Posts by placidrider48

electricsurfer47 said:Can someone drop a link here?

The one saying Ukrainians could be supplying gas to Europe as soon as next month? Honestly, that sounds totally surreal.

I was chatting with this Ukrainian woman about it, and she basically thinks the big deposits are sitting right there near Donbas and Crimea.

Nah, I was more just hinting that if this offensive actually clears out the occupiers, all those gas and oil facilities on Ukrainian soil that the Russians haven't trashed might end up helping Europe out.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Kids are out here singing about how even if peace is an option, they’ll head into one last battle—basically suicide—if Uncle Vova calls them up. It feels like he's literally raising a generation of kids to be suicidal while sending these barely grown boys straight into a meat grinder. And then you have the Russophiles acting like Russia is some kind of moral giant.

It's pretty grim, honestly. He's basically just mimicking jihadists at this point. It probably isn't even surprising that some Chechen guy was talking about defending Islam a few days ago, claiming they'd march all the way to Berlin or wherever, all while fighting for Russia.

Maybe Putin is secretly a radical Muslim under the surface.😵

Bryan Booth82 said:I am not suggesting this would be some easy walk in the park, but there is nothing on this earth that is truly indestructible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea_Bridge

The bridge spans 19 kilometers; it certainly doesn't strike me as an invincible fortress.
Perhaps a coordinated assault using a variety of different assets—because creativity knows no bounds—could work? It would be practically impossible to maintain a high-quality defense along the entire length of such a massive structure.

In my view, destroying or severely crippling that bridge—which serves as a supply line from an aggressor state into occupied Ukrainian territory (that godforsaken occupied land)—would be a completely legitimate military objective. Any level of success there would be a massive reward for the effort expended.

Best regards,

I guess it would make more sense to hit those bridge supports with torpedoes, but then again, Ukraine doesn't exactly have a submarine fleet.

Joseph Clark37 said:I’m hoping they get those anti-ship missiles ready soon... so we can watch those aggressor ships go up in flames.

They’ve already crushed them with a single APC. I guess if we actually manage to figure out how to use whatever the Britons are supposedly sending over, things might get pretty messy...😁

Morgan Wright5 said:The reality is, we can't really send any of that over, because if we did, we'd be left with absolutely nothing ourselves.

I mean, if we were actually sending stuff, there’d probably be some sort of deal to swap in Western or Far East alternatives—like from Korea or Japan. For instance, I think we've already quietly started swapping out our Gvozdika units for some PzH 2000s.

hollowranger122 said:When it comes to heavy hardware, there isn't much of a selection for us to send over to Ukraine:
- maybe trading some older Mi-8 helicopters in exchange for a few more Black Hawks, or perhaps negotiating a discount when buying them new
- offering up our M-84 tanks—which are actually a step up from those T-72s being sent by the Czechs—instead of asking for a donation of a couple of Abrams
- our M-80 IFVs aren't exactly a logistical dream for the Ukrainians, since they’re based on old American designs that mix Soviet and French engineering elements,
- using the D-30 howitzer, which is essentially a classic piece of USSR-era weaponry
- and honestly, I doubt the Ukrainians are desperate enough for more VBRs to take these in exchange for an American M270

Gvozdika. They've got plenty of those lying around, I suppose, but whatever. Honestly, I think the Metis and Konkurs systems—whatever we actually have left of them—would probably fit the situation best. And obviously, the Stingers.

Christian Torres3 said:Which means they could end up with some seriously heavy-duty air defense that blows MANPADS out of the water.

Honestly, if they can just get enough replacements for those lost S-300 and buk systems, that’s probably plenty. I guess training people on how to run "heavyweight" Western air defense tech would take forever anyway, right?

Richard Wilson4 said:This would be huge for defending Odessa.

I mean, if they actually get those Neptun R-360s up and running, that’s probably enough for some decent anti-ship capability. I guess it just depends on how long it takes to train them on using Western anti-ship missiles, maybe.

nimbleharbor10 said:We won't, because we have a dedicated specialist sitting in a high position whose entire job seems to be insulting people constantly; he's already insulted the Ukrainians, but he could certainly manage to do it several more times.

The F-4 Phantom II isn't a completely impossible option, but attempting to fly them against Su-30s and dense Air Defense is likely bordering on suicidal.

The real question is whether any F-16s can actually be found to replace those Polish F-16s on short notice—perhaps pulling from a National Guard unit, given the promised future upgrades—because there simply is no time to manufacture them. Years of small orders have driven production capacity down to an absolute minimum.

At one point, the USA purchased about twenty of those jets from what I believe was Moldova, though who knows what kind of condition they're actually in.

It also remains to be seen if those 30 F-16s will make any meaningful difference for Ukraine. If they aren't paired correctly, a single Iskander strike and they're gone. It would probably be more effective for them to secure better Air Defense systems first, but NATO is already facing its own shortages and relies heavily on aircraft for airspace control. You can't just mass-produce those quickly either, because no sane company is going to keep production lines running hot without guaranteed orders.

Ukrainian Air Defense is actually holding its own. They managed to hide it from the initial Russian strikes, and now they're causing headaches—forcing the Russians to fly low so they can pick them off with MANPADS. Given how much the Russian Air Force is struggling with operational issues, a bunch of MiG's would probably help the Ukrainians a ton, since they can only operate them sporadically right now. I just don't know what kind of standards the Slovak or Polish MiG-29s are actually up to.

William Anderson5 said:I have to disagree. It’s entirely possible the general simply refused some insane order, like leveling Kyiv to the ground. This guy wouldn't hesitate for a second.

Of course, all of this assumes the news is actually true...

Classic GröFaZ mod behavior. We basically need some Untergang parody featuring a photoshopped Putin.

Carl Lee27 said:Can we really call these weapon shipments anything other than direct interference in the conflict? I mean, if this keeps up, could the fallout hitting the Netherlands, Slovakia, and Poland be something they’ve never even witnessed in their entire history?
Or was the little guy just talking nonsense?

He definitely screwed up. I mean, he's already struggling to explain to his oligarchs why they can't just spend their dirty money over in the West.

I guess even a crazy sultan can be useful for something, if you think about it.

Tyler Jones6 said:The French government is reportedly sending €300 million in military aid to Ukraine—most likely in the form of anti-tank and anti-aircraft systems.

If that actually makes it there, the Russians might just go ahead and... well, win fast. I guess this whole thing is gonna drag on for at least a few weeks, maybe more.

Keith Williams3 said:Exactly. Apparently, Russia doesn't have any right to feel secure.

They do. I mean, they've got 6,255 nuclear warheads sitting there. Not to mention all that firepower they're allowed to unleash if someone decides to mess with their internationally recognized borders.

rustywalker42 said:Nicely put.

Russia didn't really have a choice, did they? They had to launch that military operation in Ukraine.

Actually, they had plenty of options. Back in 2014, they could've just told Yanukovych to stop messing around and actually honor his campaign promises. Plus, once Ukraine joins the EU, Russia would have had massive leverage within such a huge member state. This way, they basically just threw all that influence away.

Putin is just some delusional lunatic who clearly doesn't get how geopolitics works. He’s out here trying to model himself after Stalin. Or even Hitler.

cosmicgull52 said:The Associated Press reports that when offered an American extraction for himself and his family, he responded: "I don't need a ride; I need ammunition."🙏

I’m starting to respect him more and more, I guess. He seems willing to sit at the table if the terms actually make sense, but he'll definitely go to war if he has to—and it looks like he will. Plus, if any negotiations happen now, he can pretty much claim that the Russian-Belarusian invasion just sort of... stalled out.

He’s getting what he wants, but honestly, it’s never enough—I guess having some beefier anti-aircraft tech on hand wouldn't hurt.

Kyle Reed30 said:placidrider48

All right, great. I can get started now.
I have to hide my condition. My whole life is too complicated to explain in one go. Right now, I’m forced to stay quiet because my diagnosis isn't even officially in the system at my doctor's office yet. As far as the medical records show, I'm perfectly healthy. It isn't until I finish my remaining tests, get everything logged into the system, and complete a formal disability assessment that I can actually tell an employer what's going on. If I disclose a chronic illness to a hiring manager right now, they won't hire me. Besides, since there's no official paperwork yet, I'd just look like I was making excuses. My strategy is to apply as a healthy person. Sure, it's a losing game—I often end up getting let go after a few weeks once they realize I can't meet their standards—but it beats having zero income. I have to play it this way. First, I get the paperwork in order so the diagnosis is real, then I can deal with the employers.

What happens if someone gets fired from one of those specialized roles meant for people with disabilities, but they don't actually have a documented disability themselves and are left with zero income? How does anyone even begin to help someone in that position?

This is going to be a complicated question. Apologies if this falls outside the realm of legal expertise:

I’ve lived with this disability for as long as I can remember—over twenty years now. It wasn't until this year that I finally received an official diagnosis. Even now, I'm still stuck in the bureaucratic loop, waiting on five different specialists to review my case and sign off on the ICD classification. Does this actually change anything? My specialist told me it’s a massive issue because, on paper—in my medical records—it looks like I’ve been perfectly healthy since birth. But that’s a lie; nothing is actually fine. Could this become a major roadblock when it comes to getting an expert assessment?
The disease is highly specific. Here in the States, we lack the specialized expertise needed to handle it properly. It’s largely misunderstood. For a long time, it wasn't even included in the ICD, and even now, the terminology keeps shifting. The diagnostic tests are just as unstable; they change constantly because they aren't precise enough yet. In most developed nations, this is officially recognized as a legitimate disability.

The diagnosis I have is definitely coded in the ICD. That thing you mentioned has to exist, and once it does, it goes into the system.

I doubt the evaluators will care that it took a long time to reach a correct diagnosis. Once the condition is officially confirmed, they just look at how much it impacts daily life, including job prospects. I'm guessing which diagnosis you're talking about—ironically, I have a friend who works in rehab for that. People with that diagnosis can definitely find work, though I guess we aren't exactly a "developed nation" in that sense, so you're probably right.

Maybe check if there are any advocacy groups for this condition in the US. They might know employers who are actually willing to hire people in your situation.

Kyle Reed30 said:placidrider48,

Will the U.S. Census Bureau send me the official decision?

And what happens if someone gets fired by chance, has no disability rating, and zero income? How is a person in that situation actually helped?

Jesus, you’ve got me worried now if this is all just meaningless paperwork.

How long did you have to wait before they called you in for the evaluation??

You mentioned an employer can fire you if you're unfit even for an adjusted role. If they let you go, what are the odds of finding another job quickly that's even less demanding? Is there even a shot? Does the Department of Labor, the Social Security Administration, or the U.S. Census Bureau help find lighter work, or do they just offer advice?

I'm currently unemployed, but I'm actively looking. To be clear, nobody even knows about the illness yet, so I'm applying as a healthy person. I still can't get to the medical evaluation because I have a mountain of tests to complete first. I can't even take results to my primary care physician until I've gathered everything. Can I start working once I finally hand all the documentation to my doctor and the evaluation process begins? In other words, am I free to work while waiting for the actual appointment?

You can work right now, assuming your doctor hasn't restricted you from certain tasks.

Don't hide the diagnosis, because then an employer might actually have grounds to let you go for concealing it. If you're upfront about what you're dealing with and they discriminate against you—especially if the condition doesn't even interfere with your actual job duties—you could potentially sue them!

It took maybe 5 or 6 months for the American Statistical Association to call me, I don't remember exactly.

Kyle Reed30 said:Thanks for the reply!

Glad to hear it.
Can I ask you a few questions? It would be helpful to get some clarity. If you know, please try to answer:

1. How can someone who struggles at work be helped if they haven't qualified for disability benefits yet? In that case, will there ALWAYS be a recommendation for vocational retraining, further education, or workplace accommodations for people with disabilities???

2. Suppose the commission decides that disability benefits aren't necessary, but instead recommends vocational retraining or workplace accommodations. What are the actual odds of someone actually finding employment as a person with a disability? Is that just a dead letter on paper, or can these individuals truly secure appropriate roles?
And what are the realistic chances of being hired this way?

Also, is there a risk of getting fired after a while? Can someone actually stay in such a role until retirement?

And if they do lose their job, can they actually find a similar one quickly? My fear is that if disability hiring quotas are met, or if employers simply refuse to hire them, they'll be left without any income.

3. If the commission decides against disability benefits and opts for retraining instead, the person might finish training for a new career in a few months (or so an occupational therapist told me). But what if they get that adapted job and then turn out to be INCAPABLE of performing it despite the accommodations? What options are left then??

First off— Personal disability is basically just whatever you get based on the American Statistical Association's ruling. They don't really have anything to do with career changes or getting more schooling, I guess.

Those programs are all handled by the Department of Labor. I guess you have to get the green light from the U.S. Census Bureau first, though. We disabled folks actually have our own dedicated advisors over at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So, basically, employers are supposed to make reasonable accommodations to help folks with disabilities get through the door. And if someone’s already on the payroll and it turns out they can't handle their current role anymore, I guess the employer should probably offer them a different position that actually fits their abilities—ideally something pretty close to what they were doing before. It all really comes down to whatever the occupational health specialist says, I suppose.
I mean, if there isn't actually an opening available, I guess they could just let the person go.

You’re asking about reality? Honestly, that's just some dead letter on paper when you're dealing with private companies. I mean, sure, there are exceptions, but finding a job is a massive uphill battle. Most employers probably wouldn't even bother hitting those hiring quotas—it's usually cheaper for them to just pay the fines and call it a day, I guess.
If you’re thinking about trying to land a government gig, just keep in mind that they basically only give you an edge if your test scores are at least as high as the people applying without special status—you know, like disability or veteran preferences and all that. I had to go through the U.S. Census Bureau to get my disability status officially verified for those kinds of applications, I guess.

So, you should probably just start the application process for disability. There’s a specific form you can grab from the American Statistical Association, or honestly, you can probably just download it online if you don't feel like leaving the house. I actually went down to talk to the clerk at my local office, and she just took my info and the completed paperwork right then and there. It felt like forever before they finally called me in for the medical evaluation, but I guess it was worth the wait because my claim actually got approved. They even backpay everything starting from the day I officially filed the request.

Kyle Reed30 said:Can an expert clarify something for me: to qualify for disability benefits, is losing your ability to work an absolute requirement? Is being unable to work a strict prerequisite for receiving a personal disability claim?

I have no intention of giving up my career, but given my condition, I doubt I even could.

It’s definitely not a requirement—you can totally keep working and still collect disability at the same time. Plus, under current American law, there isn't really this thing where you're just completely stripped of your capacity to work anymore; instead, the court has to specify the exact scope of any limitations in the ruling.

I happen to be a Law School grad.