Posts by hollowdriver13

https://mobile.twitter.com/Goncharen...C-jcn29corAAAA 🍿

Vladimir Solovyov is having another absolute epic meltdown 😂

He seems to have developed this weirdly intense obsession with the German language lately

Timothy Williams5 said:High-ranking Russian officers who are smart enough to dodge the front lines are being given a very special kind of treatment by their superiors:

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1...p0Nuz2MkO8ADXA

They’re definitely doing everything they can to avoid ending up like these guys:

https://twitter.com/KilledInUkraine

There's an account out there that tracks and lists all the fallen Russian officers.

So, Russia is basically asking the UN🤣 to get the EU to back off on those sanctions against them. Their "peace offering"? They’re supposedly willing to hand over 300,000 tons of fertilizer to developing nations to help ease the global food crisis—even though there aren't even any sanctions on fertilizer to begin with. Just a move to soften the blow, I guess.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacifi...states/2686720

Call Putin a humanitarian if you want, but clearly, those sanctions just aren't doing much.

gentlerider7 said:Russian Ambassador says you haven't seen a real war until you see one

"The Russian Ambassador to Sweden, Viktor Tatarincev, was basically telling reporters that what’s happening in Ukraine isn't even a real war—and if the Russian Federation actually decided to go all out, they'd wrap things up in no time at all. He dropped those lines on Swedish journalists, according to Expressen.

“Look, from the Russian side, this is just a special operation. It's not a war. If Russia ever starts a real war, Ukraine will be finished before you know it,” Tatarincev claimed.

He also went on to say that Russia isn't just some country, but an entire continent, making it impossible to isolate them.

“We are winning. You should probably write that down,” the Russian Ambassador concluded.

https://www-gazeta-ru.translate.goog..._x_tr_pto=wapp

They are living in some alternate reality on a completely different planet.

Just look at the "brilliant" nonsense their pundits spout on TV all the time.

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/s...00532367937537

They’ll probably have to go to "total war" to show off their strength, then Europe will swear eternal loyalty to them. Once they start killing US volunteers in Ukraine, the US might actually respect them because they'll have "shown their strength," all while running the usual genocidal narrative about driving Ukrainians out and leveling the whole country. 🤦

With just a little more of this genius stuff, they'll get so bold that someone might even dare to point out that this kind of talk and behavior makes them straight-up Nazis.

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/s...70269191229440

https://mobile.twitter.com/NoYardsti...26432471592960

The US is cutting 10% from the expenditure side of the budget, and they aren't making any exceptions.

Sandra Harris2 said:Yeah, I'm with you on that one.
I live in California, where the goat is on our state seal, and seeing it paired with Kadyrov just feels wrong. 🕺

As for that "red line"... wasn't that already crossed when they sent the HIMARS?

Nancy Gomez26 said:Personally, I find it distasteful to drag a noble creature into any conversation involving Kadyrov.

😁

Poor Stas... those Kadyrovists totally let their guard down once the Ukrainians caught them in a moment of bliss. "AHMAT FORCE!" 😂

View on twitter

Kate Lewis3 said:Nah, it's retired, just sitting in storage.

He's still super active, honestly. There's basically a trench war going on behind the scenes trying to lobby for him; the Air Force wants him out, but Capitol Hill won't let it happen.
Now they've apparently found some middle ground where they'll clear out about two dozen "pigs," but word is he'll be staying on the job well into the 2040s.

analogbear5 said:You’re out here talking about the USS Enterprise like it’s some kind of fighter jet from '72.

So, looking back, the Abrams didn't actually hit the front lines until the 80s, and honestly, if we were talking about running it today without all the modern tweaks, we’d be dealing with a whole mess of headaches. It’s a beast, for sure, but even a powerhouse like that has its quirks when you start digging into the logistics and the actual grit of combat.

I was just scrolling through Mark Hertling’s feed, and he dropped some pretty heavy insights regarding the current tactical situation. It’s one of those deep dives that really makes you step back and look at the bigger picture of how this whole conflict is playing out on the ground. He’s breaking down the shifting dynamics of the battlefield, specifically looking at how certain maneuvers are impacting the overall momentum. It isn't just about who has more hardware; it's about the actual application of force and how they're navigating the complexities of the terrain and existing defensive lines. You can tell he’s putting a lot of thought into the logistical hurdles and the sheer grit required to maintain an offensive when the opposition keeps digging in. It’s definitely not as simple as "move forward and take territory." There’s a massive amount of coordination needed between different units, especially when you factor in the integration of advanced tech like HIMARS and the constant threat from enemy air assets. Honestly, reading his analysis makes me realize how much of this is a high-stakes chess match played with much more lethal pieces. It's a lot to wrap your head around, but his perspective helps cut through some of the noise you usually get from the mainstream news cycles.

It’s kind of funny when you look at the scale of it all—some training sessions are just a quick afternoon blitz, sort of like getting up to speed on a Javelin, whereas other programs take months or even years of grinding to actually master.

Imagine an American tanker spending weeks on end grinding through intensive training sessions; it’s basically like watching a high-stakes bootcamp where every move counts. Honestly, if we’re talking about getting that turret mechanic sorted out, we're looking at a timeline of months, not weeks. It's one of those things where you think it'll be a quick fix, but once you start peeling back the layers, it's a whole different beast. Just my two cents, but I wouldn't hold my breath for a fast turnaround on this one.
So, looking at the M1, there's actually this specific "track" (or hull) mechanic built into the system whose whole job is to handle repairs on the automotive side of things.Plus, they're going to need months of serious training before they're even close to being ready.
Let’s be real: every single tank out there is eventually going to break down in the middle of a fight. It’s just the way things go. And then you’ve got these crews trying to play mechanic on the fly to "fix" their rigs while everything is going sideways... honestly, that's a recipe for disaster.

Depending on which version you're looking at—whether it's the M1, the M1A1, or that M1A1Sep model—you're probably looking at a price tag somewhere between $2.5 million and $8.9 million.
If you don't take care of them, those engines and transmissions will absolutely blow on you—and trust me, that kind of repair bill is enough to make anyone wince.
To keep this thing running, you're going to need a massive mountain of spare parts—what the military folks call a PLL (Prescribed Load List)—plus a whole fleet of fuel trucks just to stay mobile.

Sure, Ukrainian crews could definitely learn how to operate an M1A1 if they had to, but actually keeping those beasts running? That’s a whole different ballgame. You can't just drive them into battle and hope for the best; you need a massive backbone of mechanics, a constant stream of fuel, and a steady supply of spare parts just to stay mobile. Honestly, once you factor in the sheer logistical nightmare and the eye-watering price tag of maintaining them, the costs would be absolutely astronomical.

The same logic applies to the F-15s and F-16s, too—those things are way more complex machines than an Abrams could ever dream of being.

The real headache isn't even the frontline stuff—it's trying to get mechanics trained up and making sure the logistics are actually locked in within a reasonable timeframe.
It’s not even a question of whether Americans have what it takes to pull this off—of course they do. There's zero doubt about their capability. It really just comes down to how much time we're looking at to actually make it happen.
Honestly, if you look at an F-16 from the 70s and compare it to the versions we were seeing in the 90s or even the early 2000s, there’s barely any common ground left between them. They're basically different beasts entirely.

analogbear5 said:If I remember correctly, the Americans mentioned the possibility of sending some A-10s this past summer, but the Ukrainians shot that idea down—they aren't interested in that plane because it’s way too vulnerable, just like wiredseal7 pointed out.

An F-16 would make a lot more sense.

Honestly, all this chatter about the A-10 feels like nothing but UA psyops to me.

I don't see us seeing Western jets on the Ukrainian side anytime soon—not necessarily because the US is scared to pull the trigger, but because training isn't just about teaching pilots how to fly; it's about the support crews and mechanics, and that takes forever.

I remember seeing a thread online by a retired US pilot discussing this exact thing. Sure, you can put pilots through a sort of "crash course" to get them transitioned in maybe six months, but the mechanics who actually have to maintain these birds? They need a bare minimum of 16 months of training just to be able to touch Western aircraft (and even then, only if they’re absolute naturals at the job).

Then you’ve got the whole logistical nightmare that comes with it. The tail end of everything required to keep Western planes in the air is massive compared to the Soviet-made stuff they're used to working on.

Look, there’s no need to go overboard with the trash talk right now. The Su-25 is actually a solid CAS aircraft—it’s one of those rare cases where the Russian paper specs actually match what the machine can do out in the field.

If you ask me, I’d basically put an equals sign between the A-10 and the Su-25. Honestly, the main reasons Ukraine wants those A-10s probably just come down to the fact that they have a limited number of Su-25s left and can't exactly grow that fleet any time soon, plus the obvious advantage of the A-10 being able to carry Western munitions.

Michael Davis9 said:I'm curious, though—who exactly gave them that warning?

Look, you've got a whole bunch of politicians out there claiming that if radiation hits any NATO members, it's an automatic trigger for Article 5.

"Nukes Hitting Ukraine Would be ' Attack on NATO ' duo to Radiation"

https://www.newsweek.com/nukes-hitti...graham-1704598

Even Jens Stoltenberg mentioned that NATO would respond "in full capacity" if there's a leak at Zaporizhzhia or if the Russians drop something and radiation starts drifting into NATO territories.

feralstag7 said:If they were to deploy a nuclear weapon, they would instantly lose any global propaganda advantage by drawing comparisons to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would essentially be an admission that they cannot secure Eastern Ukraine without resorting to nuclear force. They already intend to occupy those territories, but if radiation from strikes on Kyiv or Lviv were to drift into Poland, things would escalate quickly. The real question is whether that triggers Article 5.
They would likely only use a nuclear weapon in response to an Allied attack on Russia, rather than just occasional Ukrainian shelling. That’s my take.

It’s not just about dropping a bomb, either. Word has been sent to the Russians that if they mess around with the Zaporizhzhia NPP and radiation leaks out toward NATO members, that counts as triggering Article 5. If that happens, they'll be dealing with a massive retaliation right on their own doorstep.

https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/s...05699179925509

That’s likely why the IAEA suddenly made a visit to the nuclear plant and why the bombing has dialed back a bit.

Russia is basically your classic neighborhood bully—acting like the big man on campus until someone shows up with a bigger stick.

Joshua Myers432 said:That’s irrelevant. This is about terrain configuration and access to the peninsula. Crimea is relatively easy to defend. But take the route to Moscow, for example; that's much harder to hold if the enemy has air superiority.

Maybe they should just extend the road to Moscow. Once they take Moscow, Crimea is theirs.
😁

Of course, we haven't even factored in the use of tactical nuclear weapons. I think the Russians have made it crystal clear they'll use them if the Russian Federation is threatened. And those idiots consider Crimea part of the Russian Federation, so by their logic... 😉

☕

Nathan Thomas12 said:If the USA and the UK signed the Budapest Memorandum along with Ukraine and Russia—basically promising not to invade and to respect Ukraine's borders in exchange for ditching nukes—then what’s even the point of international treaties? If both the USA and the UK are breaking them by failing to actually guarantee territorial integrity, the whole thing feels pretty hollow.
France and China gave their nod in a separate document, so they basically pulled the same shady move.

Honestly, I think the way the US and UK are shipping out all this weaponry could actually be seen as them fulfilling their obligations under those agreements (since we're really looking at three different documents here). It all just comes down to how you interpret the part about "providing assistance to the signatory if they should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression." It looks like the US and UK have decided to read that as providing help through arms rather than getting directly involved in the Rat itself.

James Chavez91 said:Alright

I’d say the show has officially started

https://twitter.com/the_ins_ru/statu...o_dxkczaEHq5sw

Apparently, 18 districts in Moscow and Pittsburgh signed a statement demanding that Putin step down.

https://twitter.com/WhereisRussia/st...60715420024835

The thing is, Americans would probably forgive him for the sanctions and the economic struggle if he’d actually won the war, but losers on the battlefield don't exactly last long in this country.

Joshua Myers432 said:Well, that depends on what you're looking at. The first women's convention was signed back when General Lee was still chasing Jenkins through the American wilderness. Hint: it wasn't this century, and it certainly wasn't the last one either.

That specific one covers how people handle the wounded, the deceased, and POWs.

The fourth one is the one that bans destroying civilian infrastructure and focuses on protecting non-combatants... which mostly came about because of all the heavy bombing during WW2, though back then they weren't exactly breaking rules for things that didn't even exist yet.

Plus, all those other ones were updated back in '49.

Joshua Myers432 said:We'll see pretty soon what they really are. 🍿 They were touted as a major land power, but honestly, it was clearly more myth than that legendary bravado seen at the Battle of Mexico. 😁

Of course not. Someone basically wiped the Geneva Convention off the map and dropped an A-bomb on civilians. 🙏

That feeling when you get blindsided by the very people who signed on to guarantee your territorial integrity. 😁

Right... and when were those conventions actually signed? Hint: they happened after that war where the main villain had a little mustache and the year ended in '45.

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/st...50893958471681

The guys on the front lines are sweating bullets right now; the pressure from the other side just keeps ramping up. 🙂

Joshua Myers432 said:Russia is facing a binary choice: they either call up a massive mobilization or they pull out of Ukraine entirely. You simply cannot sustain a war against a nation of 40 million people that is being backed by NATO and bolstered by expeditionary forces. Sure, the Russians have plenty of manpower sitting in reserve, but the real question is whether they actually have the stomach to commit to a total war.

The real question here is whether Russia actually considers Crimea their territory, or if this whole thing is just one massive bluff.

That’s just heavy sci-fi. Honestly, the idea that any of these countries would actually screw up that badly seems totally unbelievable to me.

Right, and how far is Hiroshima from Geneva? I'd say at least ten times further than, say, Dresden. This war is nowhere near that stage yet, and besides, I'm not even sure if a power plant counts as a legitimate civilian target.

It also blows my mind that Ukraine—which emerged from the USSR as a massive, vital republic—doesn't have a single missile system capable of reaching Moscow.

A bunch of guys with AKs isn't exactly a professional army.

What do Hiroshima and Dresden have to do with the Geneva Convention anyway?

Ukraine gave up all their strategic assets—we're talking nukes, heavy Tupolev bombers, and long-range missile systems—to Russia. In exchange, Russia signed those now-infamous Busan Agreements, where they supposedly guaranteed Ukrainian territorial integrity.

bluemason3 said:It’s funny watching him pivot from progressive optimism to acting like Putin's lapdog—basically a caricature that eventually settles into being Putin's court jester.

Well, I guess every leader attracts their own brand of crazy.