Jump to content

panzermartin

Members
  • Content Count

    1,702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by panzermartin

  1. Fair enough. Ukraine will naturally seek to take back territory in more force but I'm not sure it can tolerate some more thousands casualties as well. I got some questions to ask if you don't mind, since you have studied the tactical situation really closely. Was Ukraine able to replace the relatively big hardware losses in 2014? Tanks, APCs, aircrafts etc? Is it autonomous enough in military industry and can it build its own T-90s, APCs, SPAs, S-300 or Sukhois. I recall some military plants shared the manufacturing process with Russia (and vice versa of course). In short, can it compete in long term with no foreign aid, against a technologically and logistically superior permanent russian force in east ukraine that has also the luxury of long range support from the borders? Most key cities in the east are within reach of russian long range AAA, tactical missiles etc. In case ukrainian army approaches in large numbers there, russians can hit without actually invading, as probably has already happened. Do we know about the situation of the separatist army deeper in their "republic". UKR army surely is reorganizing and you are probably right it will perform better next time but I suspect Russia has a plan on its own to recruit, train and equip those units better and as we speak it might still sneaking personnel and hardware across the "thin" borders. Population in the east, favors Russia by a significant margin and despises the ukrainian army (that has also shelled civilians in big urban areas like Donetsk). While they are not so enthusiastic to join Russia, they do prefer to keep an autonomy. So while Ukraine still technically considers those territories own soil, even in the case of a military win, people there would treat the victors more like an invading force. I still think, both Ukraine and Russia will avoid a larger, damaging confrontation. A lot will depend on the political situation and if the DPR is actually able to survive politically and economically. On that and given that even Crimea is not looking that good right now, I have some doubts. I dont really agree with the coup on Putin and a civil war prospect though. Imo Russia is strengthening its position worldwide, a lot consider them as the force that is actually bringing an end to the Syrian war and ISIS terror. Latest events like the assasination of the russian ambassador from a jihadist lunatic have reinforced this image to the world. Amazingly, they have even teamed up with Erdgoan's Turkey lately, a NATO member. And there is still the prospect of teaming up with Trump's USA against islamic state. That will be a big victory for Putin. And whatever serious western leaning opposition is left, is somewhat losing its purpose now. Because West is starting to look a bit more like Russia now instead of the opposite, more conservative, nationalistic, anti-islamist and xenophobic.
  2. I didnt say they are useless. Its just a fact they cant do much in case of a second russian ivasion. They are sufficient enough to drive back a makeshift force of middle aged volunteers but they are probably no match for a coordinated russian army counter attack. The only thing that hold back the russians was international outcry. Thats what I call support. Political pressure, sanctions etc. I didnt mean the romanian army helmets. If political pressure gradually dissolves, with the current confusion on the US/EU camp, Russia will have a lot of more space to play.
  3. Is there a realistic possibility for Ukraine to make serious territory gains with no support from the West? And is the divided and strategically confused West with Putin's buddies leading now in US and UK and soon in France, willing to assist Ukraine in any way? Not in the next ten years imo. Whatever is happening right now is of very little significance compared to the bigger picture.
  4. I messed up I think but it was fun. *Spoilers* Ended up nuking Berlin A nice idea and liked the graphic novel art as well, thanks.
  5. haha yes, me too playing DI's Tornado in 1993. Landing was hard among other things. At least I got better in english reading the big manual;)
  6. The short lived era of russian naval airforce:/ Poor pilots fearing more of the return to base than the actual mission.
  7. I think its the law of nature these types of leadership to become corrupt due to the concentration of power. Castro did relatively well since he was almost half a century in rule and had to face isolation, enormous pressure and a constant threat to his life. Most would switch to a lunatic dictator mode under these circumstances. We cant really judge him by today's standards, he rose in a time when even the democratic West was backing worse guys around the globe. I much prefer my flawed democracy so far but if things go really wrong with our capitalist system(its fine when markets work but its not human centered and that shows when things go downhill) chances are that types like Castro would be the ones we would all look upon and not a career politician employee made in Harvard. It is just that these people are like an emergency measure and not meant to stay forever in power. Cuba and Castro were frozen in time in a way, stuck in a revolutionary mode that never really had the chance to evolve or mature.
  8. Cuba was obviously in decline the last years, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union.
  9. RIP. A great personality with true love for his country in my opinion. Although authoritarian, for his era, he was a much better alternative than Batista and other right wing dictators. Cuba eliminated illiteracy(down to 2% comparable only to scandinavian countries) and offered high quality health care to its people. He became obsolete as most of these types of leaderships and that showed in the last decades in a morally and economically decaying Cuba. I hope democratic societies wont have to go back to these regimes though to maintain a humane standard of living if things go wrong with world capitalism.
  10. Maybe it was a dolphin that had converted to radical Islam.
  11. I dont believe the elections were rigged but nobody knows 100% really. There was an imported propaganda war for sure but the fatal blow was inflicted by an insider, as Hilary herself is blaming the last minute FBI intervention for her election loss http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-james-comey.html?_r=0
  12. Maybe they didnt want to risk direct confrontation with Russia and lose everything. No matter how well equipped the US military is, they havent face something more lethal than a 3rd world country's arsenal. Who would support Clinton in something so risky as this, while half public opinion has turned pro-russian the most in the whole american history? Fighting ISIS and islamists is the new trend and Trump adapted better to it. Getting from the back door in Syria and getting closer with Putin and Assad seems like a decent alternative plan in a battle that seems lost. After all, from what I can tell, Trump's main concern is China. This is the country that considers the bigger threat to US interests and probably foreign policy will shift accordingly towards there.
  13. Targetting hospitals is a war crime no doubt. Still exercized by both sides as this and other articles indicate. I'm not debating the cruel and unlawful means of warfare here. Without wanting to sound cynical, its still no proof of "ethnic cleansing" , rather an inhuman way of bringing the opposition to its knees, as part of a military operation rather than means of extermination of certain ethnic/religious groups. I havent read reports of army rounding up people, or massively executing them for instance. And while in the above situations there were no militants nearby, it is a widespread tactic of guerilla warfare to fortify in those complexes. Once this happens a few times, then all hospitals, fortfied or not, are probably turned into priority targets unsurprisingly. But this all has to come to an end. The truth is that rebels have achieved pretty much nothing those six years of conflict. Not even badly needed wider international support. Public opinion has turned against them as most associate them with Al-Nusra and ISIS. Ultimately, if Assad's agenda was to deport population opposing him as you say, then they served him right by giving him the excuse to do so under the disguise of a miltary operation against "terrorism". It's just madness pouring more gasoline in the fire of this conflict. Weapons flow in Syria, must be cut off. The conlfict must die out. Then a combined international effort respecting Syria's sovereignity should begin to shape the next day in the war-torn land. PS,I don't know sometimes I think Trump was needed by the deeper american industrial/miltary complex, to reset world policy and maybe gain something from the bleeding Middle east strategy by adapting to the new situation. The pawns(rebels) are discarded, and the new strategy is to approach Russia/Syria in a theatre US would otherwise be left out.
  14. I believe a lot will change once the fighting eventually and offcially dies. The millions of people living in camps in neighbouring countries will soon have to make a choice. If there isnt any conflict there will be no "offcial" reason for them to stay there, let alone countries to accept more of them. If Assad despite having neutralized Al Nusra/ISIS/armed rebels decides to keep on with genocide of returning refugees then he deserves a drone or something to cease his insanity. I doubt that will happen and any big power like Russia will assist in such a crime. I don't think there is hard evidence of "ethnic cleansing" so far, it is a really heavy word to use imo for mostly crude bombing of cities. Mass murder, executions and other savage actions (like eating hearts of the dead), have been widely reported on christians, alawites, other minorities and captured army soldiers though. I'm at least relieved this monstrosity will be brought to end sooner or later.
  15. If he wants to govern something more than ruins and empty cities he has to show a glimpse of hope for the population that peacefully and silently opposed his rule all these years. I disagree on the 3 million regugees. The end of conflict will bring some people back not force more out. Not men in military age but I'm hoping families will attempt to return. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/syrian-refugees-europe-160504111600535.html "We never thought that one day we would be living in garages in Lebanon. We feel humiliated. But I never thought of going to Europe. How could I abandon my family and go to an unknown place?" A lot share this view. Plus Europe with its closed borders and right-wingers on the rise is not going to give them any hope and they know it.
  16. Assad is not innocent and not only one side is the source of the problem, I have accepted this. I'm just hoping he will be forced to adjust to a less opressive rule. I'm hoping a part of those refugees will return once bombs stop falling and jihadists stop blowing up. I dont see any other way out right now. Maybe the uprsiing was popular in the beginiing as you say but now it clearly isnt. We are not talking about 2011. Whoever is supporting what is left from the opposition has to accept defeat given the balance of powers right now. I dont understand why people cant see its a lost cause to go on with the carnage.
  17. Slightly OP but the first good sign for the World matters is that Trump will abandon support for the rebels in Syria according to a latest interview in WSJ. We can say whatever we want for the dude but if this is true, he will probably be the president of the US that will put an end to the bloody Syrian War. The strategy of supporting obscure jihadist groups was doomed to fail from the start and a lot unecessary blood was spilt in the process. Hopefully, a political plan for Syria will soon be put to table to see what can be saved from the carnage and how all those refugees can return to a safe home and not keep on living in tents in Europe and elsewhere. At least we can hope.
  18. Probably not that smart from the ukrainians, I mean they couldnt do much to affect people's vote in the US anyway. But lets not forget that this guy is primarily a businessman. It will mostly be about good deals, so things can shift accordingly. But its true for the time being he seems a lot more russian leaning than ukrainian leaning and he has talked about doing business with Russia in the past (apart from bringing miss Universe to Moscow I suppose;) )
  19. He hasnt spoken a lot about foreign issues. Probably he will rely greatly on his staff on that which can be a good or a bad thing. I bet if he and Putin were taking a history/political quizz it would be embarassing for him;) We know he doesnt like China much, hates ISIS and goes way easier on Russia than Clinton and Obama. The few hints we have about Ukraine, is that at first he seemed to be ok with Crimea being russian: " But you know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were. And you have to look at that..." Also, he didnt meet Poroshenko in NY, while Clinton did. Some say he snubbed him, others it was just due to conflicting schedules. Its too early to tell but it would be nice to hear a more insightful speculation from people that know better perhaps.
  20. Well that holds some truth. Though Trump seems like such a big narcissist that likes to gamble big as well. Maybe he is fed up with his material empire and wants something more than that;) His speech was in a different note than his pre-election populist cries. We'll see, I dont think he is as dumb as his talking. I agree though, I think comparisons with Hitler are off. Hitler was a rather failed, bitter and frustrated person driven solely by hate since childhood and ended up a murderous psychopath and drug addict. Trump was born in luxury, raised and lived in luxury and being succesful most of his life. He doesnt believe in much but I dont think he could ever do harm on purpose.
  21. Anyone else a bit worried, people like him are now in charge? Seeing the unrest and the divided public in the states, I have a slight fear Trump will turn more agressive on the outside despite his more "friendly" towards the World, rhetoric. Its still too early to tell though.
  22. I just want to say that there is more than one responsible for this. Airline company risking people's life to keep the cost down, Ukraine authorities not correctly estimating that their airspace was not safe. And of course Russia, for providing the BUK and the crew that shooted it down, apparently by mistake. I'm surprised that flying over warzones is considered a normal routine though for airlines @panzersaurkrautwerfer. Hope they changed their minds after this.
  23. Why were ariliners allowed to fly over a war zone in the first place? There was already evidence of long range SAM presence in the area.
×
×
  • Create New...