? Yeah no shit the US is partly to blame for issues we have with fascists. How does that make us a vassal?
Tell you one thing if the US really is our overlord they really, really suck at controlling us, not losing trade wars against us, tons of stuff.
We blew up the Nordstream pipeline and your own leaders can’t even admit they know that in public.
If that’s not subservient behavior, I’m not sure what is.
Unlikely. Too much risk no advantage. Frankly speaking it's more likely Greta Thunberg herself dove down there and gnawed through it.
no advantage
What possible gain is there for Russia to blow up the off-ramp to the gas sanctions? Best case scenario for Russia in regards to the pipeline would have been it being reopened when Europe decided higher energy costs are no longer worth it.
Furthermore, here is a direct quote from Biden:
Speaking to reporters on February 7, Biden said: "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2." "We will bring an end to it," the president said. A journalist asked Biden how he could do that since Germany was in control of the project, the president replied: "I promise you: We will be able to do it."
The discussion started with a disagreement over the claims of subservience, right? Taking away the option to assert sovereignty over which sanctions are worth it is something that benefits the USA, hurts Europe, and takes away a potential advantage for Russia when the war inevitably ends someday and the practicality of buying from them instead of America (who charges more in addition to being less practical).
There would be no need to blow it up if Europe (Germany at bare minimum) was seen as completely subservient.
What possible gain is there for Russia to blow up the off-ramp to the gas sanctions?
I didn't say Russia did it. I mean it probably did but Germany isn't off the table. Unlike the US Germany actually has the stealth subs to pull it off undetected, but all in all Russia is still the more likely option I'd say. Of course, the presence of ships in that area etc. is only circumstantial evidence.
And in your analysis you're making a crucial mistake, a mistake I myself made directly before the invasion when Russian soldiers were getting itchy underwear on Ukraine's border because I thought if they're going to attack, they'd already have done it: You assume Russia is a rational actor. Or, maybe better put, that it considers the same things as rational as you do.
Blowing up NS2 from Russia's side could have the motive of a) knowing or suspecting that you don't need it any more -- though it also wouldn't be terribly hard to repair which people are constantly overlooking and b) to provide an excuse to stop deliveries. Russia was playing around back at that time with NS1 maintenance and turbines being needed which were stuck in the sanctions regime etc, allthewhile Germany was filling its gas storage and nationalising Russian gas assets on German soil. They might've thought that they need to disable NS2 so Germany wouldn't say "well if NS1 doesn't work why don't we use NS2".
As to the US threats: What was probably meant was sanctions. It's true that the US has levers it can pull to force such an issue. Those would come at a cost to the US itself but they're there and can be pulled if the cost is deemed acceptable.
And btw one thing is for sure: Germany will never again buy any (noticable) amount of Russian gas. Even if they retreat to their own borders tomorrow that ship has sailed, Germany is in full swing to replace all that fossil infrastructure with ammonia and hydrogen. NS2 is dead no matter whether it's operational or not.
Oh another thing is for sure: Ukraine is way more important to Russia, or maybe better put Putin, than some gas pipeline. Pretty much the moment Germany changed laws to legalise sending weapons into crisis territories, i.e. Ukraine, Russia knew where Germany stood, and will continue to stand. We don't tend to flop easily and they know it. As such it also might simply have been Putin being stroppy, expecting Germany really to go for that Duginesque1 division of Europe between great powers things, with Germany taking a forceful lead in Europe. He did later on comment that "siding with Ukraine was Germany's mistake of the millennium" or something to that effect. So much for Putin's rationality, he's living in a completely different world than us, thinking state relations and decisions work on fundamentally different principles than they actually do.
1 not really, Dugin never came up with that stuff he's not a theorist he just rehashes nationalist bullshit those theories actually date back to the German Empire trolling the Russians to bait them it's a long story.
I didn't say Russia did it. I should not have assumed
rationality I try to assume that actions are taken because the person doing it views it as rational. I don't see the point in trying to understand the world only to write-off as irrational the actions taken under different material realities.
Unlike the US Germany actually has the stealth subs to pull it off undetected unrelated tangent, but I would be very interested in hearing more about German stealth subs and what makes them better. I don't know much about the German navy.
Fair enough on the rest, it seems like a weak motive given that Russia could simply not send the gas or disable it on their end, but that's my opinion not a fact.
Out of curiosity, where did you pick up "seppo"? I've only heard Australians use it before, maybe the occasional brit.
Agreed on Dugin being full of nationalist BS.
I would be very interested in hearing more about German stealth subs and what makes them better.
Type 212, German-Italian, 214 is the export version without anti-magnetic dishwashers. I'm quipping, the exact differences aren't really known but 212s do have antimagnetic diswashers and 214s are lacking some secret sauce but are still very capable.
Hydrogen fuel cell air independent drive, they're not fast but very quiet, undetectable via active or passive sonar as well as magnetic sensors. Which makes them undetectable because there's no such thing in the real world as gravimetric sensors (with range that doesn't mean you've bumped into them anyway). Can traverse very shallow waters allowing combat divers to exit to shore, can also dive very deep because the Mediterranean is actually quite deep -- strange combination of capabilities due to joint German/Italian design. Definitely capable of dropping two mines on pipes without anyone noticing.
By contrast US submarines are nuclear, meaning they're glorified steam engines, quite loud. The Danes would have heard you enter the Skagerrak and then kept eyes on you, wondering WTF a nuclear deterrent submarine is doing in the Baltic Sea. Only alternative route would have been via the Kiel Kanal and... no.
Out of curiosity, where did you pick up “seppo”? I’ve only heard Australians use it before, maybe the occasional brit.
A particularly foul-mouthed gooseberry pudding.
Thanks for the submarine lesson, that was an interesting read.
What? There was no risk and there was a ridiculous amount of money to be made. You have people in the intelligence community talking since the early 2000s how important it is to 'empower poland, to drive a wedge between germany and russia'. The Americans had been threatening to 'do something about' the pipeline for years. And when they did it, the pan European media blackout made sure there was no risk involved. You yourself is a proof of that.
Meanwhile Europe will deindustrialize while paying hand over fist for American gas. They must also continue to dismantle their welfare state and spend that money in American weapons. But european governments don't care, they are all personally invested in american investment funds shares anyway. Why else would the german foreign minister claim that the opinion of german voters are not relevant to her?
Vassals at least had a two way relationship with the King. This is borderline colonial.
They threatened to blow it up for years without end and now you gotta buy natural gas from them at a premium.
What. We're not buying US gas, not in any noticeable amount, that is. First of all usage was cut drastically (the likes of BASF could switch to other energy sources), most gas we still consume comes from Norway, LNG overall is only a tiny portion and of that most is Qatar.
If the US really did it then Germany is holding tight right now for Ukraine's sake and there's going to be hell to pay after the war.
Oh, and you gotta cut your welfare system and spend it all on american weapons too.
What. The only reason any amount of US hardware is on our shopping list is because Eurofighter GmbH doesn't want to give the US access to data they'd need to certify US nukes for the Typhoon because industrial espionage. F-35s are already certified, available off the shelf, and our Tornado fleet really needs replacement but really, it's just for the nukes: The EWAR Tornados are getting replaced not by F-35s, but more, freshly designed, Eurofighters. Down the line there's going to be FCAS and likely French instead of US nukes. Now it's not that I'm saying that France would be less prone to industrial espionage than the US, in fact they're notorious for it, but they already have all that data through Airbus anyway.
Poland is going on a shopping spree for quite a lot of American hardware, but that's another topic, also, focussed very much on airframes. Tanks and artillery are onshored South Korean systems (which are onshored German systems). France will never buy American because strategic autonomy, in fact they were right-out insulted when hearing Germany is going to buy F35s, but seem to have cooled down seeing that it's a stop-gap solution.
As a third party can see, the risk to the Americans really was zero. Everything to gain, nothing to possibly lose. What, are the Germans gonna rebel somehow? They'll fall over themselves to pretend the chains aren't even there.
I mean revoking SAP licenses alone would crash the US economy so we don't even have to wait until actual hardware that they depend on breaks.
Thing is Germany produces approximately everything there is under the sun and in a gazillion of areas we're the only producers. Think a hospital's logistics collapsing because they can't get replacement parts for their pneumatic tube system, any more. The stuff you never think of, that's what's suddenly going to be missing, everywhere. Or when did you last think about how to get blood samples from bed to lab, drugs from pharmacy to bed, in a large hospital? Certainly not by email.
But realistically speaking the US would probably willingly pay damages and reparations. Materially or in some diplomatic quid pro quo manner and all of that is going to happen behind closed doors and we'll know once records get unsealed.
But realistically speaking the US would probably willingly pay damages and reparations.
you really do live in an alternative reality. This is the most insane thing you've written in this entire conversation. And even so:Materially or in some diplomatic quid pro quo manner and all of that is going to happen behind closed doors and we'll know once records get unsealed.
It's just a cover for how reality slowly sets in. You went from believing that the US would never attack Germany to saying that, actually, the US would totally pay reparations for bombing Nordstream. They'd just do it behind closed doors in order to save face.
You'll get nothing, and you'll be happy to pay all the damages yourself, my friend. And once the records are unsealed you'll be in your 60s, swearing up and down that such skullduggery from the Americans are in the past.