Jump to content
WhiteWolf65

United States vs Russia capability questions

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, sburke said:

yes it has been argued here and no one has yet come up with valid data to show that it is anything more than a myth, though you are certainly welcome to give it your best shot including citing these supposedly declassified documents or leaks that you refer to.

Go to the link in my post.  :rolleyes:

Here's one example:

Quote

The British memorandum specifically quotes Genscher as saying “that when he talked about not wanting to extend NATO that applied to other states beside the GDR. The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.”

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//dc.html?doc=4325676-Document-02-Mr-Hurd-to-Sir-C-Mallaby-Bonn

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ikalugin said:

Yes, we are well aware of the western narrative, I guess this has been argued here, with de-classified/leaked transcripts of relevant discussions cited.

Discussion is not a deal. Show me the treaty ratified by the signatory nations.

 

5 minutes ago, ikalugin said:

But, hey, this has already turned into "Russia bad" thread, with predictions on how Russia is going to collapse/whatever, I wonder if anyone made those predictions back in say 2014 or 2015.

No, this part of the thread is people trying point out the inaccuracies in Russian Government propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Hold on mate, you just got caught telling porky-pies and now you want to change the subject!  :lol: 

I was going to compile a list of all the countries that the US/NATO have invaded since 1990.....But I really don't have all night to waste on this.  :unsure:

 

I have said before and am happy to repeat - I'll discuss and agree with the many issues US strategic and political mistakes but once again I don't see you give an inch that Russia might have done the same and the whataboutism doesn't make it any better.  So yeah you are wasting time dodging the question - has Russia ever done anything wrong in your eyes?  anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, IanL said:

No, this part of the thread is people trying point out the inaccuracies in Russian Government propaganda.

Or US/NATO propaganda.....Have you looked at the link in my post yet?  Or are we at the wilful denial stage?  :rolleyes:

1 minute ago, sburke said:

I have said before and am happy to repeat - I'll discuss and agree with the many issues US strategic and political mistakes but once again I don't see you give an inch that Russia might have done the same and the whataboutism doesn't make it any better.

You don't seem to acknowledge that the Russians might have a perspective, why should you be treated with exceptionalism?

1 minute ago, sburke said:

 So yeah you are wasting time dodging the question - has Russia ever done anything wrong in your eyes?  anything?

Plenty.....But, since 1990, in comparison with the US/NATO, they are virtual saints, the facts speak for themselves.  :mellow:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IanL said:

Discussion is not a deal. Show me the treaty ratified by the signatory nations.

The other thing that is interesting in all that is context.  What they were discussing was the reunification of Germany - NO ONE at that point was expecting the collapse of the USSR.  And no there is no smoking gun in all that article that has anything to do with why those former eastern bloc countries would want to join NATO.  NATO isn't a forced membership, you have to ask and even then it isn't a sure thing.  Add to that NATO isn't particularly effective…..  It is more a principle.  What it does do is put Russia in an awkward position and constrains it's freedom of maneuver in intervening in those countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, sburke said:

The other thing that is interesting in all that is context.  What they were discussing was the reunification of Germany - NO ONE at that point was expecting the collapse of the USSR.  And no there is no smoking gun in all that article that has anything to do with why those former eastern bloc countries would want to join NATO.  NATO isn't a forced membership, you have to ask and even then it isn't a sure thing.  Add to that NATO isn't particularly effective…..  It is more a principle.  What it does do is put Russia in an awkward position and constrains it's freedom of maneuver in intervening in those countries.

That's just one document you dotard.  :rolleyes:

Here's a précis of another, from the link:

Even with (unjustified) redactions by U.S. classification officers, this American transcript of perhaps the most famous U.S. assurance to the Soviets on NATO expansion confirms the Soviet transcript of the same conversation. Repeating what Bush said at the Malta summit in December 1989, Baker tells Gorbachev: “The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral advantage in this process” of inevitable German unification. Baker goes on to say, “We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Later in the conversation, Baker poses the same position as a question, “would you prefer a united Germany outside of NATO that is independent and has no US forces or would you prefer a united Germany with ties to NATO and assurances that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward?” The declassifiers of this memcon actually redacted Gorbachev’s response that indeed such an expansion would be “unacceptable” – but Baker’s letter to Kohl the next day, published in 1998 by the Germans, gives the quote.

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, IanL said:

Discussion is not a deal. Show me the treaty ratified by the signatory nations.

 

No, this part of the thread is people trying point out the inaccuracies in Russian Government propaganda.

That is a weak defense, I would suggest watching Pozner to that end, for example here:


Though I guess considering how US destroyed arms control starting with the ABM treaty and finishing now with exit from the Iran deal even if there was a formal treaty it would not have helped.

As to propaganda - I am well aware that some of local admins have a poltical agenda so seeing simplistic "Russia bad" "Russia collapse" narratives is not surprising to me. Note who drove this thread into politics :D

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Or US/NATO propaganda.....Have you looked at the link in my post yet?  Or are we at the wilful denial stage?  :rolleyes:

I believe you are in the willful denial stage. :P  and have been for some time.  But then Russia NEVER does anything wrong and is always just protecting itself from the uber aggressive NATO invasion led by....err wait is there an armed force still on the continent that is a real threat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Russia's done a few dumb things, but TBH as I said, since Soviet days, they've been pretty quiet, virtual dormice compared to US/NATO who have been at it non-stop, everywhere from Yugoslavia to Yemen.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the internal stability within the LDPR, sure there were murders on both sides, but I guess they all get attributed to Putin's sedition, as would those nice gentlemen:
photo_2019-07-08_20-03-22.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ikalugin said:

That is a weak defense, I would suggest watching Pozner to that end, for example here:

As to propaganda - I am well aware that some of local admins have a poltical agenda so seeing simplistic "Russia bad" "Russia collapse" narratives is not surprising to me. Note who drove this thread into politics :D

I don't think it was an admin, at least part of the reason was me, a good other part is you. :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, sburke said:

Hey how did you know I just celebrated another birthday? :D

I'd been saving that specially!  :D

No bad feelings, to either you or @IanL  I value your contributions (and a good argument with you) tremendously.  B)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Here's one example:

Quote

The British memorandum specifically quotes Genscher as saying “that when he talked about not wanting to extend NATO that applied to other states beside the GDR. The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.”

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//dc.html?doc=4325676-Document-02-Mr-Hurd-to-Sir-C-Mallaby-Bonn

Ah, seriously, have you read this? It is a summary of a conversation between the US Secretary of State and the German equivalent regarding the unification of Germany. Tt is not an agreement between any group of nations it is a discussion of positions. In it they also discuss the possibility of Soviet troops remaining stationed inside a united Germany. That is an interesting idea.

I fee like I'm in the twilight zone. The strongest assertion you could make about this document was that the Germans wanted to reassure the USSR that unting Germany and remaining in NATO was not part of a plan to expand NATO. That is not the same a commitment to never allow additional nations.

This is not evidence of a deal to never expand NATO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To repeat (referring to Document 5):

Quote

Even with (unjustified) redactions by U.S. classification officers, this American transcript of perhaps the most famous U.S. assurance to the Soviets on NATO expansion confirms the Soviet transcript of the same conversation. Repeating what Bush said at the Malta summit in December 1989, Baker tells Gorbachev: “The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral advantage in this process” of inevitable German unification. Baker goes on to say, “We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Later in the conversation, Baker poses the same position as a question, “would you prefer a united Germany outside of NATO that is independent and has no US forces or would you prefer a united Germany with ties to NATO and assurances that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward?” The declassifiers of this memcon actually redacted Gorbachev’s response that indeed such an expansion would be “unacceptable” – but Baker’s letter to Kohl the next day, published in 1998 by the Germans, gives the quote.

Please try to keep up with events!  :P

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Let's do that shall we?  ;)

Err, now I am a bit lost as to what to discuss, would you drop a topic? I may go to sleep soon though, 0001 local.
I can drop some (low tier methodology wise WIP) pics here:
kdqw6q.png
fx5r8g.png
Sadly it got canned by the editor so I never refined the comparison methodology, but, boy is bean counting fun.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
6 minutes ago, ikalugin said:

if we have a chance to return to military-technical matters.

Let's do that shall we?  ;)

Agreed - This was posted while I was writing my last...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, ikalugin said:

Err, now I am a bit lost as to what to discuss, would you drop a topic?

I was just searching a few sites, but they are singularly unhelpful.....Do you know anything more about the pyrotechnic devices fitted to the 2S42 Lotus 120mm SP Mortar?

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2019/06/242.html 

If they can indeed defeat Javelin's IR seeker, that would be a game changer.  Presumably these are what are to be found in the directional launchers and vertical launch cells on Armata's turret?

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I was just searching a few sites, but they are singularly unhelpful.....Do you know anything more about the pyrotechnic devices fitted to the Lotus 120mm SPG? 

If they can indeed defeat Javelin's IR seeker, that would be a game changer.  Presumably these are what are to be found in the directional launchers and vertical launch cells on Armata's turret?

You mean aerosoles? Counter IR aerosoles existed since, like, Shtora (in the form of on vehicle launchers). That is one of the three major components to it, with sensors and jammers. In fact many customers drop the jammers and just keep sensors and the launchers.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Sorry, editied my post to add a link. 

Only one 'e' in 'aerosols'.....With the extra one it looks kind of rude!  :D

What makes these versions so special, if anything?  Are we sure they are just smoke generators?

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'd been saving that specially!  :D

No bad feelings, to either you or @IanL  I value your contributions (and a good argument with you) tremendously.  B)

This would be much better over beer.  Meet you at the pub!

There is nothing wrong with arguing.  There is no progress without alternate viewpoints and willingness to hear them.  Too much of what is wrong right now in America is we seem to be unable to talk and equitably disagree anymore.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Sorry, editied my post to add a link. 

Only one 'e' in 'aerosols'.....With the extra one it looks kind of rude!  :D

What makes these versions so special, if anything?  Are we sure they are just smoke generators?

I think this is just (re)discovering a cool capability and giving it a marketting spin. Counter-IR aerosols have been around for a long time now (and not only on grenades for vehicles). There is work on giving them anti-radar capabilities too, but I do not recall those rounds being mass fielded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, sburke said:

Too much of what is wrong right now in America is we seem to be unable to talk and equitably disagree anymore.  

If I might make so bold, your mass media do you no favours whatsoever, none of them.....Ours are just the same. 

Provoking division is easy and profitable, but fixing it takes a lot more effort and the rewards are rarely immediate.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

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...