|
|
US ambassador ran pretty fucking fast out of that room. =P
|
Well, this meeting was .. err... educational. I almost felt sorry for the Russian amb... Almost.
|
On March 04 2014 07:34 r.Evo wrote:
US ambassador ran pretty fucking fast out of that room. =P
toilet, hungry cold. female problems ^^
Nah, guess she is making a quick call, reporting
|
Break or finished? Went for a cigarette, missed the end.
|
On March 04 2014 07:35 Ghanburighan wrote:
Well, this meeting was .. err... educational. I almost felt sorry for the Russian amb... Almost.
I just came back, seems like I missed it completely.
Can anybody give me a TLDNR?
|
On March 04 2014 07:35 Ghanburighan wrote:
Well, this meeting was .. err... educational. I almost felt sorry for the Russian amb... Almost.
I would have really, really appreciated a translator that's more on the ball for both parties making statements in Russian.
|
On March 04 2014 07:36 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:35 Ghanburighan wrote:
Well, this meeting was .. err... educational. I almost felt sorry for the Russian amb... Almost. I just came back, seems like I missed it completely. Can anybody give me a TLDNR?
West calls Russia delusional, Russia calls west uninformed and nothing got really done. Everyone condemned what Russia is doing, Russia is claiming to be the biggest humanitarian contributor ever.
This kinda sums it up:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 04 2014 07:36 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:35 Ghanburighan wrote:
Well, this meeting was .. err... educational. I almost felt sorry for the Russian amb... Almost. I just came back, seems like I missed it completely. Can anybody give me a TLDNR?
the Estonian guy has been doing solid summaries.
|
On March 04 2014 07:32 Caladan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:29 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
If the US wasn't in a war every other year, our military production would probably be a lot less Best sentence in this thread when trying to understand real politics. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
EDIT: Initially misinterpreted your post as sarcasm and was confused with what point you were trying to make. Sorry.
|
On March 04 2014 07:36 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:35 Ghanburighan wrote:
Well, this meeting was .. err... educational. I almost felt sorry for the Russian amb... Almost. I just came back, seems like I missed it completely. Can anybody give me a TLDNR?
Everyone country except for Russia expressed concern and recommended a diplomatic solution. Even China blamed both the protestors for violence and Russia for the breach of territorial integrity.
Russia produced a letter from Yanukovich asking for Russian intervention. Everyone else said Yanukovich is impeached, and even if he were not, the Rada would need to vote on foreign troops entering, which it has not.
UK asked if Russia accepts an OSCE mission. Russia refused to answer.
|
On March 04 2014 07:09 nunez wrote:
this translator is killing esports.
he's lucky this is not being streamed on twitch.
I think it was.
|
There is actually some guy ivan rodlonov (belonging to a german daughter of the russia today media) talking on german TV atm (ZDF) and stating the normal pro russian media crap. that is hilarious.
Nobody does complain about american and british troops in germany! All those russian soldiers were already there! lololol
|
On March 04 2014 07:42 Eisregen wrote:
There is actually some guy ivan rodlonov talking on german TV atm (ZDF) and stating the normal pro russian media crap. that is hilarious.
Dont laugh too hard. If you laugh too hard his feelings will be hurt. And as everyone knows Fascists who hurt Russians feelings will be stopped by Czar Putin, the greatest humanitarian of the russian race.
|
On March 04 2014 07:42 Eisregen wrote:
There is actually some guy ivan rodlonov talking on german TV atm (ZDF) and stating the normal pro russian media crap. that is hilarious.
Can't access the livestream 
|
On March 04 2014 07:10 Caladan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:07 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:05 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 06:59 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 06:56 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 06:50 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 06:42 Caladan wrote:This whole topic is really formal politics vs real politics. Most treaties are not the paper worth they are printed at. Also this "memorandum". The behaviour of Russia is not really surprising. It would never just watch Ukraine becoming a NATO or even EU state, as most Russians and many Ukraines see themselves as "brother states", and just recently became two different states, having a common origin. In fact the origin of Russian culture lies in today's Ukraine. So all the western politicians are not really honest if they act as they would be surprised by Russia's actions. It was really foreseeable. And honestly, I don't think Ukraine in its current form has any future. The pro-western and anti-western groups just won't find any compromise to live in one state. The only reasonable solution in my opinion is for eastern Ukraine to separate itself and become associated or part of Russia, and for western and mid Ukraine to become part of EU and NATO. So everyone is happy. It is also important to notice that borders are nothing that God gave to us (if there is any  ), borders are results of actual politics and history. Borders can and will change in the future, if there is motivation to do so. And the two interest groups in Ukraine will not be able to live in one state, I'm pretty sure of this. Btw, I have a M.A. in politics. If you have a M.A. in politics you should know that the only way the ukraine splits is a democratic way, if anything. There's examples in the real world that show what happens otherwise. History shows that border shifts happen only very rare in a democratic way. That's what I ment to say: Formal politics vs real politics. Formally Ukraine is (somewhat) democratic, has souvereign borders, etc. What is really happening is something very different though. The elected president is not even in office anymore. We more or less have a de-facto government (regime) in Ukraine at the moment. Also de-facto Crimea is separating itself (with help/pressure from Russia). In a perfect world things would be different, but this is politics, this is not perfect, not formal. It is a battle of powers and incentives. More so international politics as there is no real superior power/legislation/court. International politics are anarchy and public international law is just obligatory. The only reasonable solution in my opinion is for eastern Ukraine to separate itself and become associated or part of Russia, and for western and mid Ukraine to become part of EU and NATO. So everyone is happy. That's your point that i was commenting on. It would be only reasonable if you get them to vote for it. By force, you set the stage for another country spawning terrorists. Yeah, I'm not saying this is a just solution, but it is the only non-war solution I can see. Another question for you then: Was the current de-facto government of Ukraine elected by the majority in Ukraine in general elections? Or was it set into force by the ones on Maidan, being loud, setting things on fire? It's the same now. At the moment, people in east Ukraine are occupying government facilities. Politics is mostly made by those who are being loud and acting up, not the ones being silent and waiting in their houses to be asked for elections. That's why direct democracy is a very rare thing. Well one way to find out would be for elections in May. Yeah, but if Tymoshenko gets 60% votes in whole Ukraine, but 90% in western Ukraine and 20% in eastern Ukraine, this will solve exactly *nothing*. Please try to think out of the box. We're having the same fight east vs west in Ukraine for 10 years now. It's time for a solution!
And by a solution you mean a civil war or Russian occupation?
|
On March 04 2014 07:29 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 03:06 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 02:42 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 04 2014 02:38 farvacola wrote:On March 04 2014 02:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 04 2014 01:17 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 01:06 Pandemona wrote:If shit really does hit the fan and war or attacks do happen. The only way EU and America can battle with the Russian's is economically imo. There is no way American can afford a large scale war now and no one in Europe is even remotely equipped with the right numbers of military personal or funds to even help out. Putin is one crazy bastard and has got his own way again by the looks of it. Just to put it in terms of army sizes as well; ![[image loading]](http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/3/3/293322/default/v1/online-military-strength-1-522x293.jpg) My brother who has recently left the army said they aren't even classified as an "army" anymore as they do not have the numbers to call themselves one. The UK army Is classified as a "defense force" as it has less than 100,000 people in it. Also no reserves as UK again doesn't do military training etcetc. Also we don't have a working Air craft carrier so we are pretty much fucked and no use to anyone, unless you want to stop off and re fuel at extraordinary prices or have a cup of tea? I have no idea why people perceive Russia's military to be that strong. They spend a fraction of what the west spends, conflicts they've been in have shown massive weaknesses and most of their equipment is rather outdated to the point where they have to import weapon systems. The economy in the EU/US might not be great at the moment, but neither is Russia's. The russian central bank has already spent an estimated 10% of their foreign currency reserves on stabilizing the ruble, and the collapse of gas imports to Europe would completely cripple them. The Russian economy won't survive any type of real conflict. It's just that Putin is a better bluffer at this point and that NATO consists of a set of leaders that are exceptionally weak. On March 04 2014 01:20 Pandemona wrote:On March 04 2014 01:17 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 01:06 Pandemona wrote:If shit really does hit the fan and war or attacks do happen. The only way EU and America can battle with the Russian's is economically imo. There is no way American can afford a large scale war now and no one in Europe is even remotely equipped with the right numbers of military personal or funds to even help out. Putin is one crazy bastard and has got his own way again by the looks of it. Just to put it in terms of army sizes as well; My brother who has recently left the army said they aren't even classified as an "army" anymore as they do not have the numbers to call themselves one. The UK army Is classified as a "defense force" as it has less than 100,000 people in it. Also no reserves as UK again doesn't do military training etcetc. Also we don't have a working Air craft carrier so we are pretty much fucked and no use to anyone, unless you want to stop off and re fuel at extraordinary prices or have a cup of tea? I have no idea why people perceive Russia's military to be that strong. They spend a fraction of what the west spends, conflicts they've been in have shown massive weaknesses and most of their equipment is rather outdated to the point where they have to import weapon systems. The economy in the EU/US might not be great at the moment, but neither is Russia's. The russian central bank has already spent an estimated 10% of their foreign currency reserves on stabilizing the ruble, and the collapse of gas imports to Europe would completely cripple them. The Russian economy won't survive any type of real conflict. It's just that Putin is a better bluffer at this point and that NATO consists of a set of leaders that are exceptionally weak. Completely agree, but they still have the numbers, even if outdated and old they can still do crazy damage with what they have. I think the best way like you mentioned is to just cripple their economy. They have dropped 10% this morning already? Actually, it's outdated only to the degree that they decided to use mothballed tanks and aircraft (ie. things that weren't even in service) and a reserve division in the 5-day war with Georgia because it literally required no effort militarily. T-62/64s were the brunt of the Russian AFVs used. Apparently iirc a few T-90s were deployed and it was complete overkill and the tanks were untouchable. That's just heavy armor btw. The hilarious illusion of "outdated weapons" comes from the fact that Russia never sells their actual weapons. They sell export variants also known as "monkey models" that are so incredibly watered down that the only likeness between what they sell and what they use themselves is appearance. Militarily, a country like Ukraine will be a rout. Numbers are irrelevant, also. @Pandemona, You're also conveniently forgetting that what Ukraine has is far inferior to what Russia has. Post a source please. I'm not sure if you're trying to be a sarcastic dude or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_variants_of_Soviet_military_equipmentIt's surprising how few people who love to bash Russia but don't know nothing about one of the things they're most known for: their large-scale military exports. USSR/Russia has things they use in their own military. If they want to sell them, they'll develop export variants that are a lot cheaper and a lot more inferior. As I recall, the development of such variants came out of the motivation to have highly and easily produced variants in case of nuclear war where heavier development would be far more difficult due to the destruction of facilities manufacturing highly-advanced models starting in the post-WW2 era. It built into the Soviets' budding military export scheme, and also served the motivation of protecting their technology from insecure third world countries that could easily have it secured/taken by other countries. This is something I knew ever since I learned anything about Russian military tech and it was put straight in front of me. It's no secret, quite the opposite if anything. You know, you can use google yourself, too Which might all be true but it doesn't change the fact that while the russians have some newer tanks, their equipment is still 70-80% last generation gear. They drive around maybe 500 t-90's on an active tank fleet of maybe 2.7k, the rest being t-72's or worse. When it comes to their air assets the situation gets even worse, and that's not even taking into consideration that they have always been technologically behind on the west. Place a 4th gen western fighter vs a 4th gen russian fighter and I know where I'm putting my money. After that, you get basic concerns of professionalism, unit cohesion and conscription and you end up with an army that seems pretty damn large but is operationally not all that capable. 2008 showed that pretty clearly. To preface, your post shows a lot of ignorance here, and you're also insulting the US military very much too. You see, those things thatwere originally created in old days, most of it is constantly upgraded, and that includes the United States and other militaries. Even Russia's T-72s are upgraded to modern status and are more than likely more than a match for any other armor in the world. I'm more of a tank junkie than anything else so that's what I focus on. Their other AFVs are also pretty new or highly upgraded previous models. To say, "This thing was originally developed 30 years ago, therefore it's bad" is among the most ignorant comments you can make when speaking of militaries, and that includes the US military. 70-80% of our stuff is originally from the dinosaur era. The only reason why we still use it is because we upgrade it so that it's competent today. If you read my previous post to which I replied with the one you're quoting, a big chunk of the Russian force in that war used mothballed vehicles and an underequipped reserve division iirc (because this is how reserves tend to be anywhere you go) to fight the war in 2008. Do you know what this means? They were using things that are not in service at all and were not outfitted like standard Russian forces. Things that were largely put in storage.. Russia isn't going to make a large-scale mobilization for a conflict that they probably could have fought with angry Chechen terrorists lol (slight exaggeration but I think you get the point). It was quite literally the easiest military conflict in Russian history. Ancient Russian weapons that haven't seen the light of day in active service for ages such as the T-62 and even the T-55 (which was made in 1948 HAHA!) magically showed their faces. The fact of the matter is, the Georgian military was so small and weak that it took no effort from the Russians to take care of business. Once Saakashvili surrendered, that was that. However, if the Russians were to face a foe with any degree of military competence, expect completely outfitted divisions and their top-of-the-line weapons to be seen, and nothing else. Your logic is also bad because you're insulting the US military in very many facets because the same goes for the United States as previously stated. For example, the F-15 is a very old plane. The original F-15 is garbage by today's standards. But obviously, the F-15 has been constantly updated, so that barring 5th generation planes, the most modernized variant of the F-15 in USAF service is probably the most competent fighter plane out there. Russia doesn't need huge numbers of T-90s, though a few years ago I saw figures of 1000+. It's changed a lot over the past 6 years I've been observing it and I have no idea why. But regardless, their T-72s upgraded are practically as good, their T-80s are practically as good, so why waste unnecessary money? Russia isn't a highly offensive focused military like say the United States is, or some European countries used to be when they had militaries to speak of. If the US wasn't in a war every other year, our military production would probably be a lot less, among other reasons.
Wow someone else is who actually understand military weaponry!
The T-72 is an excellent battle tank, and Russia has thousands of them. The ones we saw fail so badly in Iraq and other threatres were watered down export variants. Obviously Russia doesn't send it's best equipment overseas for fear of facing it in the future, or having it reverse-engineers. The United States gave the new Iraqi government many M1 Abrams battles tanks, but watered them down also, so we should not judge the performance of any tank based on export variants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_variants_of_Soviet_military_equipment
However, the T-72 isn't all they have. The T-80 and T-90 are modern tanks that are essentially equivalent to the Abrams, Challenger, Leopard II, Leclerc and Merkava battle tanks.
Russian equipment on the ground is essentially equivalent to that of the west, and their huge advantage is local superiority. If western Europe or the US was to defend Ukraine which has been invaded, then it would be a massive logistical nightmare to assemble a force that could compete with the Russians forces on the ground. Militarily, Ukraine's military is the best hope of Ukraine not losing Crimea and that is a long shot. In the air, the west and Ukraine would have an advantage, but Russia does not lack fighters nor anti-air weaponry so this would not be Iraq all over again. A lot of planes would get shot down.
Putin holds almost all the cards here and unless he retreats (which seems unlikely) and if Ukraine doesn't willing give up Crimea, there could be an open war.
|
On March 04 2014 07:43 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:42 Eisregen wrote:
There is actually some guy ivan rodlonov talking on german TV atm (ZDF) and stating the normal pro russian media crap. that is hilarious. Dont laugh too hard. If you laugh too hard his feelings will be hurt. And as everyone knows Fascists who hurt Russians feelings will be stopped by Czar Putin, the greatest humanitarian of the russian race.
That dude was hilarious and I think he really meant what he said there...which makes me a bit sad...
|
Please take the talk on military weaponry to some other thread.
|
On March 04 2014 07:44 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:29 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 04 2014 03:06 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 02:42 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 04 2014 02:38 farvacola wrote:On March 04 2014 02:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 04 2014 01:17 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 01:06 Pandemona wrote:If shit really does hit the fan and war or attacks do happen. The only way EU and America can battle with the Russian's is economically imo. There is no way American can afford a large scale war now and no one in Europe is even remotely equipped with the right numbers of military personal or funds to even help out. Putin is one crazy bastard and has got his own way again by the looks of it. Just to put it in terms of army sizes as well; My brother who has recently left the army said they aren't even classified as an "army" anymore as they do not have the numbers to call themselves one. The UK army Is classified as a "defense force" as it has less than 100,000 people in it. Also no reserves as UK again doesn't do military training etcetc. Also we don't have a working Air craft carrier so we are pretty much fucked and no use to anyone, unless you want to stop off and re fuel at extraordinary prices or have a cup of tea? I have no idea why people perceive Russia's military to be that strong. They spend a fraction of what the west spends, conflicts they've been in have shown massive weaknesses and most of their equipment is rather outdated to the point where they have to import weapon systems. The economy in the EU/US might not be great at the moment, but neither is Russia's. The russian central bank has already spent an estimated 10% of their foreign currency reserves on stabilizing the ruble, and the collapse of gas imports to Europe would completely cripple them. The Russian economy won't survive any type of real conflict. It's just that Putin is a better bluffer at this point and that NATO consists of a set of leaders that are exceptionally weak. On March 04 2014 01:20 Pandemona wrote:On March 04 2014 01:17 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 01:06 Pandemona wrote:If shit really does hit the fan and war or attacks do happen. The only way EU and America can battle with the Russian's is economically imo. There is no way American can afford a large scale war now and no one in Europe is even remotely equipped with the right numbers of military personal or funds to even help out. Putin is one crazy bastard and has got his own way again by the looks of it. Just to put it in terms of army sizes as well; My brother who has recently left the army said they aren't even classified as an "army" anymore as they do not have the numbers to call themselves one. The UK army Is classified as a "defense force" as it has less than 100,000 people in it. Also no reserves as UK again doesn't do military training etcetc. Also we don't have a working Air craft carrier so we are pretty much fucked and no use to anyone, unless you want to stop off and re fuel at extraordinary prices or have a cup of tea? I have no idea why people perceive Russia's military to be that strong. They spend a fraction of what the west spends, conflicts they've been in have shown massive weaknesses and most of their equipment is rather outdated to the point where they have to import weapon systems. The economy in the EU/US might not be great at the moment, but neither is Russia's. The russian central bank has already spent an estimated 10% of their foreign currency reserves on stabilizing the ruble, and the collapse of gas imports to Europe would completely cripple them. The Russian economy won't survive any type of real conflict. It's just that Putin is a better bluffer at this point and that NATO consists of a set of leaders that are exceptionally weak. Completely agree, but they still have the numbers, even if outdated and old they can still do crazy damage with what they have. I think the best way like you mentioned is to just cripple their economy. They have dropped 10% this morning already? Actually, it's outdated only to the degree that they decided to use mothballed tanks and aircraft (ie. things that weren't even in service) and a reserve division in the 5-day war with Georgia because it literally required no effort militarily. T-62/64s were the brunt of the Russian AFVs used. Apparently iirc a few T-90s were deployed and it was complete overkill and the tanks were untouchable. That's just heavy armor btw. The hilarious illusion of "outdated weapons" comes from the fact that Russia never sells their actual weapons. They sell export variants also known as "monkey models" that are so incredibly watered down that the only likeness between what they sell and what they use themselves is appearance. Militarily, a country like Ukraine will be a rout. Numbers are irrelevant, also. @Pandemona, You're also conveniently forgetting that what Ukraine has is far inferior to what Russia has. Post a source please. I'm not sure if you're trying to be a sarcastic dude or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_variants_of_Soviet_military_equipmentIt's surprising how few people who love to bash Russia but don't know nothing about one of the things they're most known for: their large-scale military exports. USSR/Russia has things they use in their own military. If they want to sell them, they'll develop export variants that are a lot cheaper and a lot more inferior. As I recall, the development of such variants came out of the motivation to have highly and easily produced variants in case of nuclear war where heavier development would be far more difficult due to the destruction of facilities manufacturing highly-advanced models starting in the post-WW2 era. It built into the Soviets' budding military export scheme, and also served the motivation of protecting their technology from insecure third world countries that could easily have it secured/taken by other countries. This is something I knew ever since I learned anything about Russian military tech and it was put straight in front of me. It's no secret, quite the opposite if anything. You know, you can use google yourself, too Which might all be true but it doesn't change the fact that while the russians have some newer tanks, their equipment is still 70-80% last generation gear. They drive around maybe 500 t-90's on an active tank fleet of maybe 2.7k, the rest being t-72's or worse. When it comes to their air assets the situation gets even worse, and that's not even taking into consideration that they have always been technologically behind on the west. Place a 4th gen western fighter vs a 4th gen russian fighter and I know where I'm putting my money. After that, you get basic concerns of professionalism, unit cohesion and conscription and you end up with an army that seems pretty damn large but is operationally not all that capable. 2008 showed that pretty clearly. To preface, your post shows a lot of ignorance here, and you're also insulting the US military very much too. You see, those things thatwere originally created in old days, most of it is constantly upgraded, and that includes the United States and other militaries. Even Russia's T-72s are upgraded to modern status and are more than likely more than a match for any other armor in the world. I'm more of a tank junkie than anything else so that's what I focus on. Their other AFVs are also pretty new or highly upgraded previous models. To say, "This thing was originally developed 30 years ago, therefore it's bad" is among the most ignorant comments you can make when speaking of militaries, and that includes the US military. 70-80% of our stuff is originally from the dinosaur era. The only reason why we still use it is because we upgrade it so that it's competent today. If you read my previous post to which I replied with the one you're quoting, a big chunk of the Russian force in that war used mothballed vehicles and an underequipped reserve division iirc (because this is how reserves tend to be anywhere you go) to fight the war in 2008. Do you know what this means? They were using things that are not in service at all and were not outfitted like standard Russian forces. Things that were largely put in storage.. Russia isn't going to make a large-scale mobilization for a conflict that they probably could have fought with angry Chechen terrorists lol (slight exaggeration but I think you get the point). It was quite literally the easiest military conflict in Russian history. Ancient Russian weapons that haven't seen the light of day in active service for ages such as the T-62 and even the T-55 (which was made in 1948 HAHA!) magically showed their faces. The fact of the matter is, the Georgian military was so small and weak that it took no effort from the Russians to take care of business. Once Saakashvili surrendered, that was that. However, if the Russians were to face a foe with any degree of military competence, expect completely outfitted divisions and their top-of-the-line weapons to be seen, and nothing else. Your logic is also bad because you're insulting the US military in very many facets because the same goes for the United States as previously stated. For example, the F-15 is a very old plane. The original F-15 is garbage by today's standards. But obviously, the F-15 has been constantly updated, so that barring 5th generation planes, the most modernized variant of the F-15 in USAF service is probably the most competent fighter plane out there. Russia doesn't need huge numbers of T-90s, though a few years ago I saw figures of 1000+. It's changed a lot over the past 6 years I've been observing it and I have no idea why. But regardless, their T-72s upgraded are practically as good, their T-80s are practically as good, so why waste unnecessary money? Russia isn't a highly offensive focused military like say the United States is, or some European countries used to be when they had militaries to speak of. If the US wasn't in a war every other year, our military production would probably be a lot less, among other reasons. Wow someone else is who actually understand military weaponry! The T-72 is an excellent battle tank, and Russia has thousands of them. The ones we saw fail so badly in Iraq and other threatres were watered down export variants. Obviously Russia doesn't send it's best equipment overseas for fear of facing it in the future, or having it reverse-engineers. The United States gave the new Iraqi government many M1 Abrams battles tanks, but watered them down also, so we should not judge the performance of any tank based on export variants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_variants_of_Soviet_military_equipmentHowever, the T-72 isn't all they have. The T-80 and T-90 are modern tanks that are essentially equivalent to the Abrams, Challenger, Leopard II and Leclerc battle tanks. Russian equipment on the ground is essentially equivalent to that of the west, and their huge advantage is local superiority. If western Europe or the US was to defend Ukraine which has been invaded, then it would be a massive logistical nightmare to assemble a force that could compete with the Russians forces on the ground. Militarily, Ukraine's military is the best hope of Ukraine not losing Crimea and that is a long shot. Putin holds almost all the cards here and if he retreat (which seems unlikely) and if Ukraine doesn't willing give up Crimea, there could be an open war.
A ground invasion would be relatively easy to hold. While i agree that russian tanks are at least capable (btw, it was less the monkey tank than more the monkeys using it for failing so miserably), for an invasion, they're not equipped. The russian airforce would not be able to get air superiority over a country other than theirs, which means all the dreams of mighty russian tanks will go poof.
|
On March 04 2014 07:46 Ghanburighan wrote:
Please take the talk on military weaponry to some other thread.
Yes, because discussing military weaponry has nothing to do with a military conflict.
All I've seen you do is sit here and call people out for speaking out about things you don't want to talk about it. You're posts are terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
