Jump to content
Lethaface

New offensive in Donbass?

Recommended Posts

I am merely concerned his hometown is unaware of his whereabouts, any insults you might have seen are simply on vacation with their transponders turned off.  

 

Also my town is well aware of my location thank you!  I filled out the proper forms several weeks ago when I moved.  

 

While totally off topic, did you ever find real numbers concerning the "5,000" Serbian civilian deaths during the NATO air campaign you claimed?  I was genuinely surprised not to have heard your follow up.  

Edited by panzersaurkrautwerfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have conveniently disregarded the inconsistencies the article you yourself cited regarding the statements by Russian MOD. Read it again and tell me you think that the statements by the MOD are reliable.

In the bottom section is also a note showing the exchange from the tracking website with RT news Twitter feed, the source showing the US aircraft had it's transponder on. Do you think we just ignore when you post articles and assume we just won't figure out you can't back your own statements. Kind of embarrassing.

@RT_com The US aircraft had transponder ON.

Transponder code: AE01D5

Registration: 64-14849

Callsign: TELEX97

 

sburke,

 

you should re-read that article again:

 

 

Still, the Mode-S transponder could be detected by ADS-B receivers according to Flightradar24.com (although it’s unclear whether the aircraft kept the transponder switched on during the whole mission, including the part of its flight when it was intercepted).

 

The Russians claimed the RC-135U had its transponder off, the U.S. is claiming no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sburke,

you should re-read that article again:

The Russians claimed the RC-135U had its transponder off, the U.S. is claiming no.

Or perhaps you should read it again, flightradar24.com is not the US govt. it is a public website that you can access if you so choose. They claimed it was on and cited the transponder. If you are going to jump into this defending the MOD as a reliable source of info, it might help to read who is contradicting them. The site is actually a Swedish origin company. The article in being strictly objective is saying they can't verify 100% that it was on at the time. Good for them, it shows some objectivity. The MOD however has a proven track record of lying, your choice if you choose to accord them any level of validity. Maybe you can ask if those paras who got "lost" in Ukraine had their transponders on. Edited by sburke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1983 the Soviets shot down Korea Air Flight 007 claiming, after initially denying it, that the civilian 747 was a spy plane. Everyone aboard was killed.

 

This is what can happen when the tactics that we are discussing get out of hand. This incident caused such a world wide stir that flight patterns from Alaska to Asia were changed, and the US allowed international access to its then top secret Global Navigation Satellite System, which is now called GPS.

 

We have already had an airliner shoot down over the Ukraine, it can easily happen again if someone makes a mistake or misinterprets a radar blip.

 

http://theweek.com/articles/445179/heres-last-time-russia-shot-down-passenger-plane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DreDay

 

 

As for “Rusich” - do you have a source confirming them being destroyed?

 

Damn ! I confused "Rusich" with so-called fast reaction group "Batman".

 

 

 

Don’t get me wrong, I have very little regard for them, much like some of their ultra-nationalistic counterparts in Azov

 

You know, Azov and Volunteer Ukrainian Corps of Right Sector both very demonized by Russian media and western liberal journalists. Now most of fighters in these units are guys, who are not a member of any right party or movement.  In these units go volunteers, who are ready to fight or want to learn how to fight by modern methods unlike in regular army training centers, where just some time ago began to implement experience of warfare in Donbas... Of course among these fighters, especially in Azov present neo-nazis and ultra-right followers, but their number not significant. Also among Azov fighters many neo-heathens with their predilection to runic and other ancient symbols. In this case really too hard to know where the edge between paganism and neo-nazism. For example, ancient swastika symbol uses as ornament on territory of Ancient Rus' up to Mongolian invasion and even now sometime appearing in Easter Eggs painting. One of my familiar fight in Azov - he never interest a politic, but actively participated in Maidan, was wounded in 20th Feb by "Berkut" and later enlisted in Azov.  It's like WWII period UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) was composed mostly from peasants far from politic, but political and military control over them conducted nationalist force OUN. Main difference between most of our right followers and Russian - our just stay on defending of our land and traditions, but Russian right stay on imperialistic and chauvinistic positions, they want establish own "Russian world" orders in neighbor countries, considering it as "native own".

That was just remark - I think don't need to develop here these theme. Or in PM :)

Edited by Haiduk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DreDay

Damn ! I confused "Rusich" with so-called fast reaction group "Batman".

Perfectly understandable, since Rusich was suboordinated to "Batman" for quite a long time in 2014. Although, to be completely accurate, the "Batman" unit (battalion) was not wiped out either. Its leader (not an SOF guy either, but a retired Ukranian policeman) was killed along with several body guards in an ambush (supposedly conducted by a Russian PMC made out of ex SOF persone).

 

You know, Azov and Volunteer Ukrainian Corps of Right Sector both very demonized by Russian media and western liberal journalists. Now most of fighters in these units are guys, who are not a member of any right party or movement. In these units go volunteers, who are ready to fight or want to learn how to fight by modern methods unlike in regular army training centers, where just some time ago began to implement experience of warfare in Donbas... Of course among these fighters, especially in Azov present neo-nazis and ultra-right followers, but their number not significant. Also among Azov fighters many neo-heathens with their predilection to runic and other ancient symbols. In this case really too hard to know where the edge between paganism and neo-nazism. For example, ancient swastika symbol uses as ornament on territory of Ancient Rus' up to Mongolian invasion and even now sometime appearing in Easter Eggs painting. One of my familiar fight in Azov - he never interest a politic, but actively participated in Maidan, was wounded in 20th Feb by "Berkut" and later enlisted in Azov. It's like WWII period UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) was composed mostly from peasants far from politic, but political and military control over them conducted nationalist force OUN. Main difference between most of our right followers and Russian - our just stay on defending of our land and traditions, but Russian right stay on imperialistic and chauvinistic positions, they want establish own "Russian world" orders in neighbor countries, considering it as "native own".

That was just remark - I think don't need to develop here these theme. Or in PM :)

Fair enough, would you also be willing to agree that the same standard applies to Russian ultra-right nationalists fighting against them (i.e. Rusich)? We can take it to the PM if you wish…

Edited by DreDay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or perhaps you should read it again, flightradar24.com is not the US govt. it is a public website that you can access if you so choose. They claimed it was on and cited the transponder. If you are going to jump into this defending the MOD as a reliable source of info, it might help to read who is contradicting them. The site is actually a Swedish origin company. The article in being strictly objective is saying they can't verify 100% that it was on at the time. Good for them, it shows some objectivity. The MOD however has a proven track record of lying, your choice if you choose to accord them any level of validity. Maybe you can ask if those paras who got "lost" in Ukraine had their transponders on.

 

that is not the issue, I am not defending the Russians or even claiming they are right, simply pointing that you misread the article. As the author points out, even though flightradar24 pointed out that the aircraft had a transponder, it is not known if it was on at the time of the intercept.

 

That intercept has also been widely covered. There have been many other follow up articles. As I understand it, most professionals see it as a non issue:

 

 

“About the RC-135U intercept last week, the absence of a transponder signal is a non-issue. Having flown many of these missions, we used the concept of “see and avoid” where the pilot flying is responsible for avoiding all traffic conflicts, much like a VFR flight plan without flight following.

http://theaviationist.com/2015/04/23/rc-135-aircraft-commander-explains/

Edited by Sgt Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we are just dancing around the issue. The article was specifically cited to prove the US flies without transponders in response to multiple points about aggressive irresponsible behavior by the Russian military. The article in fact does not state that, it siimply says the MOD says that and it provides a counterpoint from an impartial body refuting that at least in part.

So now who is misreading or misdirecting the conversation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DreDay

 

 

 

Although, to be completely accurate, the "Batman" unit (battalion) was not wiped out either.

 

Yes, not wipe out, but after Biednov assasination rest of group was blocked in own biletting and after short skirmish, where one fighter of "Batman" was killed by sniper, they surrendered and was disarmed and disbanded. So in that sense unit terminated own existence.

Of course, write in PM if you interest this theme  :)

Edited by Haiduk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Russia be dishonest about anything?  It's not like they've ever concealed facts for their own benefit?  I imagine if that callsign or transponder code was not in service, Russia could easily show the US as lying sneakmen of green wearing nature.  

 

Why would the US be dishonest about anything? It's not like they've ever concealed facts for their own benefit? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we are just dancing around the issue. The article was specifically cited to prove the US flies without transponders in response to multiple points about aggressive irresponsible behavior by the Russian military. The article in fact does not state that, it siimply says the MOD says that and it provides a counterpoint from an impartial body refuting that at least in part.

So now who is misreading or misdirecting the conversation?

 

no sir, I posted the link to prove that american airplanes get intercepted too in the same airspace. As you may have noticed, I put a lol smiley near the sentence stating that the transponder on the US plane was off, it was in fact to underline that the matter (transponders) is rather silly and irrelevant but - some people here have to keep that issue of vital importance, because it gives "mass" to their arguments against Russia.

 

@Panzer - You talk about literacy, yet seem to keep citing the "Nuclear threats against Denmark", and I wonder if you need to read the statement from the russian MoD in regard again:

The article which has been posted in this same thread about the issue, reports that IF Denmark will participate into the ballistic missile shield, then, in the case of nuclear war, Russia will target the assets that Denmark has deployed to that international device. 

Now since the "nuclear threats to Denmark" seem to be the forte argument to people who are suggesting that the west need to put Russia down, I don't expect you to drop it with any ease - yet I suggest folks to read the declaration I cited and decide by themselves if it is a nuclear threat. Denmark (and it is stated yet in the same article) has responded that it is not by any chance worried about that.

 

"Portugal around the corner from Russia?" - Does in your opinion Russia send fighters to intercept portuguese planes flying over the atlantic, or is it more likely that Portuguese planes get intercepted over the baltic because they are deployed at NATO bases which are in-theater? 

 

Ofc, I don't expect Russia to be particularly honest about these kind of things, yet I still remember Colin Powell trying to explain to the UN how the Hussein regime was manufacturing chemical and biological weapons on mobile laboratories (Just to cite one example) . So I don't expect the other party to be any more honest than Russia. Yet, since I don't have an agenda in enforcing one country or the other policies, nor I have the need to come out at particular countries which I just can't stand, I try just to point out some facts which seem discrepancies to me. My home village is actually a big western city, abt 1million inhabitants, so I don't consider myself a redneck in any case.

Edited by whitehot78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ofc, I don't expect Russia to be particularly honest about these kind of things, yet I still remember Colin Powell trying to explain to the UN how the Hussein regime was manufacturing chemical and biological weapons on mobile laboratories. So I don't expect the other party to be any more honest than Russia.

 

I remember how Hitler pretended pollacks attacked Germany back in '39. Clearly Germany are all lying bastards too

Edited by kraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whitehot78: For what concerns the matter of the interceptions over the baltic and elsewhere, seems to me that we have cleared that the ATC controllers were perfectly able to pinpoint the location of the russian af planes on their screens, and therefore, to steer them away from them, or to alert their crews of their presence; while it seemed to me that there was a general tendency to believe that the russians were aggressively, and somehow "stealthily" maneuver to endanger the safety of civilian airliners.

 

Objectively the information and sources provided in this thread not at all suffice to make the statement you posted. At best, we can say that we dont know what exactely happened and how it affected the saftey of civillian air traffic.

And please dont reply with some more baseless speculation, provide sources.

 

Whitehot78:  no sir, I posted the link to prove that american airplanes get intercepted too in the same airspace. As you may have noticed, I put a lol smiley near the sentence stating that the transponder on the US plane was off, it was in fact to underline that the matter (transponders) is rather silly and irrelevant but - some people here have to keep that issue of vital importance, because it gives "mass" to their arguments against Russia.

 

If it is irrelevant whether or not the transponder is on or off, why are planes equipped with one? If there was no benefit in using transponders, be it a saftey benefit or something else, there would be no rational reason to keep using them and putting them into aircraft would be a waste of money.

 

Whitehot78:  "Portugal around the corner from Russia?" - Does in your opinion Russia send fighters to intercept portuguese planes flying over the atlantic, or is it more likely that Portuguese planes get intercepted over the baltic because they are deployed at NATO bases which are in-theater?

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/31/uk-nato-portugal-russia-idUKKBN0IK1TD20141031

 

"Portugal scrambled F-16 jet fighters for the second time this week on Friday to intercept Russian bombers in the international air space along its coast in a new sign of an unusual burst of Russian activity next to NATO's southern borders."

 

Whitehot78: @Panzer - You talk about literacy, yet seem to keep citing the "Nuclear threats against Denmark", and I wonder if you need to read the statement from the russian MoD in regard again:

The article which has been posted in this same thread about the issue, reports that IF Denmark will participate into the ballistic missile shield, then, in the case of nuclear war, Russia will target the assets that Denmark has deployed to that international device. 

Now since the "nuclear threats to Denmark" seem to be the forte argument to people who are suggesting that the west need to put Russia down, I don't expect you to drop it with any ease - yet I suggest folks to read the declaration I cited and decide by themselves if it is a nuclear threat. Denmark (and it is stated yet in the same article) has responded that it is not by any chance worried about that.

 

According to:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/22/us-denmark-russia-idUSKBN0MI0ML20150322

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/11487509/Russia-warns-Denmark-its-warships-could-become-nuclear-targets.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-threatens-denmark-with-nuclear-weapons-if-it-tries-to-join-nato-defence-shield-10125529.html

 

the Russian ambassador to Denmark Mikhail Vanin said the following in an interview in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten:

 

“I do not think that the Danes fully understand the consequences if Denmark joins the US-led missile defence shield. If that happens, Danish warships become targets for Russian nuclear missiles. Denmark would be part of the threat against Russia. It would be less peaceful and relations with Russia will suffer. It is, of course, your own decision - I just want to remind you that your finances and security will suffer. At the same time Russia has missiles that certainly can penetrate the future global missile defence system.”

 

The Russian ambassador explicitly said that Russia will use nuclear weapon against Danish ships that are part of NATOS missile defense. He did not say under which circumstances Russia would do that. What else is this if this if not a threat?

Edited by agusto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian reconnaissance plane (Antonov An-30 photographed) over Lancashire UK

 

Antonov-An-30_3311832b.jpg

 

The Russian plane which is fitted with high resolution cameras, was itself photographed by Steve Bradley, 41, over his garden in Colne, Lancashire.

He said: "It was a bit scary to be honest. I just saw it flying pretty low and wondered: 'Should that really be here?'.

Open Skies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of all this is when you ratchet up tensions and then engage in aggressive behavior human potential for error kicks in and really bad s**t happens.

KAL flight 007

Iranian air flight 655

MH 17

All these were avoidable but the parties involved allowed their aggressiveness to overcome common sense in the heat of the moment. The result is a lot of dead civilians who should all now be very much alive. This is the game that Russia is playing around with and when eventually someone pays the price of this stupidity we can all look at it afterwards and say how stupidly senseless it was. Better to just stop it now so no innocent civilians have to pay the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whitehot78: For what concerns the matter of the interceptions over the baltic and elsewhere, seems to me that we have cleared that the ATC controllers were perfectly able to pinpoint the location of the russian af planes on their screens, and therefore, to steer them away from them, or to alert their crews of their presence; while it seemed to me that there was a general tendency to believe that the russians were aggressively, and somehow "stealthily" maneuver to endanger the safety of civilian airliners.

 

Objectively the information and sources provided in this thread not at all suffice to make the statement you posted. At best, we can say that we dont know what exactely happened and how it affected the saftey of civillian air traffic.

And please dont reply with some more baseless speculation, provide sources.

 

 

It has, since what has been cleared is that the transponder does not broadcast its carrier location and therefore is not needed to pin-point it.

 

quote from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aeronautics)

 

transponder (short-for transmitter-responder[1] and sometimes abbreviated to XPDR,[2] XPNDR,[3] TPDR[4] or TP[5]) is an electronic device that produces a response when it receives a radio-frequency interrogation. Aircraft have transponders to assist in identifying them on air traffic control radar.

 

Is the word "identifying" synonymous to "locating" to you?

 

anyway, another link

 

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Transponder

 

 

 

 

If it is irrelevant whether or not the transponder is on or off, why are planes equipped with one? If there was no benefit in using transponders, be it a saftey benefit or something else, there would be no rational reason to keep using them and putting them into aircraft would be a waste of money.

 

 

I did not state there is not a safety benefit in carrying transponders - in fact airliners are required to carry and use them. What you are failing to understand for some reason, is that military airplanes are not required by any international law to employ them. If it that was the case, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and other countries would be filing complaints to the United Nations because American or Israeli airplanes or drones flew inside their airspaces with transponders off. Or, you believe that American recon planes should be broadcasting out to Iranian ATC when they overfly Iran? Maybe they could even radio in the ATC : "This is Raven-1, we are about to transition your airspace and need a squawk code - requesting the one for covert aerial recon, if it's not already taken".

 

I also already stated that russian military planes don't carry transponders, not the kind which is described in the press - they carry an IFF transponder which is, obviously, not compatible with western civilians ones. Did russian aircraft begin to fly in international airspace in 2014? no, they always  have, and they have been intercepted as back as 2007, when long range patrols have been re-instated. But, general press reports the information only during the UKR crisis. You can safely assume that russian military planes appear, to russian ATC controllers, the exact same ways as they appear to western ones on their screens.

 

The whole point is that medias are collaborating in feeding public opinions alarmistic and terror spreading news which, one may surmise, are made to justify more hard-line actions by western governments. Since it's strictly imho, I don't expect nor desire you to adopt my point of view in this issue - yet you are not willing to accept for a moment that the way a certain technology is described is false.

 

One may also add that, if per absurdum, the russian aircraft would have transponders on on their planes, the atc controllers would get a digit on their radar blips, identifying that blip as a russian air force plane. 

 

You can safely assume that the russian ATC civilian controllers see russian af planes same way as the western ones, on their radar screens.

 

 

 

the Russian ambassador to Denmark Mikhail Vanin said the following in an interview in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten:

 

“I do not think that the Danes fully understand the consequences if Denmark joins the US-led missile defence shield. If that happens, Danish warships become targets for Russian nuclear missiles. Denmark would be part of the threat against Russia. It would be less peaceful and relations with Russia will suffer. It is, of course, your own decision - I just want to remind you that your finances and security will suffer. At the same time Russia has missiles that certainly can penetrate the future global missile defence system.”

 

The Russian ambassador explicitly said that Russia will use nuclear weapon against Danish ships that are part of NATOS missile defense. He did not say under which circumstances Russia would do that. What else is this if this if not a threat?

 

He hasn't said what you state explicitly at all, if you have read your own quote. He said that danish ships would "become targets". Do I have to find links that show how american, british and french nuclear missiles are trained on russian objectives; and russian ones on western ones. Do you accept that nuclear capable missiles have their targets pre-programmed into them?

 

The statement means that, danish ships employed inside the US-led anti-ballistic device, will be targeted by penetration capable, nuclear missiles (presumably, Iskander-M SRBM). 

Which does not mean "we will strike the danish ships without notice, when we see it fit", just that some missiles will be programmed to hit them if the need to dismantle the anti-ballistic device arises - ie, in case of a nuclear war.

 

Frankly, again what I'm seeing is that people ignoring the technologies and the doctrines being discussed, are easily mis-informed by the same alarmistic press I was talking before, and that goes both for the issue of the transponders and the "threats to Denmark" one.

 

 

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/31/uk-nato-portugal-russia-idUKKBN0IK1TD20141031

 

"Portugal scrambled F-16 jet fighters for the second time this week on Friday to intercept Russian bombers in the international air space along its coast in a new sign of an unusual burst of Russian activity next to NATO's southern borders."

 

Since in this case Portugal is the intercepting party, I see no connection with the issue discussed in previous posts, where Portugal was the intercepted party.

The article you posted talks about the Atlantic ocean. How does that pertain to Portuguese planes being intercepted by russian fighters over Baltic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of all this is when you ratchet up tensions and then engage in aggressive behavior human potential for error kicks in and really bad s**t happens.

KAL flight 007

Iranian air flight 655

MH 17

All these were avoidable but the parties involved allowed their aggressiveness to overcome common sense in the heat of the moment. The result is a lot of dead civilians who should all now be very much alive. This is the game that Russia is playing around with and when eventually someone pays the price of this stupidity we can all look at it afterwards and say how stupidly senseless it was. Better to just stop it now so no innocent civilians have to pay the price.

 

I totally agree with you.

Then we should ask ourselves, "what event, or events has started the rise in tension"?

Is Russia really the only responsible for the rise in tension?

 

(sorry for the double post, sburke post appeared while I was typing the previous one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we should ask ourselves, "what event, or events has started the rise in tension"?

Is Russia really the only responsible for the rise in tension?

 

Indeed that has not been discussed because various people keep trying to engage in "He hit me back first", or "your government is just as bad as my government" distraction techniques.

 

And this is the heart of the matter.  The answer to your question is yes.  It is that simple.  The Russia government ordered the invasion of Ukraine on trumped up excuses trying to hide what it was doing the whole way and when other nations responded first with demands that such activity stop and then with sanctions the Russian government's response was retaliation in the form of sanctions and a stepping up of threatening and harassing fights of various kinds.  To this day I have not seen one shred of credible facts or a logical argument that casts the events any other way.

 

You can see how some people here can get frustrated because instead of putting forth and argument for why invading Ukraine was justified all we keep hearing is distraction techniques, fake information and logical fallacies.  Honestly I really would like to hear an actual coherent argument for why invading Ukraine is justified.  And by an argument I mean an actual thought out set of reasoned and informed points.  I do *not* consider "well country X does it too", "to stop <insert fake information here> form happening to Russian speakers", or "because some other foreign government took over Ukraine" etc. etc. as well reasoned. Bear in mind that it is the Russian government that invaded a neighbouring country so the burden of justifying that action is on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why would the US be dishonest about anything? It's not like they've ever concealed facts for their own benefit?  ;)

 

Except the transponder information was provided by not at all yankee imperialists?  Either the Russian Air Force is too stupid to read transponders that random Swedish aviation enthusiasts can figure out, or they're having integrity issues.

 

Re: Whitehot in general

 

Looks like you've already acquired some holes and we've identified a distinct lack of comprehension on your part.  

 

 

 

 

I did not state there is not a safety benefit in carrying transponders - in fact airliners are required to carry and use them. What you are failing to understand for some reason, is that military airplanes are not required by any international law to employ them. If it that was the case, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and other countries would be filing complaints to the United Nations because American or Israeli airplanes or drones flew inside their airspaces with transponders off. Or, you believe that American recon planes should be broadcasting out to Iranian ATC when they overfly Iran? Maybe they could even radio in the ATC : "This is Raven-1, we are about to transition your airspace and need a squawk code - requesting the one for covert aerial recon, if it's not already taken".

 

The US generally doesn't do overflights any more.  The sort of SR-71/U-2 stuff went away once we moved recon orbital, which is WAY lower risk with much lower operational cost.  We've still got some U-2s in service but in generally they've been employed for more....like you need photos of object X no later than 1430 for the raid vs waiting for the next orbital pass at 1700 daily.  Most of what we do with manned platforms is the signals intelligence stuff, but that's done entirely from international waters or over someone who approves of US recon's airspace. There's drones, but they really need a complacent (like Pakistan) or cooperative (like most of the middle east) air space.  And Iran is quite aggressive with chasing US assets out in the gulf so it stands to reason that your scenario is pretty stupid and doesn't happen.  

 

 

He hasn't said what you state explicitly at all, if you have read your own quote. He said that danish ships would "become targets". Do I have to find links that show how american, british and french nuclear missiles are trained on russian objectives; and russian ones on western ones. Do you accept that nuclear capable missiles have their targets pre-programmed into them?

 

The statement means that, danish ships employed inside the US-led anti-ballistic device, will be targeted by penetration capable, nuclear missiles (presumably, Iskander-M SRBM). 

Which does not mean "we will strike the danish ships without notice, when we see it fit", just that some missiles will be programmed to hit them if the need to dismantle the anti-ballistic device arises - ie, in case of a nuclear war.

 

Frankly, again what I'm seeing is that people ignoring the technologies and the doctrines being discussed, are easily mis-informed by the same alarmistic press I was talking before, and that goes both for the issue of the transponders and the "threats to Denmark" one.

 

Explicitly he states Danish ships, located in Danish ports would become targets for Russian nuclear missiles.  

 

Also amusingly "dismantle" is a funny word for "launch an overwhelming nuclear strike killing millions and likely heralding nuclear retaliation and ending the world as we know it."

 

Because alone of all the nuclear powers Russia seriously believes it can employ nuclear weapons for limited objectives like killing tens of thousands of Danes in exchange for the warship parked in the harbor.  Because it's not like those are real people like in Donbass.

 

 

Since in this case Portugal is the intercepting party, I see no connection with the issue discussed in previous posts, where Portugal was the intercepted party.

The article you posted talks about the Atlantic ocean. How does that pertain to Portuguese planes being intercepted by russian fighters over Baltic?

 

.......Russia should employ you as the frontal armor on tanks.  Just sayn'.  

 

Russian nuclear capable bombers have no legitimate reason to fly near Portugal, or even the English channel for that means.  Russia is doing the nation-state version of rolling by a house real slow with a piece hanging out the  door, because it believes Eastern Europe is it's "turf" and how dare Eastern Europe, or the rest of the world have an opinion on this!

 

Re: Iraq.

 

God.  Yes because that's on topic, an open war chasing phantom WMDs is totally the same as a secret war with phantom soldiers that isn't happening but hey Ukraine surrender to my mercenaries plz so I can has Crimea?

 

It's the classic Russo-debate non sequitur.  Well, I'm not going to talk about where you have me dead to rights, so let's visit something I have a prepared propaganda line for!   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can see how some people here can get frustrated because instead of putting forth and argument for why invading Ukraine was justified all we keep hearing is distraction techniques, fake information and logical fallacies.  Honestly I really would like to hear an actual coherent argument for why invading Ukraine is justified.  And by an argument I mean an actual thought out set of reasoned and informed points.  I do *not* consider "well country X does it too", "to stop <insert fake information here> form happening to Russian speakers", or "because some other foreign government took over Ukraine" etc. etc. as well reasoned. Bear in mind that it is the Russian government that invaded a neighbouring country so the burden of justifying that action is on them.

It's a wonderful dream, but it can't happen because there is no such argument to be made.

We, the people who made Black Sea's backstory, understood the reality of Russia's foreign policy and the importance of Ukraine to it. Based on this knowledge we predicted that Russia would invade Crimea and wage a "hybrid war" against the east and south of Ukraine as soon as the Ukrainian government decidedly shift westward. And guess what? That is EXACTLY what happened. Now either we understand Russia's true nature and predictable behavior fairly well, or we got all the outcomes correct but for all the wrong reasons. Given the demonstrated depth of knowledge that I, and others, have expressed about the events surrounding this war... I think it is totally implausible to conclude that we got the outcome right but the reasons for it totally wrong.

The only justification I still see pro-Russian supporters clinging to is the "coup" theory. Even if the facts supported the theory, and they absolutely under no reasonable circumstances come even close to doing so, Russia's actions are still 100% illegal, 100% counter productive, and 100% self serving Russia's own interests (though I would argue it is working against them, but that's a different discussion).

Which means, there is only one party to blame for the war that exists today... Russia. There would be no war, no faked insurgency, no problem of annexed territory, no deaths, no destruction, no threat of nuclear war, no NOTHING like this of any sort except this is what the Russian government has decided the world must suffer through.

There is no possible justification for Russia's actions.

If it didn't like what was going on in Ukraine, it could have gone to the UN and presented its case, it did not. It could be fighting the war in Ukraine openly, it does not. It could be living up to its written commitments to Minsk 1 and Minsk 2, it is not. It could be living up to its statements to not ship in "Humanitarian Aid" with inspection and following international law, it does not. It could be using its media to present accurate and balanced reporting, it does not. It could be investigating the assassination of one of its few remaining opposition leaders, it is not.

I could go on and on about what Russia could be doing vs. what it is doing, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. Because anybody who does not understand by now that Russia is waging a war of aggression against Ukraine is probably incapable of having his mind changed.

Oh, and arguing minutia about transponders and what not is just that... arguing minutia. On its own it is like arguing about how to bandage a small cut when there's a gaping wound to the abdomen.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

panzersauerkrautwerfer:

 

Your posts are cogent, funny at times and mostly on point, but could you please pleeeeeze take a few minutes of extra time to format your direct responses to other posters and include their handles so that I can read them without having to back up several posts or pages to see who made the posts you are quoting.  Maybe its just me, but I find it annoying at best especially during a running exchange that is becoming a more interesting read.

 

I know I brought this up before, and maybe you will tell me to go f myself, but then I will be very very sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it's strictly imho, I don't expect nor desire you to adopt my point of view in this issue

 

Ok let' s drop the transponder issue - For whatever the reasons may be, we would never agree anyways.

 

He hasn't said what you state explicitly at all, if you have read your own quote. He said that danish ships would "become targets". Do I have to find links that show how american, british and french nuclear missiles are trained on russian objectives; and russian ones on western ones.

 

He said that Danish ships will "...become targets of Russian nuclear missiles". That means that in case of war between NATO and Russia, Russia would consider to use nuclear weapons on a nation that itself is not a nuclear threat. Furthermore Russia wouldnt only use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear capable nation, it would also be highly disproportional to use nuclear weapons in that given scenario. The Russian navy and airforce has numerous means available to destroy Danish ships without having to resort to nuclear weapons.

 

Why do you think he said sentence if not to threaten Denmark? I would really be interested in the answear to that question.

 

Do you accept that nuclear capable missiles have their targets pre-programmed into them?

 

Nuclear missiles do not necessarily have their targets pre-programmed into them and the list of nuclear capable anti-ship missiles is long. The Russian SS-N-19 for example is actively seeking anti-ship missile capable of delivering a 350-500 kT nuclear warhead. He certainly was talking about nuclear capable anti-ship missiles.

 

Since in this case Portugal is the intercepting party, I see no connection with the issue discussed in previous posts, where Portugal was the intercepted party.

The article you posted talks about the Atlantic ocean. How does that pertain to Portuguese planes being intercepted by russian fighters over Baltic?

 

I misread what you said. But now we have something else to discuss: Russian nuclear capable bombers flying off the cost of Portugal.

 

Indeed that has not been discussed because various people keep trying to engage in "He hit me back first", or "your government is just as bad as my government" distraction techniques.

 

And this is the heart of the matter.  The answer to your question is yes.  It is that simple.  The Russia government ordered the invasion of Ukraine on trumped up excuses trying to hide what it was doing the whole way and when other nations responded first with demands that such activity stop and then with sanctions the Russian government's response was retaliation in the form of sanctions and a stepping up of threatening and harassing fights of various kinds.  To this day I have not seen one shred of credible facts or a logical argument that casts the events any other way.

 

You can see how some people here can get frustrated because instead of putting forth and argument for why invading Ukraine was justified all we keep hearing is distraction techniques, fake information and logical fallacies.  Honestly I really would like to hear an actual coherent argument for why invading Ukraine is justified.  And by an argument I mean an actual thought out set of reasoned and informed points.  I do *not* consider "well country X does it too", "to stop <insert fake information here> form happening to Russian speakers", or "because some other foreign government took over Ukraine" etc. etc. as well reasoned. Bear in mind that it is the Russian government that invaded a neighbouring country so the burden of justifying that action is on them.

 

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a wonderful dream, but it can't happen because there is no such argument to be made.

We, the people who made Black Sea's backstory, understood the reality of Russia's foreign policy and the importance of Ukraine to it. Based on this knowledge we predicted that Russia would invade Crimea and wage a "hybrid war" against the east and south of Ukraine as soon as the Ukrainian government decidedly shift westward. And guess what? That is EXACTLY what happened. Now either we understand Russia's true nature and predictable behavior fairly well, or we got all the outcomes correct but for all the wrong reasons. Given the demonstrated depth of knowledge that I, and others, have expressed about the events surrounding this war... I think it is totally implausible to conclude that we got the outcome right but the reasons for it totally wrong.

The only justification I still see pro-Russian supporters clinging to is the "coup" theory. Even if the facts supported the theory, and they absolutely under no reasonable circumstances come even close to doing so, Russia's actions are still 100% illegal, 100% counter productive, and 100% self serving Russia's own interests (though I would argue it is working against them, but that's a different discussion).

Which means, there is only one party to blame for the war that exists today... Russia. There would be no war, no faked insurgency, no problem of annexed territory, no deaths, no destruction, no threat of nuclear war, no NOTHING like this of any sort except this is what the Russian government has decided the world must suffer through.

There is no possible justification for Russia's actions.

If it didn't like what was going on in Ukraine, it could have gone to the UN and presented its case, it did not. It could be fighting the war in Ukraine openly, it does not. It could be living up to its written commitments to Minsk 1 and Minsk 2, it is not. It could be living up to its statements to not ship in "Humanitarian Aid" with inspection and following international law, it does not. It could be using its media to present accurate and balanced reporting, it does not. It could be investigating the assassination of one of its few remaining opposition leaders, it is not.

I could go on and on about what Russia could be doing vs. what it is doing, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. Because anybody who does not understand by now that Russia is waging a war of aggression against Ukraine is probably incapable of having his mind changed.

Oh, and arguing minutia about transponders and what not is just that... arguing minutia. On its own it is like arguing about how to bandage a small cut when there's a gaping wound to the abdomen.

Steve

Would all this be happening if our current "Administration" had not decided to withdraw U.S. influence from the world stage?

Edited by Nidan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...