Jump to content

Russian army under equipped?


Recommended Posts

Of course not all of your post was a slight exagerattion. More like i disagree with your main points. But i like you played devils advocate its nice to have a fresh person on vlads side which was a lonely spot and u can introduce fresh argument etc. And it took guts to do so so kudos to you. 

Edited by Sublime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah reinforcements seems a bit overdue for Vlad for a while... I figured the topic would just die and I could just hold me tongue but he kept fighting and fighting.  But now that I got myself in it feel free to argue with me about any of it.  I think I kept my case pretty reasonable and moderate.  Although I might have used too broad of brushstrokes to indicate that in some instances. 

And I wasn't saying Putin thought he had to do it to avoid losing all his popularity and be thrown out of office,  just that he likely would have lost a lot of his popularity, and would almost certainly be less popular (with his people) than he is now.  You are right that the things you mentioned show his people that he is fighting for them harder than his predecessor, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be upset if they saw him as letting them get taken advantage of by the west  (again) with no response, on their border, any time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on if you're of the mind Russia has a right to a sphere of influence, or if you're of the mind its neighbors have a right to their own destiny.  Russia is threatened because the West/NATO is making inroads into what it views as its backyard.  However Russia historically has oppressed the occupants of this "backyard" many of whom have national identities that have become increasingly anti-Russian.

Vlad unwittingly demonstrated a belief that Russia does have a right to intrude into its neighbor's doings more or less at will, and to install leaders as it sees fit.  I think most of us object to this.  I don't see either end of this argument changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every country has a sphere of influence.  I'm not saying countries should support violent revolutions/ civil wars, I think they shouldn't.  But I am saying that it makes more sense to be writing to our congress people and newspapers to try to stop America's support of the Syria rebels than to argue with the few Russians on the forum about how bad their government is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if we reverse the roles on Vlad?

Vlad and his people want to overthrow the oppressive pro-Ukrainian government of Putin which has embezzled billions of rubles. They protest peacefully, but soon the protests turn violent and Putin still refuses to step down. Eventually the people gain the upper hand and Putin is deposed. Naturally, Ukraine is frustrated after losing a sphere it has maintained for 400 years so the underhanded rogues in the Ukrainian government begin plotting. On a brisk morning in Krasnodar "little green men" are spotted wearing no identification, they march around the city seizing administrative objectives, lowering the Russian flag and raising the Ukrainian flag. But the Ukrainians have not yet punished the Russians' for their cries of self-determination. The Ukrainian high command comes to the decision to carve off Novgorod and Kamchatka from Russia, these new lands will be "Novoukraina". Now they deny anything ever happened. It's a civil war, alright.

Accept your new yoke Vlad! How could you possibly complain? They were justified in protecting ethnic Cossacks in Kuban. They are of Ukrainian Cossack heritage!

Edited by JUAN DEAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I sound confrontational. Not trying to start anything with Vlad. I just want him to see through his government's smoke and mirrors and come to face with the reality of his government. Still love you babe (no homo) (full homo). 

Edited by JUAN DEAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Vlad and his people want to overthrow the oppressive pro-Ukrainian government of Putin which has embezzled billions of rubles. They protest peacefully, but soon the protests turn violent and Putin still refuses to step down.

You forget to put the part where the main protest only happens in Kiev, and the protests are supported by western countries.

5 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Eventually the people gain the upper hand and Putin is deposed

Leaves the country than rather use force on his people. (Yanukovich did not sign an order where he could have easily contain the situation, since it was a coup) 

5 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Accept your new yoke Vlad! How could you possibly complain? They were justified in protecting ethnic Cossacks in Kuban. They are of Ukrainian Cossack heritage!

Accept my yoke that I've had no say in? You can catch me in the nearest rebellion group in event of such wrongfulness. 

4 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Sorry if I sound confrontational. Not trying to start anything with Vlad. I just want him to see through his government's smoke and mirrors and come to face with the reality of his government.

No it's not confrontational however I'd say we should go back into topic before the thread gets locked because we have gone a bit too far ;) if you get what I mean. 

 

As for the VDV: someone release the VDV modules, because the Russian army is under equipped without'm -_-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, sburke said:

One should expect nothing less from the Senior Member Extreme (Grande Wizzard)

Pssh i got a register date 3 yrs older than his and i was lurkn since the previous fall (99) he.s a noob

 

I will say this and I hate to say it bc Ive firmly.planted myself and remain in the HATO STRONK club. Americas been pretty nasty in its spheres of influence. Our roles in Latin American history are downright... shady. But you dont see people going after Spain over the Spanish empires activities or Rome over its way darker past. Why? Well time imo but mostly imo because theyre not the "world leader". In America people like to say people who are envious of success are haters and man the Russians are hating on us hard now playa ;) But its a whataboutism bc we.re talking about Russia and Ukraine and NOW

Edited by Sublime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I think it depends on if you're of the mind Russia has a right to a sphere of influence, or if you're of the mind its neighbors have a right to their own destiny.  Russia is threatened because the West/NATO is making inroads into what it views as its backyard.  However Russia historically has oppressed the occupants of this "backyard" many of whom have national identities that have become increasingly anti-Russian.

Every country has an inherent right to a "sphere of influence", even if it is limited to just the border areas.  However, how great a sphere, how strong a sphere, and how abusive the sphere is where the debate comes in.  The US, for example, has a long border with Mexico.  Millions of people and immeasurable quantities of drugs illegally come over that border.  This negatively affects what goes on within the US, therefore it has a legal and moral right to exert influence south of its border.  Having said that, it is not a blank check.  The efforts and methods must be legally and morally justifiable, which sadly they often are not (or are simply ineffective).

Russia has a long border with Ukraine and Ukraine speaks Russian quite well.  Ukrainian media which highlights how corrupt and repressive Russia is has a negative effect within Russia, therefore Russia wants to claim a right to exert influence over its borders.  Likewise, Russians have profited from exploiting Ukraine for its own economic, political, and military benefit so any change in that status negatively affects Russia.  Unlike the US example, Russia has neither the moral nor legal justifications for counter acting these things in the first place, which means *ANY* activity it engages in is unjustifiable.

This is it in a nutshell.

Quote


Vlad unwittingly demonstrated a belief that Russia does have a right to intrude into its neighbor's doings more or less at will, and to install leaders as it sees fit.  I think most of us object to this.  I don't see either end of this argument changing.

Yes, this is the dominate Russian mindset and it is the crux of many arguments.  Such as this one...

4 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

You forget to put the part where the main protest only happens in Kiev, and the protests are supported by western countries.

Sigh.  You really won't give up on this, will you?  Even though I showed you even more evidence that this war is not a civil war and never has been.  Instead you do what you always do... ignore or "whatabout" your way around it.

Russians love to argue history without arguing history.  You love to draw arbitrary lines in the past and say "everything from this line forward matters, nothing before that can be considered".  Russians also thrive on taking complex historical situations, stripping away the 90% of the stuff that doesn't support an argument, and twist the other 10% to justify a position.

What follows is a more accurate view of history and how it is relevant today.  Russians can distort, ignore, and "whatabout" history lessons like this, but all it does is underscore how utterly wrong Russians are.  And with that, I present a history lesson for Russians...

--------

For centuries Ukraine has been an abused and impoverished vassal state of Russia under both the Tzars and the Soviet systems.  Western influence in Ukraine has been almost zero until 1991.  After the Soviet Union dissolved Ukraine became an independent country on paper.  In reality it continued to be an exploited state for Russia's sole benefit.  As with Soviet and Tzarist practices of the past, this exploitation was accomplished by keeping corrupted locals in charge of the government. The only difference is that because Ukraine is a recognized independent country its corrupt leaders had more leverage to extract more from Russia than for the past few hundred years.

Over time Ukrainians have realized how bad the situation is in their country because they can see their neighbors prospering under Western influence.  Rule of law is strong, personal wealth is definitely higher, and overt corruption is very difficult to see on a daily basis.  The availability of services and infrastructure to every day people is vastly superior and getting more so by the year.  The educated, the ones who travel, and the ones who live nearer to the West see these differences more than ones living along the border of Russia.  Especially the ones who don't travel or speak a Western language.  The ones in the East also tend to get their news from Russia, which is absolutely biased against the West and absolutely lying about conditions within Russia.

The West encourages Ukrainians to demand more from their government; more freedom, more economic prosperity, more rule of law, more Human Rights, etc.  Russia, on the other hand, encourages Ukrainians to reject these things and instead maintain the abusive relationship with its government and, by extension, Russia.  Since every act to improve life in Ukraine by definition comes at the expense of Russian exploitation, obviously Russia views such things as a threat.  Morality and legality are never a concern for the Russian government, therefore it uses all means to counter act the Ukrainian people's natural desire to be free of authoritarian corruption and abuse. 

For 20+ years that worked, but with each passing year it became more and more difficult as the differences between Ukraine and its Western neighbors continued to diverge and Ukraine's government became less and less able to cover up its corruption.  As a result Russia found it more and more difficult to combat the Ukrainian people's growing dissatisfaction with Russia's influence over their lives.  In 2010 Russia narrowly retained control of Ukraine in the form of Yanukovych.  As a historian, this is clearly what we call a "watershed moment" that indicated the system would change sooner rather than later, and I'm absolutely sure Russia knew this as well.

Maidan happened because the majority of Ukrainians wanted a better life than the one offered under Russia's "sphere of influence".  Millions of people, including hundreds of thousands in the East, supported the movement.  Yanukovych decided to not listen to the voice of the people and instead succumbed to Russian pressure to use violence to break up the Maidan protests.  It didn't work (I think Putin knew it wouldn't) and Yanukovych found that his power base was running away, leaving him exposed.  He did the only thing he could do, which was to flee to Russia. 

The result of Yanukovych was no head of state in Ukraine and an immediate Russian invasion.  Putin had absolutely no legal right to launch such an invasion, either according to the Russian Constitution or International Law.  Any legitimate arguments it might have had for interfering with Ukraine's internal politics was destroyed the day after Yanukovych fled to the protection of Russia.

Since then Russia has illegally invaded and annexed Crimea, launched a massive effort to destabilize Ukraine's new government, launched a war of aggression in Donbas, and threatened the West with war if it tries to stop it.

That is the history up until now.  Contrary to Russia's propaganda efforts, this whole thing did not start with an alleged CIA plot to oust Yanukovych, rather it started with hundreds of years of abuse of the Ukrainian people by Russia.  And the real history since February 2014 is that there is *NO* civil war in Ukraine, but instead a Russian war of aggression that the Russian state knows it has to lie about because it knows it has no justification for it other than "might makes right".  And of course in Russian's mind, Ukraine has no right to exist and Ukrainians, by extension, have no right to question Russia's desire to control them.

Russians will continue to equate the West's non-violent influence in Ukraine with Russia's murdering of thousands of people and destroying billions of Dollars of infrastructure, stealing land for its own, and threatening the world with another World War.  That's a choice a Russian can make.  However, trying to make them moral equivalents is laughable.  There is no justification for Russia's war against the Ukrainian people except to keep Ukraine slaves to the Russian state by any means necessary.  Vlad, if you're OK with this then please just say so and stop relying upon lies and bad logic to create a false world view.  You can't control what your government does/says, but you can control how your own mind works.  Give it a shot and see how it goes.

=====

In case someone doesn't want to read the above, it boils down to... Ukraine for the first time has the ability to decide its own fate.  This is something the West likes, this is something Russia hates.  The West is encouraging Ukraine to be its own country, Russia is attempting to destroy it.  Why?  Because Russia itself is based on the same system of lies and exploitation of its own people.  If Russians start getting it into their heads, like Ukrainians did, that this system isn't good for them... well... that isn't good for those in power within Russia.


Steve

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting article which makes the case that the Russian state views Ukraine as it's biggest security risk, not NATO.  While Russian propaganda constantly makes the case to the Russian people that NATO represents a threat, in reality it knows that this is not true.  It makes statements and military changes that amount to nothing but aggressive talk, while in reality Russia does nothing to reinforce it's positions in the Baltics and even Kaliningrad.  On the other hand, it is massing large permanent based forces capable of striking into Ukraine and Belarus with short notice.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/9437.htm

For those of you following events closely, you'll see that at the very least the article fits the facts.  And that is tens of thousands of Russian forces are being permanently moved to confront both Ukraine and Belarus.  Since it's usual that countries put their military forces where they think they are most needed, the implications of Russia's moves are pretty clear... Ukraine represents the biggest threat to Russia, not NATO.  Why?

Ukraine is much smaller than Russia in population, industrial capacity, energy production, military strength, and everything else imaginable.  Until Russia's war against Ukraine the Ukrainian armed forces were disorganized and corrupt to the extent of being barely functional.  Yet Russia is putting huge efforts into waging war against Ukraine in Donbas and diverting forces/resources from other parts of Russia which, supposedly, are protecting Russia from the threats of China, NATO, and unrest in the Caucuses.

It is difficult to understand why Russia views Ukraine as such a threat in any conventional sense of the word.  So if Ukraine isn't a threat in the conventional sense, then why is Russia so invested in waging war against Ukraine now and setting itself up for potential larger actions in the future?  The answer is that Ukraine poses the same threat to Russia's autocracy that Poland and Romania posed to Ukraine's autocracy.  That of an example that life can be better.

What Russia fears more than anything is a stable and increasingly improving Ukraine which also invites NATO forces onto its soil.  Because if Russia feels that it needs to wipe Ukraine out, it knows that won't be possible if NATO is protecting it.  And so Russia is trying to buy itself time by keeping Ukraine as destabilized and under threat as possible for as long as possible.  To what end is still unclear because the only way for Russia to truly overcome the threat of Ukraine is to genuinely make sure its people are better off than Ukrainians, not try and keep Ukrainians artificially less well off.  But hey, that's not the way autocracies work so we're stuck with Russia's preferred solution because, sadly, it is the only thing it can do because it's the only thing it knows how to do.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Every country has an inherent right to a "sphere of influence", even if it is limited to just the border areas.  However, how great a sphere, how strong a sphere, and how abusive the sphere is where the debate comes in.  The US, for example, has a long border with Mexico.  Millions of people and immeasurable quantities of drugs illegally come over that border.

Truly, the only sphere of influence the US is involved is Mexico, and not every corner in the world. 

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia has a long border with Ukraine and Ukraine speaks Russian quite well.  Ukrainian media which highlights how corrupt and repressive Russia is has a negative effect within Russia, therefore Russia wants to claim a right to exert influence over its borders.  Likewise, Russians have profited from exploiting Ukraine for its own economic, political, and military benefit so any change in that status negatively affects Russia.  Unlike the US example, Russia has neither the moral nor legal justifications for counter acting these things in the first place, which means *ANY* activity it engages in is unjustifiable.

Let's also not forget the fact  Ukraine was not a independent state until the 1900s, and was Russian. Anyways following up I'm going to get into greater detail on why you are completely wrong.

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

For centuries Ukraine has been an abused and impoverished vassal state of Russia under both the Tzars and the Soviet systems.  Western influence in Ukraine has been almost zero until 1991. 

Ukraine for centuries was Russia, and Russia was Ukraine. A large portion of Ukraine is where Russians have originated from. Ukraine was given independence as a Ukrainian state during the Soviet times. But you know, let's pretend that Ukrainians are not connected to Russia, and that prior to 2014, we weren't tied to each other militarily, economically, and politically.

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

In reality it continued to be an exploited state for Russia's sole benefit.  As with Soviet and Tzarist practices of the past, this exploitation was accomplished by keeping corrupted locals in charge of the government. The only difference is that because Ukraine is a recognized independent country its corrupt leaders had more leverage to extract more from Russia than for the past few hundred years.

Okay you assume that Ukraine is the only victim of the Tsar's practices. Russians suffered immensely, the same way Ukrainians did. Hence why the Communist Revolution had many Russians and Ukrainians together against the Tsar. You forget all the industry capabilities as brothers Ukrainians and Russians built together. It is still very apparent in their military. But let's forget this, and just narrowly view a Russian intervention and not take into account anything else other than Russian intervention.

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Over time Ukrainians have realized how bad the situation is in their country because they can see their neighbors prospering under Western influence.  Rule of law is strong, personal wealth is definitely higher, and overt corruption is very difficult to see on a daily basis.

It is only Ukraine who have seen the brutality of the Tsar, not the Russians and many other ethnic groups. But anyways beside the fact, Ukraine is willing to cooperate with the EU and go fully into US sphere. The other countries like Belarus, and the Russian Federation who do not violently over throw the voted president, destroy all kinds of control, and cause chaos among the nation are clearly not smart like the Ukrainians that were in Kiev. I truly fear Putin and his FSB cronies! Come on Steve, you bring out a bunch of dirt against Russian intervention (which I've agreed to) but fail to see this coupe is supported by foreign countries. You accuse the Ukrainian government of the time being corrupt (which is true in minor cases, corruption exists in Russia, and people point this out to the government and are trying to get it abolished) yet you do not comment on about Yanukovich not signing an order to crack down, or control the nation state. Also, you ignore the fact that before Yanukovich escaping, he was being hunted down for his head! Show's to me you ignore the brutality of this Maidan revolution. And many other minor details, like the US supporting obviously far right groups, which have at most had the support of a small portion of the population.

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Maidan happened because the majority of Ukrainians wanted a better life than the one offered under Russia's "sphere of influence".

European Union?! Brexit says enough against this claim, people got to vote fairly. In Ukraine's case, violent overthrows take place. If you've been following on this, you'll notice all the western influence in the maidan revolts. But you know, "whataboutism" at play. Russia is evil, and we are very ignorant dumb downed folks.... That's the impression I get from you sometimes.

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The result of Yanukovych was no head of state in Ukraine and an immediate Russian invasion.  Putin had absolutely no legal right to launch such an invasion, either according to the Russian Constitution or International Law.

Putin had no legal right true, but if Ukraine has no head of state and everything is in disarray, anti-Russian right wingers coming into power. Russia will secure Russian rights in the region. Again, you keep looking at the intervention part, and nothing else... Am I stupidly saying something different? There is no other two nations, with a significant history, and tie together like Russia and Ukraine, so I cannot make any comparisons. 

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russians will continue to equate the West's non-violent influence in Ukraine

Yep, non violent influence, supporting far right groups, and unfair revolutions in Ukraine helped the region so much. Russia supporting Russians in the region in response to having their ally, economical, and military ally ripped away from them, is far worse. Also considering the fact if there was no ATO, and a political solution by the Ukrainian government was sought out in Donbas(recognizing the Russian population's disgust in not having any role in Kiev), a conflict on that scale would not have happened, also no Russian intervention would not have taken place. Do not pin the thousands of dead Russians and Ukrainians on Russia. Pin it on whoever caused the Maidan revolts to happen. 

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

  Vlad, if you're OK with this then please just say so and stop relying upon lies and bad logic to create a false world view.  You can't control what your government does/says, but you can control how your own mind works.  Give it a shot and see how it goes.

I'm a very patriotic person not towards my government more so to Russia as a people, and before I felt the same for Ukraine. If I knew Russia was the oppressor and the sole reason for the thousands of deaths, I would not hesitate to show my disgust, and even protest. However, I like to look at the crisis for what it is, and not in a narrow view point. I've accepted the wrongs Russia has did in Ukraine (Tsars, corruption) I've accepted that Russia has intervened at some point in Donbas, but I won't forget what caused this bloody war, directly effecting my ancestral origins, as well as effecting my nation in many ways. (Sanctions, demonized on the world stage, Cold War hatred) Not only that, but effecting the centuries of history Russians and Ukrainians have had together, use to being one people, going through the same hardships and fighting for each other.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hesitate to join this very interesting discussion, but I do have a couple of questions as am genuinely puzzled by the situation.  Am no particular fan of Russia, but 1) What would be the difference be between Texas and Ukraine, and what would the US do, if the Texans suddenly decide that they want to be return to be part of Mexico again since they have a very long history of being part of Mexico until invaded by US forces?  2)  Ditto for the English vs Scotland if Scotland "came to its senses" and decided it wanted to join the Warsaw Pact after centuries of exploitation by the English?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I hesitate to join this very interesting discussion, but I do have a couple of questions as am genuinely puzzled by the situation.  Am no particular fan of Russia, but 1) What would be the difference be between Texas and Ukraine, and what would the US do, if the Texans suddenly decide that they want to be return to be part of Mexico again since they have a very long history of being part of Mexico until invaded by US forces?  2)  Ditto for the English vs Scotland if Scotland "came to its senses" and decided it wanted to join the Warsaw Pact after centuries of exploitation by the English?

 

 

Well honestly those scenarios still can't be compared to what happened in Ukraine, however they are quite interesting. I don't think the current world situation in those regions permit Texas going to Mexico, because first off Mexico faces many internal issues, secondly Texas is just fine being a US state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

I hesitate to join this very interesting discussion, but I do have a couple of questions as am genuinely puzzled by the situation.  Am no particular fan of Russia, but 1) What would be the difference be between Texas and Ukraine, and what would the US do, if the Texans suddenly decide that they want to be return to be part of Mexico again since they have a very long history of being part of Mexico until invaded by US forces?  2)  Ditto for the English vs Scotland if Scotland "came to its senses" and decided it wanted to join the Warsaw Pact after centuries of exploitation by the English?

 

 

Scotland held a referendum on independence. And are likely to do so again. Peacefully. Organised by a government representative of its population that doesn't use brute force to quell dissent or peaceful protests. And without military and economic  threat by the UK Government (other than pointing out the obvious re bases,  separation from the pound, pensions,  etc) . And independently verified. Again. 

Not exactly a good analogy. 

Texas,  sure maybe. But it's actually a better argument for the other side,  as to join Mexico Texans would need to collectively lose their minds -  life is obviously much better in the US (read -  EU). So to have sections of Texas erupting into violence, burning buildings and killing journalists in the name of 'independence', when things will very obviously be better under a US Western influenced political establishment (as opposed to a corrupt, drug cartel riddled "mexican" one) would look very suspiciously like foreign agitation. 

Some people have wondered why there is such a demographic  division with the Ukraine between East and West. I'd argue it comes down to mobility -  the western side of Ukraine can literally travel into Poland and see how much better it is. And Poland is considered low/middle ranking within the EU (but accelerating up nicely).I've been to both countries and by god the difference is stark. 

Conversely, it's not as physically easy for the Eastern provinces to visit Poland or further -  cost,  travel time,  no family, etc. But Russia is right there next door, and appears kinda OK. It's known,  familiar. The EU is distant,  with little power. Russia's appears to have lots. 

But the EUs is soft power,  the power of an economic ocean. Russia's is the power of a military rock. And which one ends up worn small and smooth?  

The Ukraine does not need to recapture the Donbass. But it DOES need to contain it. And it needs to work it's own Cold War against Russia,  showing a steadily improving life and political society (as well as an obviously capable Military)  in contrast to a stagnant,  unstable,  overbearing Donbass existence. At some point young people will vote with their feet. 

And it won't be Eastward. 

Edited by kinophile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Accept my yoke that I've had no say in? You can catch me in the nearest rebellion group in event of such wrongfulness. 

So in this hypothetical roles reversed Ukrainian aggression in Russia you would support the "rebellion group" (i.e. fake republics)? Interesting. I admire your lack of a double standard but your fundamental understanding of the Maidan Revolution and the subsequent war is flawed.

Moving on....

This is kind of off topic but, why does the Russian military have such an aversion to bar armor (slat armor, cage armor, whatever you call it)? I haven't seen it used on any Russian vehicles and once saw a Russian TV show Voyenna Priemka (can't find the name in Cyrillic) that did a segment on the ineffectiveness of bar armor, basically writing it off as useless. This division is seen in Ukraine were Ukrainian security forces cover their vehicles with bar armor as soon as they learned it provided limited protection from shaped charges. The separatists on the other hand remove the bar armor from captured Ukrainian vehicles, claiming that it is only good for breaking neck when dismounting. Interestingly enough, when Ukrainians repatriate the stolen vehicles they reinstall the bar armor; if the vehicle was supplied by Russia they also install the bar armor. You're in the Russian army, right? Why does your army hate bar armor so much?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:

This is kind of off topic but, why does the Russian military have such an aversion to bar armor (slat armor, cage armor, whatever you call it)? I haven't seen it used on any Russian vehicles and once saw a Russian TV show Voyenna Priemka (can't find the name in Cyrillic) that did a segment on the ineffectiveness of bar armor, basically writing it off as useless. This division is seen in Ukraine were Ukrainian security forces cover their vehicles with bar armor as soon as they learned it provided limited protection from shaped charges. The separatists on the other hand remove the bar armor from captured Ukrainian vehicles, claiming that it is only good for breaking neck when dismounting. Interestingly enough, when Ukrainians repatriate the stolen vehicles they reinstall the bar armor; if the vehicle was supplied by Russia they also install the bar armor. You're in the Russian army, right? Why does your army hate bar armor so much?

Juan, it's because ever since world war 2 bar/cage armor was useless. Nazis were putting nice little holes in our tanks with panzerfausts. Then more advanced cage armor was attempted with farther distance than before. It is still useless... Cage armor is a no choice add on IMO. In Syria, government forces have cage armor extending out half a meter, and even then I'd question it's stand off capability against RPG warheads. Cage armor can be useful in putting distance away from the HEAT projectile, but armored vehicles especially APCs or BMP type IFVs have weak side armors even with the cage armor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Texas,  sure maybe. But it's actually a better argument for the other side,  as to join Mexico Texans would need to collectively lose their minds -  life is obviously much better in the US. So to have sections of Texas erupting into violence, burning buildings and killing journalists in the name of 'independence', when things will very obviously be better under a US Western influenced political establishment (as opposed to a corrupt, drug cartel riddled "mexican" one) would look very suspiciously like foreign agitation. 

This is a flawed example. Texas was a claim of the Spanish Empire under the protectorate of New Spain so when Mexico gained her independence from Spain in 1821 she also received Texas as a territory. During the early 1800s many colonists from the southern United States set out to settle this land as part of the "Manifest Destiny" and by 1836 the territory was majority white English speaking Protestants who, being slave owners, carried significant racial prejudices and were resentful of the centralization attempts of the majority Catholic Mexican government. These differences culminated in the Texas Revolution, an independence movement to separate from the Mexican Government and the rest is history. The reason why Texas is one of the 50 states in the US is because of the decisions of the Texans themselves. Texas is American by choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Juan, it's because ever since world war 2 bar/cage armor was useless. Nazis were putting nice little holes in our tanks with panzerfausts. Then more advanced cage armor was attempted with farther distance than before. It is still useless... Cage armor is a no choice add on IMO. In Syria, government forces have cage armor extending out half a meter, and even then I'd question it's stand off capability against RPG warheads. Cage armor can be useful in putting distance away from the HEAT projectile, but armored vehicles especially APCs or BMP type IFVs have weak side armors even with the cage armor. 

Actually the slat armor is quite effective against lower velocity HEAT rounds, and has defeated more than a few RPG rounds.  

Re: Texas and Scotland

These are all interesting, but the Ukraine is an internationally recognized independent country vs part of a larger state.  Unless we accept Russia has a legitimate claim to control the government of it's neighbors, then there's really pretty much zero functional comparison.

If we're going about it this way, if historically British parts of France suddenly started having "students" in British uniforms rolling around in Challenger 2 tanks appear to "protect" British people who live in France, or suddenly Cancun had a bunch of European, African and Asian "Mexicans" assault the various government offices and demand a return a more friendly US government, or for Mexico to become a confederation of independent states, then we'd be talking apples to apples.

Re: "Spheres of Influence"

I differ in that I don't feel any nation has a "right" to spheres of influence, as much as it's a series of competing ideas and ideologies.  There's virtually no chance of Texas breaking off and returning to Mexico because being part of the US is so much more attractive than returning to Mexico.  On the other hand, the Rest of UK is losing its grip on Scotland because it is losing this competition of ideals.  

The reason Russia's sphere of influence is shrinking is because it's a morally and practically bankrupt set of ideas and ideologies, that has no appeal outside of Russia/Russians/people the Russian government effectively own.  It offers nothing except words that lack any meaning after all the various historical Russian bad acts, crimes against humanity, and betrayals.  

Basically it's soft power vs hard power.  Russia/the USSR has relied on hard power almost to the exclusion of all else (or when using soft power, it's only been the velvet glove over the iron fist).  Russia is too weak to have credible "hard" power outside of countries that do not align with the west.  Russia has no soft power because it's been terrible to everyone, and exports little of value (or basically it hurts itself more than its neighbors when it turns off the gas).

The US has a massive sphere of influence because it DOES have a lot of soft power,  it does have a cultural narrative that is effective, and while far from perfect, it does follow laws and international agreements enough to be trusted sometimes.  

This whole Russian delusion that somehow your influence is being stolen is pretty funny.  You're the boy who shows up to the dance, and gets mad no girl will talk to him after he's killed their pet cat, or calls them all sluts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Truly, the only sphere of influence the US is involved is Mexico, and not every corner in the world. 

Let's also not forget the fact  Ukraine was not a independent state until the 1900s, and was Russian. Anyways following up I'm going to get into greater detail on why you are completely wrong.

Ukraine for centuries was Russia, and Russia was Ukraine. A large portion of Ukraine is where Russians have originated from. Ukraine was given independence as a Ukrainian state during the Soviet times. But you know, let's pretend that Ukrainians are not connected to Russia, and that prior to 2014, we weren't tied to each other militarily, economically, and politically.

 

That is a convenient perspective, but not entirely accurate. 

From wiki just to hear a different perspective.  Portions of Ukraine had been occupied by Russia, but at the same time Austria would have just as much a claim and before that Poland and the Mongol khanate.  Fact is Ukraine was an internationally recognized state  that chose to align with the USSR (an important distinction - it was not part of Russia, but rather an equal partner in the USSR.  Not that Russia respected that arrangement)  when the USSR dissolved that arrangement was no more.  

Part of Scythia in antiquity and settled by Getae, in the migration period, Ukraine is also the site of early Slavic expansion, and enters history proper with the establishment of the medieval state of Kievan Rus, which emerged as a powerful nation in the Middle Ages but disintegrated in the 12th century. By the middle of the 14th century, present Ukrainian territories were under the rule of three external powers: the Golden Horde, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Kingdom of Poland, during the 15th century these lands came under the rule of the Crown of the Kingdom of PolandPolish–Lithuanian Commonwealth(since 1569), and Crimean Khanate.[4] After a 1648 rebellion against dominantly Polish Catholic rule, an assembly of the people (rada) agreed to the Treaty of Pereyaslav in January 1654. Soon, the southeastern portion of the Polish-Lithuanian empire east of the Dnieper River came under Russian rule, for centuries.[5] After the Partitions of Poland (1772–1795) and conquest of Crimean Khanate, Ukraine was divided between the Tsardom of Russia and Habsburg Austria.

chaotic period of warfare ensued after the Russian Revolution. The internationally recognised Ukrainian People's Republic emerged from its own civil war. The Ukrainian–Soviet War followed, in which the bolsheviks Red Army established control in late 1919.[6] The Ukrainian Bolsheviks, who had defeated national government in Kiev, created the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which on 30 December 1922 became one of the founding republics of the Soviet Union. Initial Soviet policy on Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture made Ukrainian the official language of administration and schools. Policy in the 1930s turned to russification. In 1932 and 1933, millions of people, mostly peasants, in Ukraine starved to death in a devastating famine. It is estimated that 6 to 8 million people died from hunger in the Soviet Union during this period, of whom 4 to 5 million were Ukrainians.[7] Nikita Khrushchev was appointed the head of the Ukrainian Communist Party in 1938.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Truly, the only sphere of influence the US is involved is Mexico, and not every corner in the world. 

Who said that was a complete list of US and Russia's spheres of influence?  I was trying to show one example of the US and one example of Russia.  I could have chosen Canada for the US and the Baltics for Russia.  Or any number of other things.  And yes, Russia projects its sphere far beyond its borders.

Quote

Let's also not forget the fact  Ukraine was not a independent state until the 1900s, and was Russian. Anyways following up I'm going to get into greater detail on why you are completely wrong.

Ukraine for centuries was Russia, and Russia was Ukraine. A large portion of Ukraine is where Russians have originated from. Ukraine was given independence as a Ukrainian state during the Soviet times. But you know, let's pretend that Ukrainians are not connected to Russia, and that prior to 2014, we weren't tied to each other militarily, economically, and politically.

See, this is the whole problem.  Ukrainians do not share this view.  They have revolted, numerous times, against Moscow's control.  In response Moscow has murdered millions of Ukrainians.  And in 1991 when Ukraine was finally given a choice to remain ruled by Moscow and being independent, what did it choose?  Independence.  Much the same for the Baltic States and Poland who have, for very long periods of time, been ruled by Moscow.  Why would they do this if they felt they were Russian?

So yes, I do understand that Russians think they own Ukraine and that they can do with it as they please.  However, the Ukrainians have a different opinion and theirs counts more than Russians.

Quote

Okay you assume that Ukraine is the only victim of the Tsar's practices. Russians suffered immensely, the same way Ukrainians did. Hence why the Communist Revolution had many Russians and Ukrainians together against the Tsar. You forget all the industry capabilities as brothers Ukrainians and Russians built together. It is still very apparent in their military. But let's forget this, and just narrowly view a Russian intervention and not take into account anything else other than Russian intervention.

How the Tzar or Stalin treated Russians is not relevant.  Russians today suffer under Putin, so does that somehow excuse what Putin is doing to Ukraine?  No.

Quote

It is only Ukraine who have seen the brutality of the Tsar, not the Russians and many other ethnic groups. But anyways beside the fact, Ukraine is willing to cooperate with the EU and go fully into US sphere. The other countries like Belarus, and the Russian Federation who do not violently over throw the voted president, destroy all kinds of control, and cause chaos among the nation are clearly not smart like the Ukrainians that were in Kiev. I truly fear Putin and his FSB cronies!

You have been conditioned to hold this belief, just as a battered wife believes that it would be worse to leave her husband.

Quote

Come on Steve, you bring out a bunch of dirt against Russian intervention (which I've agreed to) but fail to see this coupe is supported by foreign countries. You accuse the Ukrainian government of the time being corrupt (which is true in minor cases, corruption exists in Russia, and people point this out to the government and are trying to get it abolished) yet you do not comment on about Yanukovich not signing an order to crack down, or control the nation state. Also, you ignore the fact that before Yanukovich escaping, he was being hunted down for his head! Show's to me you ignore the brutality of this Maidan revolution. And many other minor details, like the US supporting obviously far right groups, which have at most had the support of a small portion of the population.

Oh, I'm aware of what Russian propaganda states, but I am also aware it is as much of a lie as "there are no Russian soldiers in Crimea".

There was absolutely no "brutality of this Maidan revolution" to ignore because it doesn't exist.  At least not in any relevant way and absolutely nothing to compare with the thousands murdered by the Russian government and the 2 million displaced persons.  Compared to the brutality of the Russian state against Ukraine, whatever violence attributable to the Ukrainian government is like a slight cough to emphasize.

Again, you can "whataboutism" as much as you like, but the reality is Russia is waging an unjustified, illegal, immoral war of aggression against Ukraine and lying about it every single day.  There's no getting around that basic fact except through denial or lying.

Quote

European Union?! Brexit says enough against this claim, people got to vote fairly. In Ukraine's case, violent overthrows take place. If you've been following on this, you'll notice all the western influence in the maidan revolts. But you know, "whataboutism" at play. Russia is evil, and we are very ignorant dumb downed folks.... That's the impression I get from you sometimes.

Of course Western NGOs and other groups encouraged Ukrainians to stand up for their rights and to oppose an autocratic and corrupt government.  Why shouldn't they?

Russians are not ignorant nor stupid, however they are living in denial and work very hard to maintain it even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Quote

Putin had no legal right true, but if Ukraine has no head of state and everything is in disarray, anti-Russian right wingers coming into power. Russia will secure Russian rights in the region. Again, you keep looking at the intervention part, and nothing else... Am I stupidly saying something different? There is no other two nations, with a significant history, and tie together like Russia and Ukraine, so I cannot make any comparisons. 

Yes, you are stupid for saying this.  Let's see what other options Russia had...

1.  Wait and see if there really was a problem to worry about.  Putin waited about 12 hours before signing the orders to invade Ukraine.  Surely you don't think that in 12 hours Ukraine's military could form a credible threat to Russian security even if it was motivated to?

2.  Go to the UN and make a case for some form of action.  Raise the issue of security for Russian speaking Ukrainians and have a credible monitoring force put in place.

3.  Not invade and steal territory.

4.  Not lie about everything it is doing.

The reality is many in the West were also nervous about the change in government, in part aided by hysterical and outright fiction coming from Russian media.  If Russia made a reasonable proposal in the early days it would have been at least listened to.  Instead it used military force and lied about it.

Russia had choices.  It chose to kill and lie, not Ukraine.

Quote

Yep, non violent influence, supporting far right groups, and unfair revolutions in Ukraine helped the region so much. Russia supporting Russians in the region in response to having their ally, economical, and military ally ripped away from them, is far worse.

"unfair revolutions"?  The Yanukovych regime was corrupt and repressive.  It didn't listen to the people and certainly used violence to try and break up Maidan all through the protests.  I think it's more "unfair" to use the power of state to crush the people than the people to request the state listen to them.

Now, maybe if Russia hadn't been so abusive to Ukraine over these many years perhaps Ukrainians would not have wanted to get away from Russia?  Nah... that's crazy talk!

Quote

Also considering the fact if there was no ATO, and a political solution by the Ukrainian government was sought out in Donbas(recognizing the Russian population's disgust in not having any role in Kiev), a conflict on that scale would not have happened, also no Russian intervention would not have taken place. Do not pin the thousands of dead Russians and Ukrainians on Russia. Pin it on whoever caused the Maidan revolts to happen. 

No conflict at ALL would have happened without Russia deliberately making it happen.  NONE.  The piles of dead are all Russia's fault and only Russia's fault.  Nobody forced Russia to invade, nobody forced Russia to kill, and certainly nobody forced Russia to lie about it.

Quote

I'm a very patriotic person not towards my government more so to Russia as a people, and before I felt the same for Ukraine. If I knew Russia was the oppressor and the sole reason for the thousands of deaths, I would not hesitate to show my disgust, and even protest.

Which is why you deny so much and so hard.  I've said this before... I think you are at heart a good person who doesn't want to question his love of country.  Therefore, you ignore the facts or deny they exist.  Even when you admit to a part of the crimes against Ukraine, you quickly defend them as justifiable and resit asking tough questions like:

"why does my government feel it needs to lie about the war it is waging in Ukraine?"

The answer is because if it told the truth people like you would be upset by it.  That would mean questioning support for Putin, which is why Putin is lying to you.

Quote

However, I like to look at the crisis for what it is, and not in a narrow view point. I've accepted the wrongs Russia has did in Ukraine (Tsars, corruption) I've accepted that Russia has intervened at some point in Donbas, but I won't forget what caused this bloody war, directly effecting my ancestral origins, as well as effecting my nation in many ways. (Sanctions, demonized on the world stage, Cold War hatred) Not only that, but effecting the centuries of history Russians and Ukrainians have had together, use to being one people, going through the same hardships and fighting for each other.

There would be no war if Russia had not created one.  There is absolutely no argument you can make that gets around this ugly fact.  The war is Russia's creation and only Russia's creation.  The logic of why Russia is waging this war, and why it is lying about it, is very plain to see if you bother to look.  You not only aren't looking, but when it is put in front of your face you look away.  That is a choice you are making, but I sympathize because I know it is heavily influenced by your environment.  You are doing what you've been conditioned to do.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...