Ukraine-in-a-thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Tyranny is not synonymous with bad rule in the Classical sense, that connotation was added by medieval Christian philosophers. In fact, suspension of the Constitution makes them *not* Tyrants - had they kept the Constitution in place and done everything else, then they would be like Tyrants.

---

It was equated with bad-ish governance by the Greeks. Not wholly rotten but dangerous and unpredictable. In fact one of the main definitions of Tyrant (all the way back to the Greeks) is a populist absolute ruler. Who operates without laws to guide or restrain his actions. Who uses thuggery to maintain his power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Debatable - while Putin has not used violence to remain in power - any impartial reading of the Russian Constitution would make is clear he's not meant to be in charge now.

---

Which apparently you haven't read. The term limits on the president are 2 successive terms, NOT 2 terms total. Putin has followed the exact letter of the Russian constitution. He can be elected President 2 times in a row as many times as it please him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Which apparently you haven't read. The term limits on the president are 2 successive terms, NOT 2 terms total. Putin has followed the exact letter of the Russian constitution. He can be elected President 2 times in a row as many times as it please him.

---

Letter legal, spirit breaking. Term limits are there to prevent people from sitting too long, not for their buddy to take the post temporarly to keep the letter of the law. It's not like term limits are essential for a democracy to work. Tage Erlander was prime minister for 23 years, and we often have had people sitting more than two terms.

I suspect that total term limits weren't added because if you have a proper opposition, then they can take power, breaking up terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

It was equated with bad-ish governance by the Greeks. Not wholly rotten but dangerous and unpredictable. In fact one of the main definitions of Tyrant (all the way back to the Greeks) is a populist absolute ruler. Who operates without laws to guide or restrain his actions. Who uses thuggery to maintain his power.

---

A ruler without law was a despot, not a tyrant.

And the Tyrants of Syracuse weren't considered bad rulers, or even illegitimate rulers, even though tyrants on the greek mainland were routinely toppled by Athens and Sparta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Letter legal, spirit breaking. Term limits are there to prevent people from sitting too long, not for their buddy to take the post temporarly to keep the letter of the law. It's not like term limits are essential for a democracy to work. Tage Erlander was prime minister for 23 years, and we often have had people sitting more than two terms.

I suspect that total term limits weren't added because if you have a proper opposition, then they can take power, breaking up terms.

---

No. If the idea was to set a limit on overall number presidential mandates the same person could have, the word "consecutive" wouldn't have been used at all. The fact that it was used clearly shows that the lawmakers' intention was to set limit on consecutive, not total number of terms. We can argue whether it's a good thing, but the wording and the meaning is clear and unambiguous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

A ruler without law was a despot, not a tyrant.

And the Tyrants of Syracuse weren't considered bad rulers, or even illegitimate rulers, even though tyrants on the greek mainland were routinely toppled by Athens and Sparta.

---

The word "Despot" just means "Lord" like the Latin Dominus.

Have some Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despot_(court_title)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

No. If the idea was to set a limit on overall number presidential mandates the same person could have, the word "consecutive" wouldn't have been used at all. The fact that it was used clearly shows that the lawmakers' intention was to set limit on consecutive, not total number of terms. We can argue whether it's a good thing, but the wording and the meaning is clear and unambiguous.

---

Well - it could be an oversight - more negligent things have been written into law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The word "Despot" just means "Lord" like the Latin Dominus.

Have some Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despot_(court_title)

---

Yes, it meant "lord".

At one point in history, in one given context. ~;)

In the context we have here, though, Despot was the term used by the greeks to describe the strongmen ruling in Asia, who did not have laws the ruler had to adhere to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=-bLHGZwQ_5w

Also, can a swede translate this:

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/sa...ge_3442778.svd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-bLHGZwQ_5w

---

Tough target with all that sloping. Probably can get pen on the cupola below the observation device and/or the driver slit though those are both pretty thin targets. I'd really look for him going up slope and take a try at that large lower front glacis -- angled or not it would be my best

er, this isn't the Arena is it. Ooops, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

Also, can a swede translate this:

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/sa...ge_3442778.svd

---

Sweden fears Russia will pwn their neutral behinds, and recommends building up the army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Sweden fears Russia will pwn their neutral behinds, and recommends building up the army.

---

I'm sure Putin can find within Swedish borders a few Russians in dire need of protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

Also, can a swede translate this:

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/sa...ge_3442778.svd

---

Russia has bought in maps, in particular on sensitive strategical areas and made a few bombing drills with explicit Swedish targets. They've also increased their espionage towards Sweden. Combined with your current situation, Russia got upgraded to being an invasive threat.

All military cooperation with Russia has gotten suspended or canceled and they recommend strengthening the defense (or to be exact, getting the now all volonteer army up to supposed numbers).

"home of the milk drinking surrender goats." No no no no. That is clearly a sweedisation of the "cheese eaters surrendering monkeys". Too easy, find something else.

"Russia has bought in maps" Their satellites are broken?

Yes, who could have a use for up-to-date maps. I am sure every Russian infantryman carries his own satellite display today, with a flashing dot to tell him where he is.

Naturally, noting could possibly interfere with the links…

In other news, Seychelles parliament also expressed concern about potential Russian invasion

“I am sure every Russian infantryman carries his own satellite display today” Oh, so the Russian Infantryman needs the last Pedestrian Path in Norway before invading… Wonder why we bother with compass and level lines (and North(s), Geographic, Magnetic and declination) you can buy in any good sport shops or clubs.

“Russia would discover that the Air Force has the world's largest Space Program for a reason” I think they know it as the Program uses Soyuz as launchers…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Tough target with all that sloping. Probably can get pen on the cupola below the observation device and/or the driver slit though those are both pretty thin targets. I'd really look for him going up slope and take a try at that large lower front glacis -- angled or not it would be my best

er, this isn't the Arena is it. Ooops, sorry.

---

AFAIK real tank crews don't really aim for weak-spots and are usually happy to hit at all. It's probably more useful to hit the tank at all than to aim for the lower glacis and hit the ground instead. In reality that is, where your death is a little more permanent usually.
But they do have pretty good gear, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I'm sure Sweden will just open their borders and declare nuetrality. All the easier then to make it to Norway, home of the milk drinking surrender goats.

---

Don't let @Sigurd hear that, he'll rip you a new one and show you what a real viking is. :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Sent from my L33T AC-130W
[...]
Sent from the inner bowels of the Death Star
[...]
Sent from the flaming wreckage of a MiG

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I think in the event of a world war, Russia would discover that the Air Force has the world's largest Space Program for a reason. To think any Sats but ours (and maybe not even ours) are reliable tools in Total War would be mistaken.

---

http://www.space.com/20139-china-s-a...animation.html

Yeah, even ignoring that other nations can destroy satellites, imagine this times all the satellistes the Air Force blows up.
Of course they may have the technology to just disable them, but then there is still the fact that US satellites are probably not safe either. It's a tough decision whether or not to touch them I guess.

That depends on to which level you want the war to escalate. Shooting down others satellites can lead to unwanted retaliations...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Russia has bought in maps" Their satellites are broken?

---

Satellites are poor to discover hight differences and things dug into a cliff or hidden underground, inside a forest. They've been abondoned for decades, but I know several old military installations that you can't spot by satellites, but can by thorough reading of orienteering maps (usually through the very suspect voids).

Why the Russian would want that extra information is probably what triggered that suspicion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I would rather have Ukraine join the West than stick with Russia obviously. Someone said that corruption is everywhere in the West as well, it is just better hidden. Well, maybe Ukrainians at least want a government culture where they have to hide their corruption. Paying lip service to an ideal is one step closer to that ideal than simply letting politicians be brazen with their misdeeds.

---

This is true, but I also think that the ethnic Russians who watn closer ties with Russia should be listen to. In the case to Crimea, from what I see most of them want to be part of Russia, and that should be taken seriously. Just without Russian forces bristling on the border ...

Oh, not sure if this was posted in this thread:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...a-annex-crimea

We've seen trebuchets, drawbridges and testudo formations, and now apparently they have gone all out and are wearing full chain mail suits and medieval helmets.

I think it is good to see that the revolutionary government is willing to negotiate with the ethnic Russias, hopefully the Svoboda types will not ruin this.

We don't really know what they've been offered. I don't think government in Kiev is ready to offer anything substantial and anything even remotely acceptable to the separatists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“I am sure every Russian infantryman carries his own satellite display today” Oh, so the Russian Infantryman needs the last Pedestrian Path in Norway before invading… Wonder why we bother with compass and level lines (and North(s), Geographic, Magnetic and declination) you can buy in any good sport shops or clubs.…

---

If they all have cell phones, attack their morale. Block all porn downloads....that'll leave the wallowing in self pity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“[“Russia would discover that the Air Force has the world's largest Space Program for a reason” I think they know it as the Program uses Soyuz as launchers…

---

The lassies and laddies at Vandenberg are still in business...they just don't talk about it much. So far, space has not been militarized...officially. Unofficially, they are testing improved shuttles etc., with potential military uses. For all we know, their could already be a deployed KEW system up there with recon sats doing double duty. The USAF does not talk about the program much at all.

Civilian NASA has had their budget gutted and their long term plans put on hold in favor of SpaceX and the like.

I wonder if this is mirroring our recent overseas deployments: high end military units with uber-gear and big ticket weapon systems supplemented by civilian contractors for the day-to-day stuff....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

We've seen trebuchets, drawbridges and testudo formations, and now apparently they have gone all out and are wearing full chain mail suits and medieval helmets.

---

Leather and chain, at least that using modern metallurgy, would probably do a pretty good job at minimizing low velocity round damage and shrapnel effect. Wouldn't work with high-power firearms, but then again very little armor does unless it comes with a motor and a turret.

Russian propaganda machine suffers a mishap...

Unlike the old woman the western media claimed she was the same but in fact wasn't...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Ya real tank gunners aim center mass. Sometimes you lead it, but you generally don't aim for weak spots. Not to say you couldn't though... As for being happy to hit at all, that's not true. Modern tanks will hit almost every time under almost all circumstances. With a good crew and a well maintained tank anyway...

As for the sats I'm sure in a real war with Russia or China taking out our Sats would be priority one. Or it should be. How ready we are for that, or just what defenses we have, is a matter of speculation.

---

One notes that "centre-mass" usually means aiming for the turret, roughly where it meats the hull. The front of the Soviet tanks is a shell-trap, presumably created to increase the slope of the upper turret. So it's either a design flaw, doctrine that says their gunners are better or them relying on armour they think we can't penetrate with SABOT.

*Shrug*

I'll go for design flaw - given that the Germans did the same in the middle of WWII with their Tiger II.

The turret looks cool,and menacing, and I suspect that's the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by totalkimbrough

This is true, but I also think that the ethnic Russians who watn closer ties with Russia should be listen to. In the case to Crimea, from what I see most of them want to be part of Russia, and that should be taken seriously. Just without Russian forces bristling on the border ...

---

One notes that the provisional government is being forced to do things it shouldn't have to - but the same people who complained about that before, are silent now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Couldn't say really on the turret design. It is very much taken for granted that the Abrams can one hit kill anything there is, and I am inclined to agree. Survivability is a myth when you're talking about modern rounds.

Its all in the propellant. The difference between a Sabot and a Super Sabot is just more propellant. Not enough armor in the world to protect against a sabot going fast enough.

---

I don't know about that, we won't know until we actually get down to tank combat - one suspects that in a real war, after the initial bang, the grind will be a lot more low-tech and inclined towards using less "super" stuff and more pointy stiocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Russia has bought in maps, in particular on sensitive strategical areas and made a few bombing drills with explicit Swedish targets. They've also increased their espionage towards Sweden. Combined with your current situation, Russia got upgraded to being an invasive threat.

All military cooperation with Russia has gotten suspended or canceled and they recommend strengthening the defense (or to be exact, getting the now all volonteer army up to supposed numbers).

---

I honestly think I am the lover of one of them.

She works at the Russian embassy, talks little to none about work, IQ level is skyrocketing... And she is a damn lioness in bed. Extremely fit, I might add.

Don't get me wrong, she has a great cover story of course. But I am very seriously getting suspicious.

I met her when I was out jogging with my dog, and she sought contact because of him (he looks like Ghost in Game of Thrones), not so much me...

Still though, I kind of feel all James Bond going to bed these days...

What I am trying to say is, Russia is clearly stepping up their game!! Not that it had any ill effects to my life (...I stress to add that, if she has me monitored). Between having a dog with 40x better sense of smell than I do, and a hyper intelligent GF potentially monitoring me... I am being a VERY good boy these days. I don't even know who would discover or frown first, had I smoked weed or suchlike.

EDIT: First girl to beat me in chess... EVER :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The Abrams hasn't had any serious Armor upgrades in long time (aside from an Urban survivability kit for defending against RPGs and such) but the best Sabot rounds have never been used and are kept in secret warehouses somewhere. The Army believes in offense first in an eventual tank war, placing all the faith in the rounds. The Abrams and most modern tanks can take hits from last generation tanks all day, but even the Abrams is another piece of scrap metal if a modern Leo or whatever gets the first shot. Like you say though, won't know for sure until something unfortunate happens.

---

You havent had any serious upgrades because you haven't met any serious enemies.

If the enemy has the ammo to actually pierce you, of course offense first is the way to go.

What all tank heads (no insult implied) seem to forget is that communication and target identification is what will matter in a first world vs first world war.

Why do you think rangers such as I got laser painters already back in the millennium shift?

The conflicts where you base your observations from has nothing to do with the tactical landscape WWIII would be fought on. Not of course, as Einstein agreed, that WWIV would be completely different once again, fought with sticks and stones this time.

Can't we just literary **** the Russians and move the world forward instead?