Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Beans said:
I don't follow, can you elaborate?
Click to expand...

I think the point is Starlink can offer intelligence, but aren't somebody who produces missiles. There's a load of competitors like OneWeb, Viasat and Amazon who offer similar services as well. It's a bit of a weird one for me because we're looking for companies to help in a war because governments haven't got the capability.
 
Suedesi said:
Sure, if you can win of the battleground you can dictate terms.

In the real world, after a long stalemate, you settle for what you have.

US will sue for peace, Putin will get what he wanted (Crimea + Donetsk + Luhansk, plus security guarantees that Ukraine will not join NATO), and Little Jakie, Vicky and Teeny Tony have lost yet another war after spending close to $100Bn.
Click to expand...

Jesus. I don't know if you even realise how inhumane you sound here. What happened to your empathy, man?
 
Suedesi said:
Sure, if you can win of the battleground you can dictate terms.

In the real world, after a long stalemate, you settle for what you have.

US will sue for peace, Putin will get what he wanted (Crimea + Donetsk + Luhansk, plus security guarantees that Ukraine will not join NATO), and Little Jakie, Vicky and Teeny Tony have lost yet another war after spending close to $100Bn.
Click to expand...

How do I keep it ‘civil and constructive’ with posts like this?

Hmm, well 1 day you will stop wasting the Earth’s oxygen. Thanks for that.
 
It's evident Musk has been talking to Putin for a while now and
VorZakone said:
Why does it wind you up? Quotes from officials in the NYT, Reuters, BBC etc are some of the closest sources we can get and they give a feeling of the mood in governments.

Unless you think the NYT is "making up" these officials.

No one is saying you should believe what these officials say. They can be wrong and have been wrong. But that in itself isn't new.
Click to expand...

Yes, pretty much. Why wouldn't they? Its too easy for them, doesn't cost anything, no checks, everyone assumes they have flies on every wall in the white house and pentagon. Just come up with a semi-plausible story, sprinkle in a bit of controversy to ensure engagement. That's just journalism. Some maybe true of course but they have a mandate to print stories and fill pages on a daily basis, nothing else.
 
abc news lacking a bit of conviction though. "officials" say it may or may not happen, cool story.

 
Suedesi said:
Ukraine is not allowed to use Starlink for military strikes, considering it is part of a civilian company, it's likely off limits by ITAR restrictions.

The last thing SpaceX wants to be classified as a DoD contractor under ITAR, which would get them basically banned across the entire planet.

What this tweet is, is clickbait/propaganda. They KNOW, legally, SpaceX can't allow this... But that doesn't stop them from trying to use it to do more "Musk Bad" tweets and articles.
Click to expand...

SpaceX already has DoD contracts, which makes them a defense contractor. Musk even allegedly has a security clearance which is currently under review due to his ketamine use.
 
Suedesi said:
Sure, if you can win off the battleground you can dictate terms.

In the real world, after a long stalemate, you settle for what you have.

US will sue for peace, Putin will get what he wanted (Crimea + Donetsk + Luhansk, plus security guarantees that Ukraine will not join NATO), and Little Jakie, Vicky and Teeny Tony have lost yet another war after spending close to $100Bn.
Click to expand...

A likelier scenario is that Putin falls due to pressure from within and all the Peter Thiel stooges in the US who supported his desired end state will have a bit of explaining to do.
 
He's absolutely right. Those officials moaning about the counteroffensive sitting in their office, should explain first why the last significant sanction wave was in 2022.
 
Ragnar123 said:
He's absolutely right. Those officials moaning about the counteroffensive sitting in their office, should explain first why the last significant sanction wave was in 2022.
Click to expand...


We should also ask Joe Biden why he has not put Russia on the list of state sponsors of terrorism alongside Syria, North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran yet. That would be a major step opening the door to more extreme sanctions, which should apply and come from all angles for as long as Putin's regime remains anyway.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
We should also ask Joe Biden why he has not put Russia on the list of state sponsors of terrorism alongside Syria, North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran yet. That would be a major step opening the door to more extreme sanctions, which should apply and come from all angles for as long as Putin's regime remains anyway.
Click to expand...

True and the sad part is, we already know the answer. Greed. Our money is more important than real pressure on Putin. This is also a big reason, why Russia doesn't show any signs to end this war in the near future. The Kremlin knows the west isn't prepared to cut ties with Russia completely, no matter how many horrendous war crimes they'll commit in Ukraine. And they have been finding ways to get around the sanctions for some time now. They import electronics and other banned goods via neighboring countries, they're selling their resources through India and China. And now Russia is blackmailing the UN to return to the grain agreement, if they lift more sanctions.

The big picture is absolutely pathetic if you think about it what Russia has done to Ukraine and the world since 1.5 years. And Putin sees this as a sign of weakness, that's why he is still confident.
 
Erdogan can go feck himself and look for other ways to make money.
 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...


It's mostly Greek companies doing the shipping, isn't it? I wish journalists would call out Greek corruption more clearly and frequently. Create a pressure point.. Always reporting "well someone is shipping oil.." is proving about as effective as not reporting it at all.

From the shipping, to blocking sanctions, to blocking arms deliveries - it's quite ridiculous how big a helper to the Russians this otherwise fairly insignificant country appears to be.

And all that after they already causes all kinds of problems for the EU with their financial corruption and mismanagement just a few of years ago.
 
Last edited:
Bush is so cringe.

KYIV — Former U.S. President George W. Bush reckons Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is so tough, he could be from Texas.

Speaking via video chat during a conference in Kyiv on Friday, Bush said he sees Russia’s President Vladimir Putin as an empire builder, who may not stop at invading Ukraine. As for Zelenskyy, Bush joked: “Well he is a tough dude, he is a real Texan.”
Click to expand...
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-zelenskyy-tough-dude-real-texan-says-us-george-w-bush/
 
the hea said:
I wonder if they are doing it to all the airframes or only the ones that are operational?
Marking the ones that are operational like that would be such a Russian thing to do.
Click to expand...
There is at least one that was covered this way that lacked an engine it was a Il-96 or something like that. So we know for sure that they are covering non-operational planes as well.
 
Red_toad said:
They do not produce weapons, what's to follow?
Click to expand...
I’m lost.

Did you know that food companies don’t make cars?

I was aware that Starlink doesn’t make weapons, everyone knows that, so I’m not sure what your point is.

I’m saying companies that work with essential military systems for the US and their allies cannot be able to turn them off, or otherwise disadvantage the US or it’s allies, no matter how many scary thoughts he has, or conversations with the enemy.

I think what you mean to say is that weapons and communications systems are so different the same rules shouldn’t apply.
 
Last edited:
Beans said:
I’m lost.

Did you know that food companies don’t make cars?

I was aware that Starlink doesn’t make weapons, everyone knows that, so I’m not sure what your point is.

I’m saying companies that work with essential military systems for the US and their allies cannot be able to turn them off, or otherwise disadvantage the US or it’s allies, no matter how many scary thoughts he has, or conversations with the enemy.

I think what you mean to say is that weapons and communications systems are so different the same rules shouldn’t apply.
Click to expand...
You're the one advocating for starlink to be given the same rules as weapons producers, so not my point.
He didn't turn them off, they were already off in that area. I believe he was trying to avoid a retaliatory nuclear strike on Ukrane as taking out that fleet would have been countered, as that's what they've done constantly.
 
Red_toad said:
You're the one advocating for starlink to be given the same rules as weapons producers, so not my point.
He didn't turn them off, they were already off in that area. I believe he was trying to avoid a retaliatory nuclear strike on Ukrane as taking out that fleet would have been countered, as that's what they've done constantly.
Click to expand...
Hell of a leap this.
 
Red_toad said:
He didn't turn them off, they were already off in that area. I believe he was trying to avoid a retaliatory nuclear strike on Ukrane as taking out that fleet would have been countered, as that's what they've done constantly.
Click to expand...

What a weak excuse. Russia will never use nuclear weapons, because NATO would destroy their troops in Ukraine in return and that would be the end of their aggresion.
 
Red_toad said:
Sorry I didn't get that memo.
Click to expand...
It wasn't explicitly said but strongly suggested that NATO would react in a massive way to any use of nukes. Of course it is another question if Russia truly believes this or will at some point try to call the bluff.

Probably roughly fitting this topic, NATO is just now performing their Northern Coasts 2023 exercise in the Baltic Sea. For the first time in ages this exercise doesn't focus on anti-piracy or anti-terror missions, but instead on fighting an equal enemy. Including hunting it's fleet, performing amphibious landings etc.
 
Red_toad said:
Sorry I didn't get that memo.
Click to expand...

Stoltenberg said: “So, this is a risk we have to take seriously. And we do so by conveying clearly to Russia that there will be severe consequences for Russia if they use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine," he added.
Of course you can debate about how these severe consequences would look like, but I'm pretty confident NATO warned them through back channels that they would intervene, if Putin loses it completely. As if they would stand by, if Russia uses nukes in Europe. It was also around that time, when the nuclear rhetoric calmed down.
 
G20 stopping short of criticising Russia for provoking and starting this conflict.

Pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.