Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
POSTED BY: captaincrunch
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 21:09
VIEWED: 562266
PAGE 454 of 1104
Quote:I love when you write Russian propaganda. Unashamed, you reveal your inner nature. All around me, I see Trumptards revealing themselves by surrendering to their urges and fears. For one example out of many: "Woe is me. I can't lose weight easily so I'm going in the opposite direction and eating to make me happy while it makes me fatter. No one can blame me since it is not my fault I'm this way. My metabolism is to blame." You Trumptards don't know what to do in large matters or small. The path for you is always the one with low effort and low stress, to give up. Let others struggle and you will watch and give wrong advice and speak long and passionately about what you will never understand. To know is too much effort and stress for you. So much simpler to not know and to do little.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And they had no "Plan B". They STILL don't have a "plan B". Our military was never prepared to fight a land war against a near-peer, and should have advised the WH and State Dept so. But the generals were apparently thinking about their retirement packages and, except for a few muted protests about this or that weapons systems, never gave the WH and neocons a straight assessment of the military situation in Ukraine.
There are no options left FOR US except nukes, which Bolton is apparently willing to try out. So now everyone is kicking Ukraine under the bus, when they should be focusing on the origins of the war: squarely with USA neocons/neolibs and Soros' ultimate plan for EU nations to self-annihilate. Which, they've obligingly done.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What ‘Oppenheimer' and Ukraine Teach Us About War
by Paul Krugman
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/opinion/war-tech-oppenheimer.html
If you’ve seen the movie “Oppenheimer,” which you should — trust me, it’s gripping even though it’s three hours long and you know how the story ends — you probably noticed several appearances by the physicist Isidor Isaac Rabi, who is portrayed in some ways as Oppenheimer’s voice of conscience. I was a bit puzzled when I watched, because I happened to know that Rabi wasn’t a resident at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project. But the film was historically accurate: Rabi did visit Los Alamos on occasion, and was present for the Trinity bomb test.
Why wasn’t Rabi at Los Alamos? The film highlights his ethical qualms. But the truth is that he was involved in another secret project applying cutting-edge science to the war effort, M.I.T.’s Radiation Laboratory, which basically worked on advanced radar. The Rad Lab arguably had an even bigger impact on the course of the war than the Manhattan Project, because it turned microwave technology, originally developed in Britain, into a radar system that German submarines couldn’t detect. This was a major factor in the Allies’ 1943 victory in the Battle of the Atlantic, which secured the sea lanes to Britain; this in turn set the stage first for the decisive defeat of the Luftwaffe in early 1944, and then for D-Day.
There were other crucial scientific efforts too, like the group at Johns Hopkins that developed the proximity fuse, which made antiaircraft guns far more effective because they could bring down a plane without scoring a direct hit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze
All of this was made possible not just by America’s economic might but also by its cultural and social openness. At one point in the movie Oppenheimer says that the only reason we might beat the Germans to the bomb is Nazi antisemitism; indeed, America’s war effort was crucially aided by our willingness to take in and make use of the scientific talents of refugees.
If you’re a history buff like me, you find this stuff fascinating in its own right. But it’s also relevant, even now, to American politics — and to the war in Ukraine.
Many people on the U.S. right seem to equate national greatness with military prowess and believe that military prowess is associated with macho posturing. The epitome of this attitude was Ted Cruz’s infamous ad contrasting tough-looking Russian recruits with U.S. recruiting ads that celebrated diversity, and declaring that we were made weak by having a “woke, emasculated” military. And you still hear that sort of thing despite the catastrophic and very recent failures of Russia’s un-woke, un-emasculated army.
This is all, of course, deeply stupid. Wars still require almost unimaginable courage and endurance on the part of combatants. But they haven’t been won by sheer brawn for a long time. They are instead won largely by production capacity — and intellectual creativity.
I’ve read many books about World War II. The book that did the most to change how I thought about the conflict was “How the War Was Won,” by the military historian Phillips P. O’Brien, which begins with this memorable sentence: “There were no decisive battles in World War II.” O’Brien shows that even the bloodiest, most stupendous battles, like the battle of Kursk in 1943, destroyed at most a few weeks’ worth of the losing side’s war production. What decided the war was Allied success in dominating first the seas, then the air — success that depended crucially on intellectuals like Rabi, who didn’t look like anyone’s idea of a warrior, or Alan Turing, who led the code-breaking efforts at Bletchley Park but whose gayness would have made him an outcast in the right-wing vision of what America should be.
O’Brien was, as it happens, one of the few prominent military analysts who disagreed with the consensus that Russia would quickly and easily conquer Ukraine, and has been a frequent and insightful commentator on the course of the ongoing war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Once upon a time I thought Paul Krugman was smart. Maybe he was. But's he's reduced himself to an inane blatherer of DNC/ neocon/ 'woke' orthodoxy.
Quote:Which means...? How does "radar -detecting submarines" even fit togther?
Originally posted by second:
What ‘Oppenheimer' and Ukraine Teach Us About War
by Paul Krugman
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/opinion/war-tech-oppenheimer.html
If you’ve seen the movie “Oppenheimer,” which you should — trust me, it’s gripping even though it’s three hours long and you know how the story ends — you probably noticed several appearances by the physicist Isidor Isaac Rabi, who is portrayed in some ways as Oppenheimer’s voice of conscience. I was a bit puzzled when I watched, because I happened to know that Rabi wasn’t a resident at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project. But the film was historically accurate: Rabi did visit Los Alamos on occasion, and was present for the Trinity bomb test.
Why wasn’t Rabi at Los Alamos? The film highlights his ethical qualms. But the truth is that he was involved in another secret project applying cutting-edge science to the war effort, M.I.T.’s Radiation Laboratory, which basically worked on advanced radar. The Rad Lab arguably had an even bigger impact on the course of the war than the Manhattan Project, because it turned microwave technology, originally developed in Britain, into a radar system that German submarines couldn’t detect.
Quote:Yeah, I'd still like to read an explanation for that. The sea lanes were secured by Navy ships convoying cargo ships. At some point, I presume that the Navy ships got the new-fangled microwave radar. But radar doesn't operate underwater, so it wouln't help ships detect subs, and it wouldn't help subs detect ships. So what does radar have to do with submarines? I thought subs operated on SONAR, and ships are NOISY and can be detected passively just by listening.
This was a major factor in the Allies’ 1943 victory in the Battle of the Atlantic, which secured the sea lanes to Britain; this in turn set the stage first for the decisive defeat of the Luftwaffe in early 1944, and then for D-Day.
Quote:And all of this is to say .. what? Where is he going with this??
There were other crucial scientific efforts too, like the group at Johns Hopkins that developed the proximity fuse, which made antiaircraft guns far more effective because they could bring down a plane without scoring a direct hit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze
Quote:OH, I SEE! It leads to the prerequisite virtue signalling!
All of this was made possible not just by America’s economic might but also by its cultural and social openness.
Quote:And later, AFTER the war, our willingness to provide top Nazi scientists with passports so they could continue to do their work here!
At one point in the movie Oppenheimer says that the only reason we might beat the Germans to the bomb is Nazi antisemitism; indeed, America’s war effort was crucially aided by our willingness to take in and make use of the scientific talents of refugees.
Maybe somewhere in there is Paul's unstated rationalization for supporting Nazis in Ukraine. Because of "openness".
Quote:He's conflating our soft-bellied military recruits ... yanno, those who are supposed to make up the bulk of our FIGHTING force ... with the civilian scientists and engineers w
If you’re a history buff like me, you find this stuff fascinating in its own right. But it’s also relevant, even now, to American politics — and to the war in Ukraine.
Many people on the U.S. right seem to equate national greatness with military prowess and believe that military prowess is associated with macho posturing. The epitome of this attitude was Ted Cruz’s infamous ad contrasting tough-looking Russian recruits with U.S. recruiting ads that celebrated diversity, and declaring that we were made weak by having a “woke, emasculated” military.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Germany had battleships and U-boat radio antennas that could not hide from radar. And German U-boats couldn't hide from High-frequency direction-finding. Those top-secret messages that were being decoded by the British code breakers were also the location beacons for the British sub-hunters:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Once upon a time I thought Paul Krugman was smart. Maybe he was. But's he's reduced himself to an inane blatherer of DNC/ neocon/ 'woke' orthodoxy.Quote:Yeah, I'd still like to read an explanation for that. The sea lanes were secured by Navy ships convoying cargo ships. At some point, I presume that the Navy ships got the new-fangled microwave radar. But radar doesn't operate underwater, so it wouln't help ships detect subs, and it wouldn't help subs detect ships. So what does radar have to do with submarines? I thought subs operated on SONAR, and ships are NOISY and can be detected passively just by listening.
This was a major factor in the Allies’ 1943 victory in the Battle of the Atlantic, which secured the sea lanes to Britain; this in turn set the stage first for the decisive defeat of the Luftwaffe in early 1944, and then for D-Day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic#High-frequency_di
rection-finding
The Germans, being who they were, didn't believe their coded messages could be read and didn't believe their radio antennas could be located and didn't believe they could lose a war since the German fighting spirit was invincible because Germans are real men, not like those British shopkeepers who can't fight. It turns out that the British realized they were either all dead or prisoners if they didn't become effective and competent warriors so the shopkeepers became what the UK needed. The Ukrainians are now in the same situation as the British once were. Either the Ukrainians become warriors or they die in the Russian prison Putin is constructing.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A Russian-backed general admitted his troops "cannot win" against Ukraine and suggested freezing the current front line.
In a lengthy Telegram post on Thursday, Alexander Khodakovsky, who leads the Vostok Battalion fighting in southern Ukraine, predicted a stalemate between the two sides.
"Can we bring down Ukraine militarily? Now and in the near future, no," Khodakovsky said, according to a translation by the Kyiv Post.
"When I talk to myself about our destiny in this war, I mean that we will not crawl forward, like the [Ukrainians], turning everything into [destroyed] Bakhmuts in our path. And, I do not foresee the easy occupation of cities," he added.
Khodakovsky went on to say that he believes the war is entering a phase "of neither peace nor war."
https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/russian-backed-gener
al-admits-his-troops-cannot-win-against-ukraine-and-suggests-freezing-the-front-line-where-it-is/articleshow/102835591.cms
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I suppose that's AN explanation, but it still doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by second:Quote:Germany had battleships and U-boat radio antennas that could not hide from radar. And German U-boats couldn't hide from High-frequency direction-finding. Those top-secret messages that were being decoded by the British code breakers were also the location beacons for the British sub-hunters:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Once upon a time I thought Paul Krugman was smart. Maybe he was. But's he's reduced himself to an inane blatherer of DNC/ neocon/ 'woke' orthodoxy.Quote:Yeah, I'd still like to read an explanation for that. The sea lanes were secured by Navy ships convoying cargo ships. At some point, I presume that the Navy ships got the new-fangled microwave radar. But radar doesn't operate underwater, so it wouln't help ships detect subs, and it wouldn't help subs detect ships. So what does radar have to do with submarines? I thought subs operated on SONAR, and ships are NOISY and can be detected passively just by listening.
This was a major factor in the Allies’ 1943 victory in the Battle of the Atlantic, which secured the sea lanes to Britain; this in turn set the stage first for the decisive defeat of the Luftwaffe in early 1944, and then for D-Day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic#High-frequency_di
rection-finding
The Germans, being who they were, didn't believe their coded messages could be read and didn't believe their radio antennas could be located and didn't believe they could lose a war since the German fighting spirit was invincible because Germans are real men, not like those British shopkeepers who can't fight. It turns out that the British realized they were either all dead or prisoners if they didn't become effective and competent warriors so the shopkeepers became what the UK needed. The Ukrainians are now in the same situation as the British once were. Either the Ukrainians become warriors or they die in the Russian prison Putin is constructing.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
The original artticle says... "The Rad Lab arguably had an even bigger impact on the course of the war than the Manhattan Project, because it turned microwave technology, originally developed in Britain, into a radar system that German submarines couldn’t detect."
So what? German U -boats couldn't detect radar, but they could still detect SHIPS, bc ships are NOISY. And low frequencies carry well in water, whereas early radar couln't see over-the-horizon (which IIRC is 3 miles). Were they that stupid that, having detected a ship nearby (by sound), they would continue to loiter on the surface long enough for a ship to trundle its way over to their position and start dropping depth charges?
BTW I find it improbable that early radar could detect a radio antenna strictly as a piece of metal. Even current radar has a limit of detection for small objects. I suppose you're referring to radar being able to detect German U-boat radio TRANSMISSIONS, since they both operate in the radio frequency range. But, having detected a transmission, I assume that the best way to actually pick up the radio transmission signal would be radio antenna, since they're more efficient.
Not to belabor the point further, but something seems to be missing from the explanation. I can't fill in the pieces bc the only thing I know about WWII submarine technology is from WWII movies.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You could quadruple your knowledge by reading two paragraphs:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Not to belabor the point further, but something seems to be missing from the explanation. I can't fill in the pieces bc the only thing I know about WWII submarine technology is from WWII movies.
Leigh Light
Detection by radar-equipped aircraft could suppress U-boat activity over a wide area, but an aircraft attack could only be successful with good visibility. U-boats were relatively safe from aircraft at night for two reasons: 1) radar then in use could not detect them at less than 1 mile (1.6 km); 2) flares deployed to illuminate any attack gave adequate warning for evasive manoeuvres. The introduction of the Leigh Light by the British in January 1942 solved the second problem, thereby becoming a significant factor in the Battle for the Atlantic. Developed by RAF officer H. Leigh, it was a powerful and controllable searchlight mounted primarily to Wellington bombers and B-24 Liberators. These aircraft first made contact with enemy submarines using air-to-surface-vessel (ASV) radar. Then, about a 1 mile (1.6 km) from the target, the Leigh Light would be switched on. It immediately and accurately illuminated the enemy, giving U-boat commanders less than 25 seconds to react before they were attacked with depth charges. The first confirmed kill using this technology was U-502 on July 5, 1942.[67]
The Leigh Light enabled the British to attack enemy subs on the surface at night, forcing German and Italian commanders to remain underwater especially when coming into port at sub bases in the Bay of Biscay.[67] U-boat commanders who survived such attacks reported a particular fear of this weapon system since aircraft could not be seen at night, and the noise of an approaching aircraft was inaudible above the din of the sub's engines. Subsequently, the common practice of surfacing at night to recharge batteries and refresh air was mostly abandoned as it was safer to perform these tasks during daylight hours when enemy planes could be spotted. A drop in Allied shipping losses from 600,000 to 200,000 tons per month was attributed to this device.[68]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic#Leigh_Light
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Alexander Khodakovsky, commander of the “Vostok” battalion defending near Urozhaine, complained that Russian forces are not deploying additional reserves and artillery battalions to the area.[3] Khodakovsky claimed that the “Vostok” battalion is fighting for Urozhaine with all available forces but that the forces operating in the area are exhausted and suffering losses.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campai
gn-assessment-august-14-2023 quoting a report from the neocon Institute for the Study of War
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So it was detection of U-boats by AIRCRAFT.
You could have skipped the bit about the new searchlight.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Seeing as how western medai likes to take literal snippets of lengthy speehces or posts, and extrapolate one word or phrase beyond credibility, this is Khodakovsky's whole Telegram post, machine-translated..
Quote:
Can we topple Ukraine militarily? Not now and in the short term. When I talk to myself about our victory in this war, I do not mean that we will crawl, like them, forward, turning everything into bakhmuts in our path. And I don't envisage an easy occupation of cities.... We will enter the phase that is most disadvantageous to Ukraine in its "independent" state: the phase of neither peace nor war. We could find ourselves in this phase if, instead of the NWO, we recognized the territories and officially took them under guardianship. But that would be a very different twist on history....
In our reality, which has already taken place, things will come to a "truce". We began to have certain processes in the economy caused by the increased workload, but on the whole we withstood and caught the balance. We are balancing - not without it - but we are walking a tightrope. Remember the crisis of the eighth year, which was called the crisis of the banking system? Then only one bank collapsed, launching the domino principle, and we experienced a lot of bad things in a fairly short period of time. Now there is systematic pressure, but although we are warming up, we are holding on.
With Ukraine, everything will be different. If in Russia we do not allow the internal situation to shake up, then with all our sores, our survivability is very high. Ukraine, on the other hand, is a completely different "physics". Both economically and politically is a construct that cannot survive on its own. Therefore, the project of independent Ukraine was not realized, turning into a project: "under whom to lie down." Unfortunately, the elites focused on Western money defeated the elites who wanted to milk Russia. Now the West gives mainly what can only bring destruction. When you read about the next help, you see there is not money that can be sawn, but iron that needs to be disposed of. You won't make much money on this. Therefore, at the exit from the upcoming phase, we will most likely face a global redistribution of Ukraine.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME