Russian special military operation in Ukraine #19

Backman wrote:

kvs wrote:
he stated outright that Kiev and Moscow put out similar levels of propaganda.  

the Kiev line on Snake Island is more plausible than the Russian version.

 

I interpreted that differently. I probably wouldn't have posted the video if he said something that dumb.

Russia shouldn't have said anything about snake island at all. They should have left some decoys there and pretended that they were still there. Then Ukraine would have had to claim that Russia left.

The whole western media and Ukro retard complex have been bigging up this snake island story for awhile now. Just a few days ago, the Wall Street Journal ran a story about how Snake island was the key to Russia's war strategy.

Does it matter?  Russia had to say something but if they said nothing at all would be worst.  What they did say was pretty dumb imo but they shouldn't have been on the island in the first place.  Anyone who says its a "strategic" location doesn't know what they are speaking of.  Why would anyone care what Wall Street Journal have to say about Russia's strategies?  They don't even know what Russia's strategies are.  None of us in the west does and only few in Russia do.  Hell, that is same journalistic crap who said Russia will run out of missiles soon.

I think some people, especially here, are about as bad as the Ukrainians are.  They cant catch the hint nor do they learn from previous events that happened even within the same year.  I know our attention spans are that of a hamster, but let us try to be rational here.  If they have lied to you so many times (Western Journalists), then why would they be right this time?  Is it the style of "a broken clock is right twice a day?".  No, it isn't.  They aren't right about anything.  They have and will always have an agenda.

If one feels that this is what will cause Russia to lose the war, then so be it.  Nothing will convince one otherwise.  Instead, lets wait for the so called "Ukrainian victory" to happen then we can all complain.

caveat emptor wrote:
Hopefully, Moskva sinking will show to Russian command that keeping huge outdated ships that don't have any place in modern battle is wrong. Not to mention how much money is wasted to just keep them floating.

When the first US CVN gets deposited to the bottom of an oceanic trench after being perforated by Zircons, lets see if you hold true to this idea. Your Monkey Empire spends a colossal pit of fiat dollars each year on parading these 100kT floating phallic symbols around the worlds oceans in an effort to intimidate the planets populations. Once the Pentagon finally gets the message that long range hypersonics render carrier obsolete in peer-to-peer engagements, some people might just rue the day the brass spent so much coin on so much public masturbation.

I believe that Kuznetsov ate few billion $ in last 20 years with very little to show for. It was maybe operational for 4 or 5 in all that time. They are just vanity projects, not battle worth ships.

Russia was in peacetime mostly, and what hostilities there were didn't require the services of an air-superiority carrier designed to protect SSBN bastions. A few billion over 20 years? Sounds like a bargain to me, given that the K is about to get a 2nd life after modernisation and repair. Sounds like Western idiots are simply bitter that they didn't get to enjoy the sight of the K getting broken up in India... poor diddums... have a tissue for yer issue.

K isn't ever going to be a strike carrier as a Nimitz or the White Elephant-class (err... Ford) but she is definitely useful and the navy is better having her than not. She isn't going to be broken up simply to satisfy the Russophobic fetishes of the Clown Empire or its legions of snarky hater-drones, so deal with it.

The US carrier tubs were rendered obsolete by Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles years ago. That none of them has been sunk
means exactly nothing since the US has not engaged in any conflict where they would be used. This basically sums up the US
"invincibility". It has not been tested since WWII by any peer level opponent. This is why pundit-tards in the US have been
spouting off about Russia as if it was in the same category as Saddam's Iraq.

Carriers and large surface ships are overrated against enemies with strong AShM capabilities.

And expensive jets are overrated against enemies with significant mobile medium range or higher SAMs.

Missile bang for buck against those targets can't be beat if you can reasonably get firing solutions.

Fight me.

kvs wrote:The US carrier tubs were rendered obsolete by Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles years ago.   That none of them has been sunk
means exactly nothing since the US has not engaged in any conflict where they would be used.   This basically sums up the US
"invincibility".   It has not been tested since WWII by any peer level opponent.   This is why pundit-tards in the US have been
spouting off about Russia as if it was in the same category as Saddam's Iraq.

Man did you have to post this in the 20 mins I didn't refresh this page??

Big_Gazza wrote:

When the first US CVN gets deposited to the bottom of an oceanic trench after being perforated by Zircons, lets see if you hold true to this idea.  Your Monkey Empire spends a colossal pit of fiat dollars each year on parading these 100kT floating phallic symbols around the worlds oceans in an effort to intimidate the planets populations.
Russia was in peacetime mostly, and what hostilities there were didn't require the services of an air-superiority carrier designed to protect SSBN bastions.  A few billion over 20 years?  Sounds like a bargain to me, given that the K is about to get a 2nd life after modernisation and repair.

Bro, here's a novel idea for you. Not everyone that lives in US is American or Western idiot, as you put it.
Btw, last time i checked your own Australia was one of the Five Eyes and in the contest of sucking US dick.
Kuznetsov had pretty dismal record, so far, and billions were spent while she was sitting in the drydock for years on end.
For money they've spent to keep that floating tub and few other vanity projects,  they could get dozen new corvettes and frigates.

caveat emptor wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

When the first US CVN gets deposited to the bottom of an oceanic trench after being perforated by Zircons, lets see if you hold true to this idea.  Your Monkey Empire spends a colossal pit of fiat dollars each year on parading these 100kT floating phallic symbols around the worlds oceans in an effort to intimidate the planets populations.
Russia was in peacetime mostly, and what hostilities there were didn't require the services of an air-superiority carrier designed to protect SSBN bastions.  A few billion over 20 years?  Sounds like a bargain to me, given that the K is about to get a 2nd life after modernisation and repair.

Bro, here's a novel idea for you. Not everyone that lives in US is American or Western idiot, as you put it.
Btw, last time i checked your own Australia was one of the Five Eyes and in the contest of sucking US dick.
Kuznetsov had pretty dismal record, so far, and billions were spent while she was sitting in the drydock for years on end.
For money they've spent to keep that floating tub and few other vanity projects,  they could get dozen new corvettes and frigates.

I agree to a certain degree. The purpose of the Kuznetsov I believe is to upkeep Russia's ability to keep training pilots to take off and land from an actual carrier, along with trying to modernize or get a shipyard experience with a Carrier for the future. The idea behind it is eventually Russia wants to get carriers. And getting rid of the carrier they got, may cost significantly more in the future when building a new one.

I do agree, its a waste of money. But I can see where they may be coming from keeping it alive.

I would figure Frigates and Submarines are the best cost efficient method of having a navy.

sepheronx wrote:
I agree to a certain degree.  The purpose of the Kuznetsov I believe is to upkeep Russia's ability to keep training pilots to take off and land from an actual carrier, along with trying to modernize or get a shipyard experience with a Carrier for the future.  The idea behind it is eventually Russia wants to get carriers.  And getting rid of the carrier they got, may cost significantly more in the future when building a new one.

I do agree, its a waste of money.  But I can see where they may be coming from keeping it alive.

I would figure Frigates and Submarines are the best cost efficient method of having a navy.

I see where you coming from with K, but there were other ships of first rank that didn't do much and tons of money were spent on their upkeep and maintenance. On paper, Russia was a second naval power of the world, but many ships didn't move from their docks for years, while money has been sank in them.

caveat emptor wrote:

sepheronx wrote:
I agree to a certain degree.  The purpose of the Kuznetsov I believe is to upkeep Russia's ability to keep training pilots to take off and land from an actual carrier, along with trying to modernize or get a shipyard experience with a Carrier for the future.  The idea behind it is eventually Russia wants to get carriers.  And getting rid of the carrier they got, may cost significantly more in the future when building a new one.

I do agree, its a waste of money.  But I can see where they may be coming from keeping it alive.

I would figure Frigates and Submarines are the best cost efficient method of having a navy.

I see where you coming from with K, but there were other ships of first rank that didn't do much and tons of money were spent on their upkeep and maintenance. On paper, Russia was a second naval power of the world, but many ships didn't move from their docks for years, while money has been sank in them.

The Russian Navy has always been a second thought. Most money in the last 10 - 15 years has been in upgrading the army, airforce and the missile forces. I think after the Missile forces are upgraded with hypersonic missiles, I believe that the Navy will then get better treatment.

There was this issue, major issue in Russian MoD. They were not sure what they wanted. After building a frigate and or a Corvette, they would then come up with a dozen upgrades and then cant decide so the next one sits idle in development or not being developed at all. Then the project just keeps getting more expensive. In reality, if the Russians decided to just continue with Krivak IV or in this case the Grigorovich. They, by now, could have built plenty of them. Then maybe came up with modules to make it cheap enough to upgrade the SAM systems and such. Would have been far cheaper and having enough of them would give Russia a strong blue water navy capability. Engines were Ukrainian but they managed to more or less replace the Ukrainian engines with their own design with slight better characteristics. Streamline production and it would have given it enough capabilities too. Then streamline it to increase its tonnage to make it slightly bigger and or reduce tonnage to make it into a corvette. Make it rather universal and modular.

But I am not in charge and I imagine they had their reasons. But now they have Gorschkov so hopefully they decide to go that route instead.

TL;DR: Russian MoD didn't know what they wanted for a surface fleet so it lead to a lot of bad and expensive decisions.

PapaDragon wrote:

sepheronx wrote:...Circumstances change.  Maybe Russia decided it was better to hand them over to get their people back.

Plus, that isn't exactly what Russian POW's were saying:

https://t.me/DonbassDevushka/13163

Maybe you don't care for Russians or their people but the government does.

Correct way of getting your people back is to win the war, kill those who are keeping them captive and force the enemy to free them

You agree to prisoner exchange only when you are uncertain of your ability to win the war

When has that ever happened that didn't involve the prisoners not being executed?

I'm old enough to remember lots of executions being showcased and paraded. Ukrainians have no problem executing people as they already shown it.

Russia is starting to exibit the familiar symptoms of pussying out:

This is definitely not a good sign. Whats happening now is a War of Extermination. Russia's goal should be no less than NATzO Extermination.

PapaDragon wrote:
You start executing theirs in that case

Russia has more of them in storage, go proportionate, 20 dead Ukrainians for every Russian, see how long they can keep up

And then you go hard and heavy and kill fuckload of extra Ukrainians in Kiev control zone on top

War is about killing them before they kill you

Russia is starting to exibit the familiar symptoms of pussying out: abandoning positions, freeing prisoners, obsessing over PR, pretending everything is fine and pussyfooting in general

Seen this all before first hand

You praise Israel a lot.  Then you should be praising how Russia does the same thing Israel does in trying to get their men back.  I rather the Russian Pilots and alike come back home alive rather than dead.  I do believe Russians themselves rather have that too.

So Russia abandons position in Kharkov.  Then came back and now Ukrainians fleeing Kharkov.  Snake Island was useless.  You rather they sit there and continue to get shelled by artillery?  You really aren't thinking straight it seems.

Pray tell, how is Russia losing this?  Care to explain how?

Last I checked, Russia has already taken another major center and Lugansk is nearly completely liberated.  Russia gained another territory that isn't even part of Donbass - Kherson.  Donbass is gonna be next to be fully liberated.  I fail to see how this is failure or pussy footing around.  Especially when the Russians keep launching missiles.  I know you are much more smart than this Papa. You are comparing a situation in the Balkans to this event. Not the same really, not exactly. And I can understand Serbia's position that ended up with them losing the conflict. But Russia isn't in the same position and is doing things methodically. Yes, their PR sucks. But PR doesnt win wars and if it did, they would do better at it. Contrary to what you think, they aren't in the PR at all.

caveat emptor wrote:
Bro, here's a novel idea for you. Not everyone that lives in US is American or Western idiot, as you put it.
Btw, last time i checked your own Australia was one of the Five Eyes and in the contest of sucking US dick.
Kuznetsov had pretty dismal record, so far, and billions were spent while she was sitting in the drydock for years on end.
For money they've spent to keep that floating tub and few other vanity projects,  they could get dozen new corvettes and frigates.

Yup, Stralya is full of obsequious little beta-men who long for the days of having a Rule Britannia cock stuck up their arse cracks.  Its a cultural cringe and it goes all the way down into the bedrock of what laughingly passes as this "nations" self-identity. Satisfied?  Can we address the actual subject now?

Whatever Russia has spent on the K over the last 20 years (I don't accept the few billion figure BTW) is a pittance.  No way they spent enough for a dozen corvettes or frigates.  The K has been mostly in a low-activity preservation mode with a sub-par air wing, a reduced marine crew and confined to port with most of her heating off. No urgent mission, no need to go anywhere. Stupid propagandists spent all their time and energy prattling about silly nonsense such as toilets not working, yet they miss the big picture...

Lets reappraise once the K emerges from her refit, providing of course that the haters can be adult about the result and evaluate it on its merits and not simply double-down the previous BS....

PapaDragon wrote:
You start executing theirs in that case

Russia has more of them in storage, go proportionate, 20 dead Ukrainians for every Russian, see how long they can keep up

And then you go hard and heavy and kill fuckload of extra Ukrainians in Kiev control zone on top

War is about killing them before they kill you

Russia is starting to exibit the familiar symptoms of pussying out: abandoning positions, freeing prisoners, obsessing over PR, pretending everything is fine and pussyfooting in general

Seen this all before first hand

Ukrainians in the past had no problems exterminating entire unarmed ethnic Polish villages and towns.



http://asaland.proboards.com/thread/460/land-zamosc-zamojszczyzna-1942-1944


http://michalw.narod.ru/index-Truth.html



This is the sort of people Russia is dealing with.


"PapaDragon" has a legitimate point.

PapaDragon wrote:
You start executing theirs in that case

Russia has more of them in storage, go proportionate, 20 dead Ukrainians for every Russian, see how long they can keep up

You do realize that the Banderite regime doesn't give a shit about its own soldiers and are literally sending 100's of them to their deaths per day. What good would it do Russia to start executing AFU orcs that they have in their custody in a tit-for-tat move?

Big_Gazza wrote:
K isn't ever going to be a strike carrier as a Nimitz or the White Elephant-class  (err... Ford) but she is definitely useful and the navy is better having her than not.  She isn't going to be broken up simply to satisfy the Russophobic fetishes of the Clown Empire or its legions of snarky hater-drones, so deal with it.

I am actually hoping that the Russians would refit the Kuznetsov with Tsirkon missiles. In my opinion that would give the K far better strike capabilities than any of the US carriers. (F-16 fanboys club horror screams are coming in loud and clear right now! )

Good to see Iranians buying grain from Ukraine , and in exchange they can sell civilian goods to them , even if this means sharing oxygen with them ( their diplomats )  , in the same room ! This will help average Ukrainian farmer to survive , and not depend on EU handouts , and become a vassal state of EU . Also vacating small island , will have very minor military setbacks , but for average Ukrainian , it is a symbol of reconciliation with Russia . Odessa is about an infantry marine landing , using landing craft , and before landing , the immediate area can be cleared by long range missiles . No need to bring ships close , where they can be hit by Harpoon . And as some said rightly , the liberation of Donbas is priority , as a majority Russian speaking area . A great concentration of forces was needed in Luhansk , and the same applies to Donbas . The West is wrong in supply of weapons to Ukraine , since they were and are engaged in an offensive operation against Russia . If Ukraine withdraw forces from Russian speaking region , then a defensive posture by them can be supported  , in defence of own Ukraininan speaking regions .

Create an Iraq/Af-style hot stalemate in Ukraine, oil remains high nuking economies across the world (and Daisy Cuttering whats left). China picks up the pieces of $, alliances and allegiances.

West has a scintillating smart playbook for the new Cold War.


https://www.economist.com/briefing/2022/06/30/does-a-protracted-conflict-favour-russia-or-ukraine

Mir wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:
K isn't ever going to be a strike carrier as a Nimitz or the White Elephant-class  (err... Ford) but she is definitely useful and the navy is better having her than not.  She isn't going to be broken up simply to satisfy the Russophobic fetishes of the Clown Empire or its legions of snarky hater-drones, so deal with it.

I am actually hoping that the Russians would refit the Kuznetsov with Tsirkon missiles. In my opinion that would give the K far better strike capabilities than any of the US carriers. (F-16 fanboys club horror screams are coming in loud and clear right now! )  

Tsirkon is just 1 missiles with 1 warhead able to destroy 1 building. US carriers carry far more missiles than the 16 or so Tsirkon you would put on the Kuznetsov.