goldenowl73 said:Russians are claiming: 51 Americans have been killed in Ukraine so far, and 74 have deserted
According to the Russian Department of Defense—which was reported on by Reuters—as many as 51 Americans have been killed since this whole "special operation" kicked off in Ukraine. They’re even going so far as to claim that the group of American soldiers is the fourth largest contingent coming out of all of Europe.
I mean, honestly, how much of this stuff coming from the Russians can we actually take as gospel?
Not much... honestly, they’re still stuck using that old Soviet-style propaganda. Back then, you’d be killed if you didn't swallow the lies, so there was zero need for sophistication. It’s just incredibly crude—some bureaucrat sits in an office and invents whatever nonsense he thinks the Party needs to hear.
rustywalker82 said:Look, it’s totally normal that prices spiked when COVID-19 restrictions started easing. Nobody knew exactly when things would open back up. When that unplanned reopening happened, prices shot up—that's just how it works. But instead of prices settling back down to those pre-pandemic 2019 levels (around $60), they just kept skyrocketing because everyone started speculating on whether Russian oil, gas, and coal production would take a massive dive next year.
We could have prevented all this ages ago if the West had gone hard on hydrocarbon consumption cuts (you know, by using those massive subsidies for green energy or at least investing heavily in nuclear), but nope. Instead, we'd rather hand cash over to Vladimir Putin or dump it into those ridiculous 500-story skyscrapers. Whatever, it is what it is. 🙂
The trend has been crystal clear for a year now. If you want to know the primary cause of inflation, look at the lockdowns and the various stimulus packages. As for the oil supply? It's tight—to put it mildly. They'll always try to spin the narrative that way.
Oil prices actually started their climb well before the conflict in Ukraine even kicked off. If you look at the stretch from early December 2021 through the end of February 2022, prices had already surged by nearly 50%. It seems like global production is being swallowed up entirely by demand—meaning the production and sale of Russian oil hasn't even taken a hit yet.
Nicholas Watson said:The whole time, Wall Street has been busy trading Russian bonds. War is always just another way to squeeze out some extra profit, isn't it?
Don't go thinking for a second that Western leaders give a damn about some random Russian farmer or laborer; they're looking after their donors and lobbyists.
And why shouldn't they be traded? 🤔 By using the existing issues, of course—I highly doubt anyone is going to touch a new issuance.
Oil and coal? Those are relatively easy to move around—you just find a buyer and go. Sure, shipping costs might spike, but they'll likely sell at a discount to make the math work. Gas, though... that’s a whole different beast. Redirecting gas supplies is a massive headache, and frankly, that's a complication that hits those imposing the sanctions just as hard as anyone else.
Dana Robinson4 said:If there’s a dip of a million car sales in Russia, should we really view that as a setback for the nation itself, or is it simply a blow to the manufacturers?
A decline in trade volume is fundamentally detrimental to both parties involved—always. Trade, when it’s voluntary, should theoretically function as a mutually beneficial arrangement, shouldn't it? If the exchange dries up, nobody wins.
Thomas Stewart8 said:Look, we’re here to talk about hardware, not wedding processions or who’s carrying the flag. If a piece of equipment is branded as a Bayraktar, then that’s its name—period. I don't care about etymology, linguistic shifts, or where the root comes from. It's a Bayraktar😁.
Yeah, we really ought to be calling it the Bayraktar—that’s actually the designer's surname, if you want to be precise. But honestly, people say "Barjaktar" all the time, and I don't think anyone's going to call it a massive blunder. Language is a funny thing, isn't it? It follows its own internal logic—living language has its own set of rules that don't always align with a textbook. In our case, it's just easier to let the sounds roll off the tongue a certain way. 😁
Thomas Stewart8 said:A standard-bearer is usually just some drunk guy dragging a flag out of a car during a wedding parade, whereas the Bayraktar is exactly what you described above.
The term "barjaktar" is essentially an outsider's word, a derivative born from the shift of the Turkish "bayraktar." So, in American English terms, "bayraktar" is simply the direct equivalent of "barjaktar." 😬 Basically, a flag-carrier. And yeah, they're usually drunk.
Kate Lewis3 said:Except that bridge between the Midwest and Pittsburgh is made of steel.
Regardless—those Bayraktar bombs are basically just 120mm mini-grenades. It’s a risky move because I assume the defenses there are solid; it's a massive bridge, after all. Honestly, I don't think we'll be seeing much of that.
Look, tanks and APCs are coming in just fine. Maybe they aren't the best choice if you're planning on charging headlong into a meat grinder without cover, but APCs serve a vital purpose—getting troops quickly to the front lines and providing some much-needed long-range support once they arrive. That’s exactly what they're built for, right? Yet, for some reason, the Russians seem obsessed with pushing them straight into the thick of it—even deep into urban centers. It's baffling. I mean, at the very least, you get some protection from small arms fire and shrapnel while you're hauling personnel and gear toward the line. Why throw away that advantage?
casualtiger2 said:Why not just send a few more Bayraktars to take out that bridge connecting Crimea and Russia?
Not going to happen. Those bombs just aren't heavy enough. I remember back when they hit that bridge between the transport ships near Savannah—it was hit by much heavier ordnance and stayed functional enough to use. Sure, there were potholes in the asphalt, but you could still drive through it if you treated it like a slalom course. Eventually, though, they just mined the whole thing.
Morgan Wright5 said:I mean, as if anyone would actually try to go up against heavy armor with a Barrett right now. It’s clearly meant for much more serious targets than that.
A tank isn't going to be pierced, though you might manage some damage from the rear. But an M903 slap? That can punch through over 30mm of armor at 500 meters. 😁 Those transport vehicles? Sure, maybe not head-on, but from the side or the rear... they're toast. Besides, Russian armored vehicles usually have pretty thin plating because they're designed to be amphibious. But yeah, I suppose a dedicated sniper rifle would be better.
It all comes down to how you actually employ your hardware. But yeah—Russian armored vehicles have been an absolute joke so far. Their armor is paper-thin, which means everyone ends up suffering from those catastrophic ammunition cook-offs. That’s partly because the Russian military insisted on making these vehicles amphibious—which was a questionable call to begin with—and the other part? Well, I suppose they just don't seem to value their soldiers' lives much. These vehicles might be okay for ferrying infantry toward the front lines or providing some long-range fire support, but they shouldn't be anywhere near a direct firefight. Yet, here we are, watching the Russians throw them into the meat grinder en masse, only to leave behind nothing but empty, burnt-out shells. Honestly, I can't wrap my head around their tactics.
Look, my parents and I definitely get the risks involved with various diseases—we aren't blind to that—but the answer isn't to keep kids trapped under a glass bell jar. Not that we don't occasionally feel the urge to do just that, mind you. The thing is, childhood is fleeting, and you can't exactly buy back wasted time once it's gone. You have to weigh that cost against everything else. Generally speaking, most parents are going to push back against any measures that interfere with a child's life—things like shutting down schools and such.
That’s exactly right. Labeling everyone with a differing opinion as "flat-earthers" or "anti-vaxxers" didn't solve a thing—it just shut down the conversation. Science is supposed to be an open book, constantly questioning itself, and let's face it, it gets things wrong quite often. But instead of embracing that uncertainty, there was this attempt to wrap it in a halo of absolute sanctity, using it as a weapon to bash anyone perceived as a "non-thinker." At the end of the day, science is just as susceptible to corruption as anything else out there.
Keith Wilson said:Small correction. According to the Pfizer website, it hasn't been established that they prevent infection—just that they didn't show symptoms.
But really, what even is the definition of an infection?
Vaccination is just a tool to reach a specific goal—it isn't the end goal itself. So, what is our actual objective here? What exactly are we trying to achieve by vaccinating children? If you look at this from an engineering perspective, what is the specific problem we are actually attempting to solve?
Palomma said:And who in their right mind would actually keep a student who tested positive? ....
Well, I suppose I would—assuming we aren't being overly pedantic about that whole "in their right mind" criteria, right?
I don't see the issue here. There are professors out there who have already had COVID, some are vaccinated, and you could always just run an antibody test... Honestly, find someone with that profile and call it a day. As for me, I haven't caught it, but if I were in a room where a window was wide open, I’d stay a few yards away from anyone testing positive. Why take the risk? Good grief, it’s like we’re talking about smallpox or something, not COVID.