Maithanet

I agree that if f16s mean that Russia must devote significant missile resources to bombing tarmac instead of buildings or troop concentrations, I would consider that a big win.

Tywin may know better, but this is our mo-fo, nobody knows what it is like.

The Celtics are getting badly out coached. Spoelstra is putting in a master class. This Heat team is straight up not that talented, but they already dispatched the Bucks and they might do the same to Boston. Pretty crazy.

Yeah, I haven't memorized the list of aircraft that various European countries have at their disposal. Regardless, it's safe to assume some countries are going to donate them to Ukraine.

The US has announced that it no longer opposes other countries providing F-16 fighters to Ukraine. Further, a DoD assessment found that it would take only 4 months to train experienced Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s in combat. That is a much shorter time window than the previously reported 18 months, and the difference is apparently that 18 month figure was for new pilots (which IMO was a ridiculous assumption to begin with). Regardless, there's no question that Britain/Poland (and probably the US too) will provide Ukraine with F-16s fairly soon. It is very likely there will be F-16s deployed in combat in this war by the year's end. That is meaningful for several reasons. The F-16 is a very good, if somewhat dated, aircraft, it offers significant capabilities that Ukraine does not currently have in both air to air combat and combat air patrol work. In addition, it is just another example that Ukraine is getting stronger and more technically robust, while the Russian forces are going in the other direction.

I actually wonder if the Russian reluctance to do another round of mobilization is giving the Ukrainians an incentive to further delay the offensive. Russia is basically getting weaker by the month, might as well wait until further shipments arrive.

Be careful. As you probably know, you can get PTSD just from watching videos like that.

One real point of contention in estimating Russian KIA is the ratio of killed to wounded soldiers. With good medical care the US achieved 8 to 1 ratios of wounded to killed for its soldiers in Afghanistan. Obviously this is really important for maintaining morale - soldiers really like it when the military is doing everything it can to save their lives. A wounded to killed ratio of 3 to 1 is more common in many other armies, and that has often been used as the rule of thumb in Ukraine. But many commentators insist that is dramatically overestimating Russian frontline medical capabilities, and that the number killed is actually much higher. Some estimates have even been as high as 1 to 1 killed to wounded. Threads like this make that sound very possible:

San Antonio Spurs: I don't always win the lottery. But when I do, I draft a Hall of Fame big man.

Democrats have flipped the Jacksonville Mayor office tonight. Say many bad things about Florida, but they sure as hell know how to count votes. Polls closed at 7 pm and they had over 95% over the votes counted by 7:40. Now of the 20 largest cities in the US only two are run by Republicans.

For the third party observer it is basically impossible to determine with certainty what, if any, part of the Patriot battery was hit. Russian claims are worth less than paper, and the Ukrainians have a law against photographing Russian strikes. So all we have is the Ukrainians word, and at the moment, that is "no comment." Which IMO indicates that the Russians hit something, but whether it was something important or not, who knows.

The Russians launched a huge number of missiles from different angles/elevation/type in an attempt to overwhelm air defenses around Kyiv. The target is believed to be air defenses. Russians are claiming that they succeeded, no confirmation yet. There are videos that indicate at least one Russian missile hit a ground target. If the target was a patriot battery, it was likely destroyed. Edit: allow me to be clearer. A patriot battery is several components, and destroying one does not destroy the entire system. If a piece was hit, that piece is likely destroyed, but the overall battery should still be operable, assuming the Ukrainians were following procedures/precautions.

Don't you think the CIA is already doing that? I certainly assume that they are.

The problem for NBA refs is not that they are getting out of bounds or behind/over the three point line wrong. Those things happen on occasion, but that is definitely not the issue. The problem is calling charges/blocking and touch fouls, which are incredibly subjective, and happen virtually every possession. Whether a defender is "established" or not is inherently subjective. With cameras you could maybe get better at calling charges, but being perfectly consistent is impossible. Touch fouls are even worse, because basketball allows a certain amount of contact, but not too much, which is always subjective. Some guys are really good at playing through contact, whereas other guys go flying, and the guys who "just play through" get dramatically less calls. Hence, if you're a strong guy who nonetheless wants to get his share of calls, you need to flail/flop in order to help the refs see that a foul occurred.

Unconfirmed reports of for aircraft downed today. Take with a grain of salt. However, if that is true, then something has changed. Speculation that Ukraine may have hacked Russias friend/foe identification system. At least two of the aircraft are claimed to have been knocked down well into Russia.

In spite of all that bluster, Russia cannot keep this war going indefinitely. Not even if they scale it back to 1/4th the current level. The Russian economy is slowly eating itself, and while that doesn't mean it is going to collapse next month or next season, it will happen eventually, and possibly fairly soon. If Russia's plan for winning the war is for Trump to cut off US support, that is still 20 months away (if it ever happens). Russia being able to fight that long is by no means certain, and being able to fight effectively in 2025 is even more dicey.

There is a fair amount of debate going on in military internet circles (probably actual mil circles as well) about whether what we have seen in the last few days from Ukraine are shaping operations or the actual offensive itself. Shaping operations are setting the stage for your big attack (bombing logistics/command areas, taking key locations as a jumping off point for the big attack, extensive reconnisance in force to get the best picture of enemy strength). It has happened a couple of times in this war that the staging operations went so well that the Russians just fled, and the Ukrainians had to act quickly to attack before their planned timetable. This is not unthinkable, but it is illogical. Ukraine does not want to occupy Russian cities - they want to reclaim their occupied territory and end the war. Taking a Russian city does not support that goal at all. US/EU support would quickly stop if Ukraine sought to conquer Russian territory. Russia would be much more likely to deploy nukes and the pushback to such a move would be greatly reduced if it was on Russian soil against a military target. Ukraine wants to capture Mariupol and Sevastapol, not Belgorod.

What I've heard took a slightly different spin on the May 9 cancellations. These celebrations started in one providence as a nice way of honoring WW2 veterans. But then Putin hijacked this into a national celebration of Russian victories, Russian greatness and the Russian military. This is the biggest propaganda day of the year in Russia. It is traditional at these parades to bring photos of fathers/grandfathers who fought in the war who have since passed. This isn't just for WW2 veterans, often veterans of Afghanistan and Chechnya would also wear their uniforms to these events. But therein lies the problem. Russia is afraid that many Russian families will bring pictures of their sons, brothers, husbands lost in the war. And unlike grainy pictures of old men, these will be modern pictures of young, vital men, lost forever. They fear this could turn into a spontaneous anti-war protest, or at least foster the sentiment that a great many young Russians are dying and have died already. Hence, they have cancelled the parade nationwide. It is a sign of fear and weakness from the Russian government.

There has been some speculation that the drone attack was in fact some faction within Russia rather than a planned attempt by the government itself. Likely a pro-war group trying to whip up hostility. The main evidence for this is that the clips of the attack actually have not been prominently featured on Russian media, which would be very odd for a false flag attack. However, I would call that a distinction without a difference. It is still a false flag attack, whether it was authorized at the highest levels or not.

There are several reasons why a false flag is the most likely conclusion: 1. Russia has a history of false flag attacks. 2. The move makes no sense for Ukraine strategically. It is counterproductive and contrary to their conduct in the war thus far. 3. Nobody saw these drones until they appeared over Red Square? And then they just happen to be shot down directly over Kremlin, with a Russian flag flapping in the same frame? 4. The two drone attacks were ~ 20 minutes apart (as appears on the clock visible in video footage), and yet the second one was again able to penetrate Red Square? But there is no significant security presence as a result of the first attack. As the saying goes, "What Russian Air Defense Doing?" EDIT: Added 4th point.

It clearly isn't is an assassination attempt. Those tiny drones were never going to achieve anything, and Putin is rarely even in that building. Ukraine hasn't been wasting resources on symbolic targets, they use drone strikes on ships, oil depots, logistics hubs, etc. A strike like this has no military benefits. It is more likely to galvanize the Russian populace to continue fighting than to convince them that Russia needs to change its approach. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. By far the most likely thing is that this is a false flag operation. Declare that the Ukrainians are terrorists and whip up the population to sacrifice more young men.

I would agree that of the options available to democrats in 2028, Whitmer seems like a very strong choice, as well as Kelly and Warnock. The Democrats actually have a pretty strong bench of proven winners in swing states, something that the Republicans really lack (because they keep losing key senate/governor races).

As we've both said before, this war will be decided by the destruction and replacements of material, not men. The loser will be whichever side runs out of equipment or ammunition to the extent that they can no longer sustain an effective fighting force. That can be brought on in a variety of ways. Ukraine fears waning international support, whereas Russia/Putin fears economic meltdown, political unrest, and a gradual degradation of military/logistics capabilities such that the front collapses. Russia using prisoners as woefully ineffective soldiers helps keep the war going without much economic or political risks. Russia's theory of victory is basically that if they can not lose the war long enough, eventually they can freeze the conflict and win some real concessions from Ukraine. Russia's prison population is nowhere near that of the US, and they are basically out of prison volunteers. There are already reports of prisoners being forced (beaten, withheld food, etc) to sign up for Wagner. But those prisoners will be even worse soldiers than the ones who signed up in exchange for a pardon. And many, many prisoners are simply not fit to be infantrymen (too old, terrible health, etc). Pirogozhin's plan of extending the war via the blood of prisoners really only works if what Russia needs is low quality conscripts. Such troops are useful in some military contexts, but an active hinderance in others. For example, in the event of a Ukrainian breakthrough and Russian retreat, those men would probably prefer to surrender rather than retreat and could be as much a danger to Russian forces as Ukrainian.

Yes, plus Vanderbilt doing a credible job on the perimeter against Curry. Nobody shuts him down, but he at least made things challenging.

It is hard to make a non-biased assessment of Kamala Harris. I have seen many times IRL and online people criticize her for things that I've never seen other people get criticized for. There is definitely a segment, possibly a large segment, of the voting populace that does not want to give her the benefit of the doubt on anything. But that said, I have trouble making a strong argument FOR her either. I liked her when she announced in 2016 and was planning on voting for her before her campaign fizzled out. But what has she done as VP that I can point to? What skills does she posses that are particularly useful for either a candidate or a president? As someone who is relatively linked in to politics, I still don't have much of an answer here.