Ukraine-in-a-thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I think KAV's problem with Abrams is mostly due to the fact that it's an USAnian tank. It could shoot stealth bombers out of the sky and it still wouldn't be good enough.

---

Huh? I very well know it's a sterling piece of machinery. Worst thing I have said about Abrams, is that it was comparable to another damn great tank.

1 vs 1 I honestly think USAnian or European tanks would win against whatever Russia puts up.

My point was that warfare isn't about 1 vs 1 fights. Let me stress the point, people actively engaged in war will quite often go out of their way to avoid 1 vs 1 fights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Huh? I very well know it's a sterling piece of machinery. Worst thing I have said about Abrams, is that it was comparable to another damn great tank.

1 vs 1 I honestly think USAnian or European tanks would win against whatever Russia puts up.

My point was that warfare isn't about 1 vs 1 fights. Let me stress the point, people actively engaged in war will quite often go out of their way to avoid 1 vs 1 fights.

---

If you're going to reply to my posts, you could at least have the courtesy of not distorting what I have typed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Ya, and us "USAnians" are the only ones with enough modern tanks to sustain the kinds of inevitable losses you would see in a real Russia vs The West doomsday scenario.

---

No.

In a doomsday scenario Europe is impregnable. We can spit out troops and equipment, and we have quite some special nation equipment and techniques working in our local geography.

Gebirgsjäger will supply the enemy with as much avalanches and rock slides as they can handle in the alps, while Norrlandsjägare harass supply lines in -45 degrees.

I'm not joking. Europes offensive capabilities will take decades to build up. Our defensive ability though, is just as I mentioned, impregnable.

Or more easily put: We are too diverse to coordinate an offensive, but that we are diverse plays in our hands when it comes to defending. We have covered a vast geographical landscape all with specialized soldiers, equipment and training... Since centuries if not millenniums!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well I hope you're right. Doesn't look like we'll be around to protect Europe much longer.

---

Nah, you'd rather ally with no one.

Or Russia?

Or China? Africa? India?

What would the alternative be?

EDIT: Remember, Europe protect YOU too. And from the looks of it, you have more enemies currently. Sure you want to give up on EU support just like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I think the president has made it clear that our military interests just aren't in Europe any more. Europe should get working on those offensive capabilities.

---

We need to make sure that the next prez isn't Kenyan-born.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I think the president has made it clear that our military interests just aren't in Europe any more. Europe should get working on those offensive capabilities.

---

Yeah.... This is what you don't get.

Remember this thing called TW? It was a game you could play. Along with all the military options, there was also a diplomacy tab.

THERE you have Europes offensive capabilities. Heck, we even had the US clean up our own dirty back yard not long ago (Serbia).

Honestly speaking, I much prefer to be militarily unthreatening but impregnable. "You can't beat us, but we can be your friends".

How is the US policy going for you lately? Much in national debt yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Ya, and us "USAnians" are the only ones with enough modern tanks to sustain the kinds of inevitable losses you would see in a real Russia vs The West doomsday scenario.

---

Truth.

I'm not going to argue the tank thing any more - but the challenger II is about 15 years newer, has better armour and can lob a Hesh round about 8Km - it doesn't fire HEAT.

So, I dunno if any of that matters - Abrams is much quieter and I heard it can run on fish oil.

The Challenger is disadvantaged because the Americans opted for a smoothbore gun, which means the British are the only nation which produces ammunition compatible for the L30 gun.

I tend to agree with HUSAR though - trying to make tank-hunters out of Strykers using guns pulled from old Abrams tanks doesn't seem too clever any way you slice it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I'm no expert, but an expert I talked to shrugged his shoulders and did a 50/50 sign when I asked which tank was the best. I know Sweden choose German Leopards over USAnian Abrams. We also put our own Ericsson special made communication device on it, as well as some sort of a "net" (term used vaguely) around it to soak up the first charge, in a two charged weapon system deviced to penetrate the active armor.

So yeah, Sweden wins this battle, hands down.

---

No.
The expert was right though.

Your "net" seems to be just slat armor aka spaced armor, which is not exactly a new invention or in any way unique to Sweden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The Stryker MGS is a money saving measure. Lots of my old Army buddies are serving on those now. They are a legit modern TD, but no replacement for the Abrams.

---

I still don't see how the MGS is a TD unless you're facing more asad babils or other badly armored tanks by modern standards. This page has some interesting info: http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2583.html

Quote:

---

The 105 mm M68A2 rifled gun is based on the M68A1 barrel but now has an integrated pepperpot muzzle brake, muzzle reference system, standard bore evacuator and a thermal sleeve. It should be noted that its primary role is to support infantry, not engage threat armoured fighting vehicles.

---

Incidentally it also touches slat armor:

Quote:

---

In early 2007 a decision was made by Canada to cancel the acquisition of 66 MGS and instead procure Leopard 2 MBTs.

The first of these, Leopard 2A6M CAN, was handed over to the Canadian Army late in July 2007. These are upgraded German Army Leopard 2A6M with a number of enhancements including slat armour for deployment to Afghanistan.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The Stryker MGS is a money saving measure. Lots of my old Army buddies are serving on those now. They are a legit modern TD, but no replacement for the Abrams.

---

Yeah - but you still need more tanks - and so do we. We've gone from 4 armoured regiments 20 years ago to 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Yeah - but you still need more tanks - and so do we. We've gone from 4 armoured regiments 20 years ago to 1.

---

Instead of trying to out-tank the Russians it might be better to utterly outplane them. Their tanks won't mean diddly squat if we own the skies. I see no reason to tackle their tanks head on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

It'll be interesting to see if that changes pending further Russian aggression though... lotta people would be perfectly happy to go back to the cold war, especially in the military.

---

The world was a simpler, more honest place back in the cold war days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Instead of trying to out-tank the Russians it might be better to utterly outplane them. Their tanks won't mean diddly squat if we own the skies. I see no reason to tackle their tanks head on.

---

You need to be able to do both.

Fighting Russia will be a real war - your Air Force will be used to keep the Ruskies off your tanks and your tanks will be used to keep their tanks off your infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

A brief study of the air war vs. Saddam's tanks in '91 should dispel this notion. Air superiority is a war winner, no doubt, but at the end of the day tanks kill tanks. Air, light infantry, scouts, mines, all these things can harass or deter tanks but not reliably stop them.

---

Air superiority also means drones with hellfires patrolling the skies 24/7. Drones were not a factor back in '91.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Instead of trying to out-tank the Russians it might be better to utterly outplane them. Their tanks won't mean diddly squat if we own the skies. I see no reason to tackle their tanks head on.

---

You really ought to send this to HQ at once. I am sure they will be flabbergasted and regret the last decades of policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I honestly think the Russkies have spent more time on the conventional use of drones than we have, strategy-wise. They're really more of an intel thing than anything else, and they'd be fodder for enemy fighters or SAMs.

---

How would they be fodder for their fighters or sams if we utterly suppress their air defense capabilities? Russians might have good AA, but they cannot ignore the laws of numbers: if we emphasize our air power (and by "we" I mean "NATO") Russian AA will get crushed. From then on it's drones galore until some yahoo decides that "password" is an adequately secure passcode for the remote control of the drones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

How would they be fodder for their fighters or sams if we utterly suppress their air defense capabilities? Russians might have good AA, but they cannot ignore the laws of numbers: if we emphasize our air power (and by "we" I mean "NATO") Russian AA will get crushed. From then on it's drones galore until some yahoo decides that "password" is an adequately secure passcode for the remote control of the drones.

---

And this makes sense because aircrafts is a sure way to battle anti-aircraft.

I think that post failed as much in a linguistical sense as a military sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Remember this thing called TW? It was a game you could play. Along with all the military options, there was also a diplomacy tab.

THERE you have Europes offensive capabilities. Heck, we even had the US clean up our own dirty back yard not long ago (Serbia).

---

If sitting by and doing nothing while people die is a form of diplomacy, then yes that was a master stroke of diplomatic scheming by Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

And this makes sense because air power is a sure way to go up against AA?

---

Not to you. You can go ahead and advocate sending sending tanks against the AA. I hear they're really good at taking out jet fighters and chasing mobile AA platforms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

If sitting by and doing nothing while people die is a form of diplomacy, then yes that was a master stroke of diplomatic scheming by Europe.

---

You're right, Russia acted and ended the violence.
And now people whose heads are stuck in the 1950s have a problem with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You're right, Russia acted and ended the violence.
And now people whose heads are stuck in the 1950s have a problem with that.

---

There are lots of Russians and Russian speaking people living in Germany and they might need protection. You know what I'm saying?
~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

There are lots of Russians and Russian speaking people living in Germany and they might need protection. You know what I'm saying?
~:)

---

You're saying we have an anti-russian neo-nazi revolution?
In that case you would be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You're saying we have an anti-russian neo-nazi revolution?
In that case you would be wrong.

---

I'm not saying anything. Mr Putin might see things differently though. But he's a reasonable guy, I trust his judgement implicitly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Not to you. You can go ahead and advocate sending sending tanks against the AA. I hear they're really good at taking out jet fighters and chasing mobile AA platforms.

---

Tanks against AA actually sounds like a brilliant idea. It would be a rather one sided conflict, don't you think?

So yeah, I would advocate it.

Even better though, would be to have a force of combined arms. Kind of like Russia.

But you can go with your "air superiority vs AA idea", and see how far it takes you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Tanks against AA actually sounds like a brilliant idea. It would be a rather one sided conflict, don't you think?

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

But you can go with your "air superiority vs AA idea", and see how far it takes you.

---

You're right. We used flying tanks to suppress Libyan AA back in 2011.

This thread makes for a very entertaining read in the morning with some coffee. Perfect mix of humour and information. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Any modern tank should be able to one hit kill on the move, 3 or more km out. The Abrams is a bit dated, but the gun is still top notch. We have Stryker units equipped with the same gun that serve as mass produced tank destroyers.

The Abrams does just fine around small hills Brenus. Its also very quiet and very nimble for such a big tank. :shrug:

---

Abrams have older version of Rheinmetal gun compared to new leos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

One notes that it is a rifled gun - because the 120 smoothbore on the Abrams is, frankly, somewhat sub-par. They were going to mount that same gun on the Challenger - which would have been a shame.

FYI - to date the only thing capable of knocking out a Challenger II Tank is another Challenger II - the combination of rifled gun and superior armour makes it the best combat tank.

---

There is a number of Russian AT marked missiles that can defeat challenger and several Western products that can do the same. While Saddam had nothing to defeat it.It does not mean there is no such thing. Dont buy into propaganda.:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I'm no expert, but an expert I talked to shrugged his shoulders and did a 50/50 sign when I asked which tank was the best. I know Sweden choose German Leopards over USAnian Abrams. We also put our own Ericsson special made communication device on it, as well as some sort of a "net" (term used vaguely) around it to soak up the first charge, in a two charged weapon system deviced to penetrate the active armor.

So yeah, Sweden wins this battle, hands down.

As to the bolded part. In a real whatever war, the side able to sustain losses and carry on wins the day.

If I remember correctly, I believe the US met its limit during Vietnam, censoring their free press from showing the US bodies. The idea that US morale is high enough to go into an attrition war vs Russia, over Ukraine, is laughable.

PS... And the EU doesn't penis measure in the same way, thus we over here are largely unaffected. We know/believe we will work out a functional agreement with whatever side wins.

---

And Finland just bought the entire tank fleet of Netherlands upgraded Leo 2a6`s for practically free and Dutch and Danish MRLS´s systems with same breath and cruise missiles from USA as we are stuck with "cold war" thinking. Does not feel that bad at this moment.

This is Russia today and only the army. They have large land components also attached to their navies. At this point i am fairly certain that indeed most of the "unidentified armed men" at Crimea are indeed 810th Naval infantry Brigade and 382nd separate battalion Marines, with thrown in some Airborne guys from Moscow military district.

This is Russia today: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Army_New.png

Understand that each Motor Infantry Brigade has a tank battalion and only reserve Brigades are equipped with outdated equipment. In total: 455 upgraded T-72´s upgraded to modern standards. 4500 T-80´s and 743 T-90´s.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

T 72s of any kind are inferior to any Abrams, Leo, Leclerc, Challenger, or even Stryker MGS. T-80s are comparable to an Abrams in full scale battle but inferior individually, and I actually don't know much about the newer ones. Those are crazy numbers though for a failing nation.

---

T-72 of Iraq has little to none to do with T-72B2 and B3 their armor,fire control and sights have been updated. In matter of fact the vaunted T-90 is continuation of T-72 while T-80 an independent progress somewhat (Im sure Hus as tank nerd can tell it better). All in all after ten years of upgrades the Russian army is just a mad beast compared to what it was. Its all just madness...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

We've got plenty. They'll keep in storage until we need to upgrade the whole fleet, something we won't see any time soon. Abrams keep in storage pretty well. Even at our reduced active number we can look after our own vital interests as defined by the current administration.

It'll be interesting to see if that changes pending further Russian aggression though... lotta people would be perfectly happy to go back to the cold war, especially in the military.

---

To me what world really needs is at least decade of US isolationist policies. So the rest of us will understand that we cant depend that US will take care everything and we the rest can spit on them afterwards. It is no surprise that also in these forums it is the soldiers who are the most pacifist.:bow:

“if we emphasize our air power (and by "we" I mean "NATO") Russian AA will get crushed.” How many times I will have to tell: “YOU DIDN’T SUCEED TO DO IT AGAINST SERBIA, A COUNTRY OF 8 MILLIONS”. So except in movies, how do you plan to do against Russia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

How is the US policy going for you lately?

---

What US policy would that be? The policy of “we had no idea” or “we’ll have to look into that” or was it the policy of “we’ll have to do something”.

How is it that we spy on everyone, including our own citizens but everything that happens is a surprise and our only policy is a reaction to what someone else has done. Obviously, forewarned is not forearmed. US policy is wait and see what happens, then send drones and Special Ops maybe, throw money maybe, sanctions maybe, oh, just let someone else do it! And give a speech about how great we are.

Meanwhile the EU looks on.

This may blow over in the Ukraine, or maybe everyone will just ignore it like what happened in Georgia. It is either the West gets some spine or they get to act surprised when Russia, China, or North Korea makes some provocative move again.

Rinse and repeat.

Apparently Russian EW (electronic warfare) guys have been doing their job and of course as we are living days of social media so they leaked it. Part of conversation between EU official and Estonian minister of foreign affairs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCn5iwvOvm8

the full discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CQHcYVCKR0

I think it shows very well also that the Western media is very silent about this. In the discussion the foreign minister of Estonia concludes that the snipers of Maidan square were hired by the pro western faction. In another words self provocation. I am personally really starting to loose faith to this "peoples revolution"...

I have absolutily no idea

I came to post this, I'm glad someone else found it already. As I said, revolutions are always directed by someone's interests. I won't be surprised if foreign agencies are also linked in with this. The people will believe whatever you brainwash them to believe. Yell it loudly enough through a megaphone, pay off the barking media and suddenly the moral justification is on your side. Your end goal is to take the bone from the other dog and gnaw upon it yourself. And this plays well into the interest of the larger dog who wants your end of the alley as his turf. And this plays into the interest of the even larger dog which wants to give you several billions in loans and to decommission your military. So on and so forth.

And the miserable SOBs on the square actually are convinced that the EU/NATO will give them a better standard of living. Protip: it won't.

Check this as well http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rQnXo2HMriQ <- completily insane europhile in Kiev.

We didn't elect him. I will never vote on a christian party because europhiles don't get struck by lightning when they say 'democracy'

Total freak. Also seems to freak out the Ukrainiens. Padded walls, good idea?

This entire thing is starting to show in entirely different light. Who were the "good guys" again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

This entire thing is starting to show in entirely different light. Who were the "good guys" again?

---

From what I didn't get from quality-media (hi Hussie) the nationalists have some VERY dubious movements, and as Horrie hinted at earlier in a different thread, the ordinary Ukarinians seem to just want indepence. Not EU-membership like the bedroomstory-moms that is 'quality media' wants us to think.

Crimea has just sent a formal proposal to Russia to be annexed as part of Russia. I guess the putsch did not go quite like as planned. I can only continue praising the Russian and Ukrainian service men who restrain themselves from doing anything that cant be taken back. While the bastards on both sides in power play their games.

The regular people want an end to being boned by super rich corrupt gluteus maximus holes. They have a poor choice of it: either the super rich corrupt guy who lives in a mansion with fricking panthers and lions and is supported by like minded russian oligarchs, or the super rich (wannabe) corrupt people who want to have the opportunity to steal enough of the people's money so they too can live in such a mansion. These guys are supported by the west and will be given such a chance in exchange for getting their country to join NATO and possibly the EU, a process which itself is profitable to said countries (and probably will not be for Ukraine). The people? Who cares about them!

It is the only safe move for the Russians after going in.

If they just wait and let a new government take over there is the likelihood down the road that Ukraine won’t let them renew the basing agreement. You could see it coming and one of the oldest political ploys in the books.

Next, does Russia fall to economic sanctions or does the EU need Russian oil and gas more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

It is the only safe move for the Russians after going in.

If they just wait and let a new government take over there is the likelihood down the road that Ukraine won’t let them renew the basing agreement. You could see it coming and one of the oldest political ploys in the books.

Next, does Russia fall to economic sanctions or does the EU need Russian oil and gas more.

---

Have you checked the thread i posted? I am quite sure the popular opinion concerning pretty much everything concerning this crisis is about to take a drastic turn.

There are a few interesting things we found out from this conversation:

1) Members of Parliament were bullied and threatened, that there were people coming over to their houses at night, probably threatening their families as well
2) That the snipers were most likely used by the protesters themselves to incite further riots and not Yanukovich.
3) Most importantly, that EU and West don't care about what kind of fascists and murderers they support, as long as it is in their interest.

I knew about 1) and 3) and was suspecting 2).

This should have been a "stop the presses" kind of news, because it fundamentally changes the very nature of the conflict.

Now, where's rvg to explain the connection between NATO and freedom again...

Well, who knows. Is this just a provocative clip with part of a larger discussion.

It could be correct or misinformation or a deflection of some sort. Who knows who is behind it?

All sides can have motives for causing more trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Well, who knows. Is this just a provocative clip with part of a larger discussion.

It could be correct or misinformation or a deflection of some sort. Who knows who is behind it?

All sides can have motives for causing more trouble.

---

Estonia is a NATO and EU country. Both sides of the discussion have been identified. This is as real as it gets. It is slowly appearing all over the news at least here in Finland. Maybe West just forgot that they are not the only ones with abilities for surveillance. Apparently Russians caught it, because the EU woman was at Ukraine and stupidly called from un secure line to the Estonian minister.

And, that is most probably it for Crimea. Ukraine can kiss it goodbye.

The Russians played this one perfectly. Taking control of the entire peninsula without having (officially) a single Russian soldier there, without firing a single shot, without anyone getting killed and winning the propaganda battle. A freakin' masterpiece of strategy, even though I, personally, would have liked that Ukraine managed to keep its territory intact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Have you checked the thread i posted? I am quite sure the popular opinion concerning pretty much everything concerning this crisis is about to take a drastic turn.

---

Yes, and I take the long view. People think they are right from their side, and often think the ends justify the means.

I don’t believe in good guys and bad guys anymore. Just who’s self interest is it in and could it still have been someone with another motive.

I worked for the government to long to take a simple view of anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

There are a few interesting things we found out from this conversation:

1) Members of Parliament were bullied and threatened, that there were people coming over to their houses at night, probably threatening their families as well
2) That the snipers were most likely used by the protesters themselves to incite further riots and not Yanukovich.
3) Most importantly, that EU and West don't care about what kind of fascists and murderers they support, as long as it is in their interest.

I knew about 1) and 3) and was suspecting 2).

This should have been a "stop the presses" kind of news, because it fundamentally changes the very nature of the conflict.

Now, where's rvg to explain the connection between NATO and freedom again...

---

Question on nr2, why did you suspect that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Yes, and I take the long view. People think they are right from their side, and often think the ends justify the means.

I don’t believe in good guys and bad guys anymore. Just who’s self interest is it in and could it still have been someone with another motive.

I worked for the government to long to take a simple view of anything.

---

I dont believe in good or bad either in these kind of cases. Thats why i used " " World politics do not operate on morals but necessities. Still under all the crap there are real people most of the time suffering from these chess games, whether it was civilians shot in the left eye at Maidan square or service men ordered in harms way by politicians or the gazillion rest of alternatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

And the miserable SOBs on the square actually are convinced that the EU/NATO will give them a better standard of living. Protip: it won't.

---

Ukrainians need to learn that there is no such thing as a free lunch, whether it's paid by a Russian or a westerner. Both expect something in return.

They need to understand that they themselves need to get their country in order since no one will do it for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Question on nr2, why did you suspect that?

---

Because snipers are not an effective crowd control method. You can't stop 100,000+ angry people by killing a few dozens with snipers. You can only make them angrier. There was no logic behind it, no motive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

That's the problem when you decide to throw out the basic rule of democracy. You may decide on a new set of rules, but until things settle down, someone with backing may decide they may not want to play by your new rules. And you can't complain, since you've already discarded the previous mutually agreed on rules. Be strong enough to enforce your new set of rules, have the backing to enforce it, or play by the agreed on rules. The Ukrainian protestors rejected the third, are dubious on the first, and are looking for the second, whereas the pro-Russians seem confident on the second.

Also, I note that you pointed out the Ukrainian Parliament voted to impeach the old president, with the argument being that the replacement of that government was backed by democratic legitimacy. If so, would the Crimean regional government, similarly democratically elected, have democratic legitimacy in saying they want nothing to do with the rest of Ukraine? Both political bodies have democratic credits in their own way, and the rules concerning the status of government have already been dismissed, so they're free to define the new rules. The Ukrainian parliament defined it by legitimising the replacement of the previous government, whereas the Crimean region have defined it by declaring their independence from the rest of Ukraine. Is one right and the other wrong?

---

"A government minister in Kiev said they believe it would be unconstitutional for Crimea to join Russia."

Someone doesn't like the new rules.

Did I miss something?

So, someone from the new interim government or a political party sent the snipers.

The government isn’t or is interested in investigating this. (one said not the other said there was)

Just how does this shake out that the EU is behind it?

It sounds like people talking realistically about a tragic mess. Not making secret plans to take over the country.

The EU can offer aid, the Russians can offer aid.

Maybe the government tossed out was not as bad as some wanted them to believe.

Other people are now in, or have a chance to gain power. And one or more is willing to kill to get it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/05/wo...html?hpt=hp_t2

It is not so much about EU, but about the illegal in my mind now government of Ukraine. Was it one of our British members that used as his argument that the legitimacy of the past Ukrainian government flew out of the window, with those shots in the crowd? Now it seems the case was actually quite the contrary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Because snipers are not an effective crowd control method. You can't stop 100,000+ angry people by killing a few dozens with snipers. You can only make them angrier. There was no logic behind it, no motive.

---

Never being safe sounds like a good motive, it must have enourmous psycholical impact if you can be shot from anywhere. Not questioning what you say but I can find some logic in using them if you are an absolute jerk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Did I miss something?

So, someone from the new interim government or a political party sent the snipers.

The government isn’t or is interested in investigating this. (one said not the other said there was)

Just how does this shake out that the EU is behind it?

It sounds like people talking realistically about a tragic mess. Not making secret plans to take over the country.

The EU can offer aid, the Russians can offer aid.

Maybe the government tossed out was not as bad as some wanted them to believe.

Other people are now in, or have a chance to gain power. And one or more is willing to kill to get it.

---

It appears, with the help of Kagemusha article in the previous post that foreign minister of Estonia was giving an assessment of Olga Bogomolets, one of the chief doctors who organized field hospitals for the protesters. Based on her evidence, he said it is becoming clear that Yanukovich is not the one who ordered sniper attacks, but the opposition, which is even more likely as the opposition government isn't even trying to investigate sniper attacks.

Ashton than said "that is interesting, we will have to look into it more".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Never being safe sounds like a good motive, it must have enourmous psycholical impact if you can be shot from anywhere. Not questioning what you say but I can find some logic in using them if you are an absolute jerk.

---

Not being safe whether you do something or not makes you more likely to try to remove the threat rather than do nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

It appears, with the help of Kagemusha article in the previous post that foreign minister of Estonia was giving an assessment of Olga Bogomolets, one of the chief doctors who organized field hospitals for the protesters. Based on her evidence, he said it is becoming clear that Yanukovich is not the one who ordered sniper attacks, but the opposition, which is even more likely as the opposition government isn't even trying to investigate sniper attacks.

Ashton than said "that is interesting, we will have to look into it more".



Not being safe whether you do something or not makes you more likely to try to remove the threat rather than do nothing.

---

Sure!

It points to one of the groups in government as does the uninvited visitors.

The tactics are too obvious. But I will wait and see.

Lots had motive and opportunity. I could be anyone. Even the US or Russia.

A big mess offers political opportunities and none of them are concerned with the cost in life when you get to the bottom line.

Yeah, so how is that an evil EU plot again?

I always knew that Estonians wanted to kill Ukrainians via the EU so that they don't have to pay for an army because Estonians are all pussies like everyone in the EU which just proves how evil the EU is!!!!!1111

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yeah, so how is that an evil EU plot again?

I always knew that Estonians wanted to kill Ukrainians via the EU so that they don't have to pay for an army because Estonians are all pussies like everyone in the EU which just proves how evil the EU is!!!!!1111

---

We here in Finland support what ever our kraut overlords say or dont say....Estonia is only good for importing cheap beer back to Finland that has been exported there from Finland with export subsidiaries. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

You're right. We used flying tanks to suppress Libyan AA back in 2011.

---

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lib...-network/23841

Quote:

---

The following strategic SAM systems are currently serving within the Libyan Air Defense Force: S-75 (SA-2 GUIDELINE), S-125 (SA-3 GOA), and S-200 (SA-5 GAMMON).

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina
In service 1957-present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-125_Neva/Pechora
In service 1961–present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200_Angara/Vega/Dubna
In service 1967-present

Yeah, because Libyan air defenses are totally representative of modern russian air defenses!

Not like they're all systems from the Vietnam-era or like you had control of the seas and could use cruise missiles or like France and Britain were actually the ones to attack Libya first...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

T 72s of any kind are inferior to any Abrams, Leo, Leclerc, Challenger, or even Stryker MGS. T-80s are comparable to an Abrams in full scale battle but inferior individually, and I actually don't know much about the newer ones. Those are crazy numbers though for a failing nation.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72#Es...otection_level

The protection with Relikt is actually on par or even better than all of the NATO tanks you mention, the modern T-72 is called T-90 and is not really inferior anymore. And that failing nation on the other side of the atlantic has even crazier numbers of everything, 10 carrier groups but 47.6 million people on food stamps: http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content...mps-Yearly.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lib...-network/23841


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina
In service 1957-present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-125_Neva/Pechora
In service 1961–present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200_Angara/Vega/Dubna
In service 1967-present

Yeah, because Libyan air defenses are totally representative of modern russian air defenses!

Not like they're all systems from the Vietnam-era or like you had control of the seas and could use cruise missiles or like France and Britain were actually the ones to attack Libya first...

---

And? The point is that we used air power to suppress their AA.

I may be wrong, but I believe his point to be that Russian AA will be adequate enough to suppress your planes. Which, if true, should dispel your notion of using the planes to suppress the AA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

We here in Finland support what ever our kraut overlords say or dont say....Estonia is only good for importing cheap beer back to Finland that has been exported there from Finland with export subsidiaries. :yes:

---

I just read about how Merkel is not fond of Putin.

Because Merkel once got bitten in the knee by a dog and since that day she is afraid of dogs. And when she visited Putin in 2007 or so, a huge black dog walked into the room and Putin smiled and straddled it. And this despite Merkel's staff telling everyone in advance that there should be no dogs because the mighty evil EU conqueror Merkel is afraid of dogs. Putin is so mean... :dizzy2:

I mean if that doesn't make you believe in true evil among our leaders, what else could?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

I may be wrong, but I believe his point to be that Russian AA will be adequate enough to suppress your planes. Which, if true, should dispel your notion of using the planes to suppress the AA.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

I may be wrong, but I believe his point to be that Russian AA will be adequate enough to suppress your planes. Which, if true, should dispel your notion of using the planes to suppress the AA.

---

You may be wrong or you may be right. Nobody knows for sure though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

You may be wrong or you may be right. Nobody knows for sure though.

---

That's what Hitler said before he invaded Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That's what Hitler said before he invaded Russia.

---

He didn't take into account the famous Siberian Bear Cavalry

Attachment 12385

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yeah, so how is that an evil EU plot again?

I always knew that Estonians wanted to kill Ukrainians via the EU so that they don't have to pay for an army because Estonians are all pussies like everyone in the EU which just proves how evil the EU is!!!!!1111

---

The EU is too stupid to be evil, the EU is too stupid to be anything. These pencil-lickers and Godwin-cannons are way over their head here. Oh how they want to have a historical role...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I just read about how Merkel is not fond of Putin.

Because Merkel once got bitten in the knee by a dog and since that day she is afraid of dogs. And when she visited Putin in 2007 or so, a huge black dog walked into the room and Putin smiled and straddled it. And this despite Merkel's staff telling everyone in advance that there should be no dogs because the mighty evil EU conqueror Merkel is afraid of dogs. Putin is so mean... :dizzy2:

I mean if that doesn't make you believe in true evil among our leaders, what else could?

---

The message there couldn’t be much clearer, unless he had put glowing red contacts on the dog and sicked it on her.

He seems to do things to get Obama to cancel meetings. Wonder what that means? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

He seems to do things to get Obama to cancel meetings. Wonder what that means? :laugh4:

---

Probably served him watermelons and fried chicken for dinner.

And it happened, Russia expanded. Crimea is now Russian. Looks like the international-socialism and the Ukrainian Hitler-fanboys aren't getting their fourth reich yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

And it happened, Russia expanded. Crimea is now Russian.

---

Neville Chamberlain can breathe a sigh of relief: the aggressor has been pacified, at least for the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Neville Chamberlain can breathe a sigh of relief: the aggressor has been pacified, at least for the moment.

---

Kinda rooting for Russia here, they could use the Crimea ports until 2048 (lol@year) because in the North the sea freezes in the winter. They would never give that up, they can't.

Interesting.

It could be the new Coalition - note the Minister says *somebody* in the Coalition appears to have ordered the attacks.

That's possible - there are several other explanation, including Russian snipers or someone from within Yanakovich's Berkut Police going a bit nuts.

Putin is certainly ruthless enough to order it - I'm not sure if he would though. On the face of it, the snipers caused the collapse of his puppet government but conversely that gave him an opportunity to invade Crimea.

So the question is how long a game was Putin playing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Kinda rooting for Russia here, they could use the Crimea ports until 2048 (lol@year) because in the North the sea freezes in the winter. They would never give that up, they can't.

---

But that's just not true: contrary to popular belief the mainstay of the Russian navy in Europe is not the Black Sea or the Baltic. It's the Arctic base of Severomorsk in the Barents Sea near the Norwegian border. It's completely ice free all year round and always has been. Furthermore, unlike the Baltic or Black Sea puddles, Russian Northern fleet is free from all the tonnage or nuclear restrictions there. They can have carriers, nuclear subs (which they do), etc.
The much talked about Black Sea Fleet is a joke compared to the Arctic navy. The base is just a pretext for a land grab.

Gotcha, gracias

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

He didn't take into account the famous Siberian Bear Cavalry

Attachment 12385

---

I see your Siberian Bear Cavalry, and raise you a Walrus Backed Nanookwaffe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsqZ1k9ZPHE

It could be a mix of both.

Putin might actually know the truth, so whilst the pro-Kiev forces ordered the sniper attacks, he knew it was them, allowed them to seize control, then he could use this information against them, which makes it easier to put his man back upon the throne.

There are many opportunities for both side, but once you walk down certain roads, you are shooting yourself in the foot, over and over.

I am wondering a bit more about the government in Crimea. There were big shakeups there too. 77 members of the ruling party left and became independent. The leader of the government, from what I glean was replaced by a Russian Business Tycoon (note I did not say Russian-Ukrainian) a few days before the intervention. They announced they would boycott national elections and now they decide they are joining Russia.

Ukraine calls the government of Crimea illegitimate and the Russians call the Ukrainian government illegitimate. Maybe they both are.

It all seems a bit to pat. As Crimea is autonomous what shakeup forced the government to go haywire?

Now, today the parliament of Crimea is supposed to be unanimous in their decision to join Russia.

They seemed to be hopelessly divided a short time age, but suddenly they are unanimous.

Isn’t that sweet?
:inquisitive:

Kagemusha: Finnish is basically just drunk Estonian. That's what you get for importing cheap Saku beer from Tallinn.

Right now I'm actually in Estonia, and it's not really a big secret that people are a bit suspicious of Russia in general. Interestingly, it should also be noted that only 6 out of 21 members of Keskerakond (an Estonian political party, often described as pro-Russian) signed a letter expressing sympathies for the situation in Ukraine. The Estonian political landscape is a bit divided between politicians stressing Estonia's relationship with the rest of Europe, whereas others seek thorough reconciliation with Russia.

I just read the article in Postimees, and basically it says that Urmas Paet hasn't responded so far, because he didn't hear the conversation himself yet. I'm wondering what kind of repercussions this will have for the situation there. People are tense here though.