If the geopolitical situtation changes Russia could find themselves still in control of Crima and bit os eastern Ukraine. You're not wrong about Putin stalling to see if he can find a way out of this mess though.
Honestly even then I think it would just be a matter of time because from then on Russia will just destabilize further. Ukraine just needs to bide their time for a nice Russian collapse.
And while not a collapse, hard times are inevitable. Every nation going through a major war will have to deal with swaths of organized crime and drug addicts after the conclusion of the war. The crime waves in the US in the mid 70s to late 80s are an aftershock of the Vietnam War. Opium and Morphine addiction was RAMPANT in Europe after WW1 and WW2 and it took decades to normalize.
Ukraine will face difficulties here, but at least will receive assistance by all sorts of international government and non-government organizations. Russia will not. This shit can absolutely break a country (it's part of why Civil Wars tend to create only more Civil Wars).
>Honestly even then I think it would just be a matter of time because from then on Russia will just destabilize further. Ukraine just needs to bide their time for a nice Russian collapse.
Possible, probable even, But I was just trying to point out there were still edge cases that weren't completely pushed from the margins. >And while not a collapse, hard times are inevitable.
Barring something comically extreme I think I'll give you this one. >Ukraine will face difficulties here, but at least will receive assistance by all sorts of international government and non-government organizations.
This I'm not so sure of. Certainly Ukraine is gonna have a rough road at least but I'm not convinced that its foregone that they'll get as much aid afterwards as you seem to. Western Europe didn't care enough before and once the perceived danger to them has passed I can easily see it returning to that dynamic. And the US means well but if they get distracted by something else - Chinese invasion of Taiwan perhaps? - then it may get forgotten and pushed to the wayside. Who else would be left to help them? Poland can do some but they aren't economically strong enough to shoulder the lion's share. Canada maybe?
>The crime waves in the US in the mid 70s to late 80s are an aftershock of the Vietnam War.
I lived that era. The US auto, steel and other manufacturing industries were already in decline when OPEC torpedoed the US economy as reprisal for aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur War.
That shit was brutal as the US never prepares for adversity at scale, the years after 1929 until WWII excepted.
Massive job losses drove the crime rate. The public quit caring about Nam except for some wistful butthurt in 1975 as they were tired of bankrolling a yellow version of the ANA. Everything was about jobs and urban decay as urban and suburban manufacturing faded, especially in cities with vulnerable industrial monocultures. Most troops were home by 1970.
The period was also characterised by inflation:
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-inflation
Most of the crime was by far perpetrated by Wakandans whose feeble progress was halted by the 1973-75ish recession. Peaking at nine percent, unemployment was huge so why NOT deal drugs to stupid customers? The vast majority of them were never in Viet Nam and many would have been too young to serve in 1970.
>The crime waves in the US in the mid 70s to late 80s are an aftershock of the Vietnam War.
The effects of leaded gasoline on childhood development shouldn't be underestimated either.
Eating paint chips was astoundingly popular. The Romans and other ancients used lead to sweeten drinks so that should not have been a surprise. Pollution in general was epic and the Mafia ran the waste disposal business on the East Coast so incidents like dumping chems from Ford's Mahwah plant innawoods were normal.
Of course military bases nearly all became Superfund sites because of dumping. We washed off large parts and equipment with solvents when cleaning parts and that shit went down storm drains and aircraft wash rack drains. Our weapons were clean but trich plumes and more foul groundwater. Current milbros get exposed to old and new nasties.
If you eat too many paint chips maybe the PD-680, toxic firefighting foam (washed down storm drains along with waste jet fuel from fire training), and chlorinated solvents in the water supply will dissolve the lead so you can use the remaining brain cell to make rank.
Anyone here still active dooty look after your guys because except for Bioenvironmental the military has always had getdoneitis ignoring basic shit (like moldy barracks, an Army classic) it could avoid or fix if not avoided. Back in the day they'd at least have troops cleaning that shit up and fixing it via unit self-help programs. PPE is no excuse because that can be issued and often is.
No, but in the Russian meta, 'naval infantry' used to be considered elite because the sailors had a modicum of technical knowledge and therefore coped better with modern weapons than farmboys from 1920s Siberia.
Bluejackets used to be used as infantry all the goddamn time. Most of the "Marine Corps" operations pre 1900 were 80% sailors with a small group of marines in company. Up until the Korean War there were official doctrines for using sailors as infantry.
Nowadays not really, although lots of sailors can and are used basically as infantry. In GWOT a huge number of sand sailors were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan for support activities and limited combat operations, mostly convoy defense. That worked okay because while they aren't trained in patrolling or soldiering in general, a surprisingly large number of CRUDES sailors have plenty of experience operating M240s and M2s and were competent enough to sit in a humvee turret and blast mother frickers if needed. Other naval units have a more explicit infantry function, like obviously SEALs and Seabees.
From the Navy's involvement in the Battle of Bataan in WW2: >The naval battalion consisted of aviation ground crews left behind when Patrol Wing Ten flew south, sailors from the Canopus, men from the naval base at Mariveles, and from forty to sixty marines of an artillery unit and embassy guards freshly evacuated from China. Of this group, only the marines had any knowledge of infantry weapons and tactics. The sailors were instructed to simply watch the Marines and "do whatever it is that they do" during combat. >Their attempts to acquire proficiency in the use of the strange assortment of weapons in their possession were hardly more successful. Some had the .30-caliber World War I Marlin machine gun; others, air corps .50-caliber guns on improvised mounts, Lewis .30-caliber machine guns, and Browning automatic rifles (BAR). In a group of 220 men there were only three bayonets, but, wrote one of their officers, "that was all right because only three . . . men knew anything about using them." >For the Japanese, this first encounter with the untrained bluejackets was a confusing and bewildering one. A Japanese soldier recorded in his diary that he had observed among the Americans a "new type of suicide squad" dressed in brightly colored uniforms. "Whenever these apparitions reached an open space," he wrote, "they would attempt to draw Japanese fire by sitting down, talking loudly and lighting cigarettes." The brightly colored uniforms the Japanese noted were the result of an effort by the sailors to dye their whites khaki, an effort which produced a uniform of a "sickly mustard yellow" color.
How would modern sailors fair? Obviously Seabees, RIVRON, and other various units would perform well as substitute infantry, but I'm talking about the same groups. Aviation, sailors from Destroyers etc.
I know a couple sailors and I think they'd be able to figure out how to use most small arms. Actually maintaining them is another matter.
>marines
Or actual sailors?
Sailors tend to be capable at guarding things like ports judging from history like WW1 and Judeo-Bolshevik Revolution. Seems odd though.
Sailors are not capable of performing the job of infantrymen beyond guarding shit and doing passive patrols in non-combat zones. Historically, they've been shit as substitute infantry and this is universally true across many navies.
In the modern battlefield, giving a man a gun doesn't make him an infantryman. It takes about 6 months to a year of training to give the average soldier competency in the role.
>marines
Or actual sailors?
Sailors tend to be capable at guarding things like ports judging from history like WW1 and Judeo-Bolshevik Revolution. Seems odd though.
Conversations like this get nasty because grunts feel like it's an attack on their profession: which is, understandably, faster to get competent at than most jobs.
A seaman (swish swish) won't be able to attack the enemy, but I'm pretty sure they can fill out defensive roles in a pinch and do fairly well. Experience with 240Bs on ships, bonus points for the guys in VBSS parties. They're not infantry but I feel like they'd bust most Russian or Chinese conscripts like a kitkat.
ehhhhhhh... like the anon above posted, there were actually a lot of sailors during the GWOT working convoy escort and base protection details, and I think that's a job well suited for them since they're already qual'd on the same crew served 240s and M2s on their ships.
The problem is that sailors are inherently more valuable on their ships than off them. You can give anyone a gun and teach them to shout "I'm up, they see me, I'm down" over and over until they figure out how combat works, but it'll be a lot harder to teach that person how to operate a VLS fire control panel or operate an Aegis radar array.
Obviously when it's your last stand and all your boats are inop like in the Philippines or like the Germans in the Netherlands, sailors make good bodies all the same.
The russian navy's finest hours are usually when its ships were destroyed or confined to port and its sailors forced to fight as infantry. They certainly weren't very good at ships.
Russian sailors don't even make good sailors
https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/adventures-of-the-baltic-fleet-russo-japanese-war-1904-5-72656f025b8c
>marines
Or actual sailors?
Sailors tend to be capable at guarding things like ports judging from history like WW1 and Judeo-Bolshevik Revolution. Seems odd though.
>Refuse to send sailors to the meatgrinder >Get fired for insubordination >Send sailors to the meatgrinder >Get fired for not being able to maintain readiness levels of the pacific fleet
You have to feel for that admiral. He was put in a classic Russian no-win scenario. You can almost understand why 99% of Russian flag officers just give up and become corruption barons.
On the defense? Probably as good at holding like reservists, because they both know at least some basics of maintenance and shooting.
On the offense? They are not trained in this way and their CO and NCO core is based on other skillsets.
If the DailyMail said it, /k/ will believe it. But at least in this case, the Daily Mail didn't go 'Sources said'. Because there is actual Russian sources. https://t.me/rian_ru/200363. Might be troonygram but it at least is an actual Russian source.
Considering that the current front line of Russian infantry mostly sit in wet trenches and bugger each other I'd say they'll fit right in.
Russia will lose. Any week now.
Russia lost a year ago. The only question now is how many more Russians die before Putin admits it.
If the geopolitical situtation changes Russia could find themselves still in control of Crima and bit os eastern Ukraine. You're not wrong about Putin stalling to see if he can find a way out of this mess though.
Honestly even then I think it would just be a matter of time because from then on Russia will just destabilize further. Ukraine just needs to bide their time for a nice Russian collapse.
And while not a collapse, hard times are inevitable. Every nation going through a major war will have to deal with swaths of organized crime and drug addicts after the conclusion of the war. The crime waves in the US in the mid 70s to late 80s are an aftershock of the Vietnam War. Opium and Morphine addiction was RAMPANT in Europe after WW1 and WW2 and it took decades to normalize.
Ukraine will face difficulties here, but at least will receive assistance by all sorts of international government and non-government organizations. Russia will not. This shit can absolutely break a country (it's part of why Civil Wars tend to create only more Civil Wars).
>Honestly even then I think it would just be a matter of time because from then on Russia will just destabilize further. Ukraine just needs to bide their time for a nice Russian collapse.
Possible, probable even, But I was just trying to point out there were still edge cases that weren't completely pushed from the margins.
>And while not a collapse, hard times are inevitable.
Barring something comically extreme I think I'll give you this one.
>Ukraine will face difficulties here, but at least will receive assistance by all sorts of international government and non-government organizations.
This I'm not so sure of. Certainly Ukraine is gonna have a rough road at least but I'm not convinced that its foregone that they'll get as much aid afterwards as you seem to. Western Europe didn't care enough before and once the perceived danger to them has passed I can easily see it returning to that dynamic. And the US means well but if they get distracted by something else - Chinese invasion of Taiwan perhaps? - then it may get forgotten and pushed to the wayside. Who else would be left to help them? Poland can do some but they aren't economically strong enough to shoulder the lion's share. Canada maybe?
>The crime waves in the US in the mid 70s to late 80s are an aftershock of the Vietnam War.
I lived that era. The US auto, steel and other manufacturing industries were already in decline when OPEC torpedoed the US economy as reprisal for aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur War.
That shit was brutal as the US never prepares for adversity at scale, the years after 1929 until WWII excepted.
Massive job losses drove the crime rate. The public quit caring about Nam except for some wistful butthurt in 1975 as they were tired of bankrolling a yellow version of the ANA. Everything was about jobs and urban decay as urban and suburban manufacturing faded, especially in cities with vulnerable industrial monocultures. Most troops were home by 1970.
The period was also characterised by inflation:
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-inflation
Most of the crime was by far perpetrated by Wakandans whose feeble progress was halted by the 1973-75ish recession. Peaking at nine percent, unemployment was huge so why NOT deal drugs to stupid customers? The vast majority of them were never in Viet Nam and many would have been too young to serve in 1970.
and then the greatest president of the 20tg century came along
Indeed. Not until the 90s crime began to decline.
>I lived that era.
No you didn't. I can tell by the way you write you're barely old enough to post here.
>The crime waves in the US in the mid 70s to late 80s are an aftershock of the Vietnam War.
The effects of leaded gasoline on childhood development shouldn't be underestimated either.
Eating paint chips was astoundingly popular. The Romans and other ancients used lead to sweeten drinks so that should not have been a surprise. Pollution in general was epic and the Mafia ran the waste disposal business on the East Coast so incidents like dumping chems from Ford's Mahwah plant innawoods were normal.
Of course military bases nearly all became Superfund sites because of dumping. We washed off large parts and equipment with solvents when cleaning parts and that shit went down storm drains and aircraft wash rack drains. Our weapons were clean but trich plumes and more foul groundwater. Current milbros get exposed to old and new nasties.
https://stlawco.org/Departments/Veterans/CampLejeuneWaterContaminationHistory
If you eat too many paint chips maybe the PD-680, toxic firefighting foam (washed down storm drains along with waste jet fuel from fire training), and chlorinated solvents in the water supply will dissolve the lead so you can use the remaining brain cell to make rank.
Anyone here still active dooty look after your guys because except for Bioenvironmental the military has always had getdoneitis ignoring basic shit (like moldy barracks, an Army classic) it could avoid or fix if not avoided. Back in the day they'd at least have troops cleaning that shit up and fixing it via unit self-help programs. PPE is no excuse because that can be issued and often is.
r*ssias has been losing everyday for the last 100 years
Better than some aids ridden Tatar convict
No, but in the Russian meta, 'naval infantry' used to be considered elite because the sailors had a modicum of technical knowledge and therefore coped better with modern weapons than farmboys from 1920s Siberia.
Not moronic enough.
Sailors are super soldiers
Bluejackets used to be used as infantry all the goddamn time. Most of the "Marine Corps" operations pre 1900 were 80% sailors with a small group of marines in company. Up until the Korean War there were official doctrines for using sailors as infantry.
Nowadays not really, although lots of sailors can and are used basically as infantry. In GWOT a huge number of sand sailors were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan for support activities and limited combat operations, mostly convoy defense. That worked okay because while they aren't trained in patrolling or soldiering in general, a surprisingly large number of CRUDES sailors have plenty of experience operating M240s and M2s and were competent enough to sit in a humvee turret and blast mother frickers if needed. Other naval units have a more explicit infantry function, like obviously SEALs and Seabees.
From the Navy's involvement in the Battle of Bataan in WW2:
>The naval battalion consisted of aviation ground crews left behind when Patrol Wing Ten flew south, sailors from the Canopus, men from the naval base at Mariveles, and from forty to sixty marines of an artillery unit and embassy guards freshly evacuated from China. Of this group, only the marines had any knowledge of infantry weapons and tactics. The sailors were instructed to simply watch the Marines and "do whatever it is that they do" during combat.
>Their attempts to acquire proficiency in the use of the strange assortment of weapons in their possession were hardly more successful. Some had the .30-caliber World War I Marlin machine gun; others, air corps .50-caliber guns on improvised mounts, Lewis .30-caliber machine guns, and Browning automatic rifles (BAR). In a group of 220 men there were only three bayonets, but, wrote one of their officers, "that was all right because only three . . . men knew anything about using them."
>For the Japanese, this first encounter with the untrained bluejackets was a confusing and bewildering one. A Japanese soldier recorded in his diary that he had observed among the Americans a "new type of suicide squad" dressed in brightly colored uniforms. "Whenever these apparitions reached an open space," he wrote, "they would attempt to draw Japanese fire by sitting down, talking loudly and lighting cigarettes." The brightly colored uniforms the Japanese noted were the result of an effort by the sailors to dye their whites khaki, an effort which produced a uniform of a "sickly mustard yellow" color.
How would modern sailors fair? Obviously Seabees, RIVRON, and other various units would perform well as substitute infantry, but I'm talking about the same groups. Aviation, sailors from Destroyers etc.
I know a couple sailors and I think they'd be able to figure out how to use most small arms. Actually maintaining them is another matter.
Sailors are not capable of performing the job of infantrymen beyond guarding shit and doing passive patrols in non-combat zones. Historically, they've been shit as substitute infantry and this is universally true across many navies.
In the modern battlefield, giving a man a gun doesn't make him an infantryman. It takes about 6 months to a year of training to give the average soldier competency in the role.
Conversations like this get nasty because grunts feel like it's an attack on their profession: which is, understandably, faster to get competent at than most jobs.
A seaman (swish swish) won't be able to attack the enemy, but I'm pretty sure they can fill out defensive roles in a pinch and do fairly well. Experience with 240Bs on ships, bonus points for the guys in VBSS parties. They're not infantry but I feel like they'd bust most Russian or Chinese conscripts like a kitkat.
ehhhhhhh... like the anon above posted, there were actually a lot of sailors during the GWOT working convoy escort and base protection details, and I think that's a job well suited for them since they're already qual'd on the same crew served 240s and M2s on their ships.
The problem is that sailors are inherently more valuable on their ships than off them. You can give anyone a gun and teach them to shout "I'm up, they see me, I'm down" over and over until they figure out how combat works, but it'll be a lot harder to teach that person how to operate a VLS fire control panel or operate an Aegis radar array.
Obviously when it's your last stand and all your boats are inop like in the Philippines or like the Germans in the Netherlands, sailors make good bodies all the same.
The russian navy's finest hours are usually when its ships were destroyed or confined to port and its sailors forced to fight as infantry. They certainly weren't very good at ships.
Russian sailors don't even make good sailors
https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/adventures-of-the-baltic-fleet-russo-japanese-war-1904-5-72656f025b8c
the real question here is why didn't Britain just declare war right there?
well, for one it would make WWI far more complicated diplomatically
They knew it would've been funnier to just deny them the use of the Suez Canal and make them go around Africa.
>Fires
I'm sure he did get a firing squad
>marines
Or actual sailors?
Sailors tend to be capable at guarding things like ports judging from history like WW1 and Judeo-Bolshevik Revolution. Seems odd though.
Can be, a long time ago. Not so much now.
They are the infantry of the sea
>Refuse to send sailors to the meatgrinder
>Get fired for insubordination
>Send sailors to the meatgrinder
>Get fired for not being able to maintain readiness levels of the pacific fleet
You have to feel for that admiral. He was put in a classic Russian no-win scenario. You can almost understand why 99% of Russian flag officers just give up and become corruption barons.
Ah, hopefully we see a good old fashioned Russian Sailor mutiny, haven't had one of them in awhile
On the defense? Probably as good at holding like reservists, because they both know at least some basics of maintenance and shooting.
On the offense? They are not trained in this way and their CO and NCO core is based on other skillsets.
Odessa's mutiny 2.0 when?
this man is too good for Russia
frick Putin, Putinists and the wienersuckers who shill for him here
Based.
The man probably isn't that good though, seeing that he made it as high up the career ladder in that rotten system as he did.
>DailyMail
Did this really happen?
>implying it's not the source
Never trust Br*tish tabloids, especially never ever trust their headlines
don't trust any tabloids, but yes.
They name dropped the specific admiral so it shouldnt be too hard to confirm
If the DailyMail said it, /k/ will believe it. But at least in this case, the Daily Mail didn't go 'Sources said'. Because there is actual Russian sources. https://t.me/rian_ru/200363. Might be troonygram but it at least is an actual Russian source.
Plus other similar level sites are reporting it.
>refuses to send good men to die in a war their not prepared for
>sends low-lifes and drug addicts instead
>gets fired for it
Dare I say based?
>Do sailors make good infantry?
Does russian infantry make good infantry?