|
|
On March 04 2014 07:28 Caladan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:23 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 07:21 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:19 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:18 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:12 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:10 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:07 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:05 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 06:59 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
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! Why? Yushenko won the elections in 2004, then due to his poor performance and some other crap he got 7% in the next election. Unlike Russia, its possible for incumbent to be replaced. You're looking at it the wrong way. It is not about a single person. It is not about *who* is president. The spanish government was elected in a democratic way. That doesn't change the fact that Catalonia does not take orders from it. East and West Ukraine just are too polarized and different for a united future. Democracy cannot solve this. That's why federalism exists. But even federalism has limits, and the next step is secession. That is where we are heading at the moment. there is literally no evidence that this is the case in Ukraine. Just like when Eastern Party Presidents were in charge, the West of the country wasnt demanding independence. Are you serious??? :D What do you think exactly was the origin of the Maidan public riots? It was the refusal of eastern party's Yanukovich to sign a cooperation treaty with EU. That might have been the start, but it turned into a protest that was about much more than that, mainly about massive corruption. That's also why a significant part of the party of the regions defected from his side and voted him out of office. We have no idea how a vote on ukrainian independence would turn out, probably you'd see districts in crimea reject russian governance. Then what? So, why did Ukraine vote Yanukovich the 2nd time as president when we already had the orange revolution in 2004 because of vote corruption by... Yanukovich?
On March 04 2014 07:30 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:23 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 07:21 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:19 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:18 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:12 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:10 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:07 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:05 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 06:59 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
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! Why? Yushenko won the elections in 2004, then due to his poor performance and some other crap he got 7% in the next election. Unlike Russia, its possible for incumbent to be replaced. You're looking at it the wrong way. It is not about a single person. It is not about *who* is president. The spanish government was elected in a democratic way. That doesn't change the fact that Catalonia does not take orders from it. East and West Ukraine just are too polarized and different for a united future. Democracy cannot solve this. That's why federalism exists. But even federalism has limits, and the next step is secession. That is where we are heading at the moment. there is literally no evidence that this is the case in Ukraine. Just like when Eastern Party Presidents were in charge, the West of the country wasnt demanding independence. Are you serious??? :D What do you think exactly was the origin of the Maidan public riots? It was the refusal of eastern party's Yanukovich to sign a cooperation treaty with EU. That might have been the start, but it turned into a protest that was about much more than that, mainly about massive corruption. That's also why a significant part of the party of the regions defected from his side and voted him out of office. We have no idea how a vote on ukrainian independence would turn out, probably you'd see districts in crimea reject russian governance. Then what? You can judge its value yourself, but this was posted, though I am too bad at googling to source it: + Show Spoiler +
I'm not implying any new vote cannot be trusted, I'm saying that the reason yanukovich was ousted in the end was because he was corrupt and went too far in his crusade against civil rights and used unreasonable force against protesters. Yanukovich could have survived the original euromaidan, only when he cracked down he lost total control.
As for a new election, if its fair, you would expect (at the very least) to see a very large variance in the vote. From all the polling I've seen, like the one Saryph posted, even ethnic russians are not universally supportive of the bill. Considering the fact that there's several regions within the krimea where ethnic russians do not have a majority, it might not be unlikely that not even all of the crimea might be for secession.
|
On March 04 2014 07:47 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's not a military conflict though, he's right in that regard. For now, it's all politics.
|
On March 04 2014 07:14 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:13 m4ini wrote:
Am i the only one who wants a 1v1 between Putin and Klitschko? Man vs man? God that would be awesome. Winner takes it all. Well, since it wouldnt be a photoshop opportunity, Klistchko would just knock him out in a punch.
Putin is actually very small, he would be hard to hit for a giant like Klichko.
|
Apparently she ran off fast to get her speech posted:
|
On March 04 2014 07:49 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:14 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:13 m4ini wrote:
Am i the only one who wants a 1v1 between Putin and Klitschko? Man vs man? God that would be awesome. Winner takes it all. Well, since it wouldnt be a photoshop opportunity, Klistchko would just knock him out in a punch. Putin is actually very small, he would be hard to hit for a giant like Klichko.
Means also that putin would only be able to hit his chin, and that's made out of concrete and steel. He's called "Doctor Schmerz" for a reason in germany (Dr. Pain).
edit: Eisregen, check PM plz
|
On March 04 2014 07:47 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Can you stop bitching at someone who actually provides content to the topic at hand and just posted summaries for the entire UNSC council?
|
On March 04 2014 07:47 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:44 BronzeKnee wrote: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; ![[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_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.
Let's assume best case scenario, the west unites and uses massive resources to combat Russia. Only then would they be able to achieve air superiority, and that would be well into the ground conflict. It would take too much time for all the different countries of the west to organize for them to be able to actually achieve air superiority in the sense that Russian tanks cannot move in daylight on the ground.
By the time air superiority is achieved, Russia might be able to take all they want, which could be half of Ukraine. At that point, we need more than planes to kick em out, especially since we'll be flying into areas defended by anti-air on the ground.
|
On March 04 2014 07:48 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:47 BronzeKnee wrote: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. It's not a military conflict though, he's right in that regard. For now, it's all politics.
It isn't? The military isn't involved? Russian troops aren't in Ukraine?
While there isn't fighting currently taking place, Russia has openly told Ukrainian troops to leave Crimea or face a "storm."
Military weaponry is tied to this because the armies of two powerful countries are involved with this political situation!
On March 04 2014 07:50 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:47 BronzeKnee wrote: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. Can you stop bitching at someone who actually provides content to the topic at hand and just posted summaries for the entire UNSC council?
Only if he stops attacking me for posting too. This is a forum, a place to talk. He alone doesn't get to decide what is important, and I haven't criticized anything he has written up until I said that.
So let's leave each other alone. Deal? Done.
|
On March 04 2014 07:50 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:49 Cheerio wrote:On March 04 2014 07:14 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:13 m4ini wrote:
Am i the only one who wants a 1v1 between Putin and Klitschko? Man vs man? God that would be awesome. Winner takes it all. Well, since it wouldnt be a photoshop opportunity, Klistchko would just knock him out in a punch. Putin is actually very small, he would be hard to hit for a giant like Klichko. Means also that putin would only be able to hit his chin, and that's made out of concrete and steel. He's called "Doctor Schmerz" for a reason in germany (Dr. Pain). edit: Eisregen, check PM plz
I thought it was because of his addiction to plastic surgery?
|
On March 04 2014 07:55 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:50 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 07:49 Cheerio wrote:On March 04 2014 07:14 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:13 m4ini wrote:
Am i the only one who wants a 1v1 between Putin and Klitschko? Man vs man? God that would be awesome. Winner takes it all. Well, since it wouldnt be a photoshop opportunity, Klistchko would just knock him out in a punch. Putin is actually very small, he would be hard to hit for a giant like Klichko. Means also that putin would only be able to hit his chin, and that's made out of concrete and steel. He's called "Doctor Schmerz" for a reason in germany (Dr. Pain). edit: Eisregen, check PM plz I thought it was because of his addiction to plastic surgery?
Huh?
|
Sorry I went away for a few but is the Security Council meeting done or just in break?
|
On March 04 2014 07:57 Housemd wrote:
Sorry I went away for a few but is the Security Council meeting done or just in break?
Done, recaps are done by Ghanburighan.
|
On March 04 2014 03:41 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 03:28 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 03:26 Alzadar wrote:On March 04 2014 03:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 04 2014 03:16 Saumure wrote:
lol, do you really think Russia would invade Poland or something?
The Polish military seems to think so. Or at least preparing for the possibility. Perhaps you know something they don't know? Pretty standard for militaries to prepare for things that pretty certainly won't happen. Not so much if we're talking relocation to the borders, they didn't just "alert" the troops, which indeed happens on occasion. Poland fought with Russia over Ukraine in the past.
And we backstabbed them in the back while they were by taking some of their land. Maybe we should prepare again, I would like to have Tatras in the country again 
|
On March 04 2014 07:56 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:55 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:50 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 07:49 Cheerio wrote:On March 04 2014 07:14 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:13 m4ini wrote:
Am i the only one who wants a 1v1 between Putin and Klitschko? Man vs man? God that would be awesome. Winner takes it all. Well, since it wouldnt be a photoshop opportunity, Klistchko would just knock him out in a punch. Putin is actually very small, he would be hard to hit for a giant like Klichko. Means also that putin would only be able to hit his chin, and that's made out of concrete and steel. He's called "Doctor Schmerz" for a reason in germany (Dr. Pain). edit: Eisregen, check PM plz I thought it was because of his addiction to plastic surgery? Huh?
Sorry, I misunderstood. Klitschko is Dr. Pain. I thought that was Putin's nickname.
|
"It is not a false letter, it is a false president!" said by the french UN representative when asked about the letter from Yanukovych!
|
On March 04 2014 07:58 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:56 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 07:55 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:50 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 07:49 Cheerio wrote:On March 04 2014 07:14 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:13 m4ini wrote:
Am i the only one who wants a 1v1 between Putin and Klitschko? Man vs man? God that would be awesome. Winner takes it all. Well, since it wouldnt be a photoshop opportunity, Klistchko would just knock him out in a punch. Putin is actually very small, he would be hard to hit for a giant like Klichko. Means also that putin would only be able to hit his chin, and that's made out of concrete and steel. He's called "Doctor Schmerz" for a reason in germany (Dr. Pain). edit: Eisregen, check PM plz I thought it was because of his addiction to plastic surgery? Huh? Sorry, I misunderstood. Klitschko is Dr. Pain. I thought that was Putin's nickname.
Nah, Klitschkos, next to "Dr. Ironfist".
|
On March 04 2014 03:43 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 03:40 Saumure wrote:On March 04 2014 03:20 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 03:16 Saumure wrote:lol, do you really think Russia would invade Poland or something? Putin blocked the invasion of Syria (and what would have followed) and nobody finds it strange that another riot escalates next to russia immediatly after that? Its all a Western plot, I knew it. Democracy always has such a dirty Western bias and must be prevented at all costs. Please, tell me more about how you brought democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia. How about Poland, Czehia, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia instead? Show nested quote +
And tell me how is democracy working out for you? Every x years (don't know where you live), you get the chance to vote for one out of two parties. Both will do basically the same thing, except for a couple of unimportant issues. You really don't get a say about anyting.
And however shitty it is, its still better than the one party, one tsar state built by Russians.
Oh, now I understand Rubio's words, already history is being rewritten and we were given democracy by the West. We were just standing there not knowing what to do and good guys came and taught us democracy, because we never knew such a thing.
|
On March 04 2014 07:53 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:48 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 07:47 BronzeKnee wrote: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. It's not a military conflict though, he's right in that regard. For now, it's all politics. It isn't? The military isn't involved? Russian troops aren't in Ukraine? While there isn't fighting currently taking place, Russia has openly told Ukrainian troops to leave Crimea or face a "storm." Military weaponry is tied to this because the armies of two powerful countries are involved with this political situation! Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:50 r.Evo wrote:On March 04 2014 07:47 BronzeKnee wrote: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. Can you stop bitching at someone who actually provides content to the topic at hand and just posted summaries for the entire UNSC council? Only if he stops attacking me for posting too. This is a forum, a place to talk. He alone doesn't get to decide what is important, and I haven't criticized anything he has written up until I said that. So let's leave each other alone. Deal? Done.
I'm so confused. You, BronzeKnee, who spoke so dearly of this being the start of a new great war, compairing it to the times before WW2 think that this is a military conflict? Are you to say that when Chamberlain backed down some 80 years ago he was in a military conflict? You have to be consistent here. For now it is all political postering. Yes, it could turn in to a very real conflict, but just like the cold war wasn't a hot war, this isn't a hot war. Rather it's a war of opinions and standings. Russia is hoping to gain, both Crimea and geopolitical power. The west wants the status quo.
But please, continue. You're highly amusing.
|
As the Italian blogger Alberto Nardelli and the Reuters Rome correspondent Naomi O’Leary report on Twitter, Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia party suggested a way out of the crisis in Ukraine on Monday: send Italy’s former prime minister to Moscow to negotiate a deal with his old friend Vladimir V. Putin. Forza Italia have called on #Italy’s PM Matteo Renzi to send Silvio Berlusconi to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin. — Alberto Nardelli (@AlbertoNardelli) 3 Mar 14 Forza Italia party newspaper demands leader Silvio Berlusconi be sent to negotiate with Putin http://t.co/Oh4FEsTERh— Naomi O’Leary (@NaomiOhReally) 3 Mar 14
|
On March 04 2014 07:52 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:47 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 07:44 BronzeKnee wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Let's assume best case scenario, the west unites and uses massive resources to combat Russia. Only then would they be able to achieve air superiority, and that would be well into the ground conflict. It would take too much time for all the different countries of the west to organize for them to be able to actually achieve air superiority in the sense that Russian tanks cannot move in daylight on the ground. By the time air superiority is achieved, Russia might be able to take all they want, which could be half of Ukraine. At that point, we need more than planes to kick em out, especially since we'll be flying into areas defended by anti-air on the ground.
NATO strategy was never to win a short term conflict, even with the USSR. It allows allowed the russians to gain ground and for the NATO nations to mobilize, because without the US the advantage is lost. It called for inflicting maximum losses on retreat while maintaining air superiority. You can debate how successful that would have been, but pretty much since the history of every war ever, the nation (or group of nations) with the superior economy win out. The idea that a nation 16 times smaller than another group of nations in terms of production and 6 times smaller in population could ever win out in a 'total war' is insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
