Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Dozza's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)



  1. Not to harp on the topic I've already raised, but any chance of fixing the Russian tank models so the incorrect, older metal mudguards are replaced with the modern ones?
  2. That sounds implausible to me. A feel-good story for the patriotic Russian public, that they saw off the evil American interlopers. I just don't buy it.
  3. LOL. Given it eventually came to me, clearly it was in a dusty corner of my mind and my brain just simply wasn't working when I was trying to articulate my meaning. In any event, how practical would it be to fix the relevant models? I've got to be honest, I'm so anal I noticed it immediately and it bugged the hell out of me.
  4. For my part, I've never been particularly sympathetic to Ukrainian complaints about Russian gas supplies. The reality is that Russia has been subsidizing Ukraine to the tune of many billions of dollars since the fall of the USSR - including in the form of heavily subsidized gas. The Ukrainians have been abusing their position as a transit-point for gas to Europe as much as the Russians have been abusing their position as a supplier. If the Ukrainians had their way, the Russians would keep providing them with subsidized gas while paying Ukraine transit fees for the gas that crosses Ukraine's pipelines into Europe, all while the Ukrainians want to have their cake and eat it too by leaving Russia's economic sphere - and all the while the Russians pay for it by the provision of subsidised energy. Nothing comes free in this world. If Ukraine wants to go to Europe, then the Russians are perfectly justified in making them pay what the rest of Europe pays - the market rate. The pricing disputes leading to gas cutoffs all arise from this basic conflict.
  5. Unfortunately for Ukraine that doesn't really figure into how far the US should stick its neck out - the US has never had a compelling national interest in whether Ukraine was in the West's camp, and nothing has really happened to change that. US officials may deny that if put to them, but its self-evidently true - hence the reluctance of the US to do anything that would really help Ukraine. Ultimately, the US's relations with Russia are more important. As a great power, it has the potential to spoil America's interests all over the world and the longer relations are messed up, the more Russia, with all of its resources and technical know how gets drawn inexorably into China's camp. These are big potential problems. Food is one thing, but as for its industry, Europe has plenty of that already. Also, this is really more Europe's concern than that of the US. The US has never been particularly interested in assisting the EU becoming a Eurasian hegemon (the same applies to Russia). US foreign policy has always sought to prevent that. NATO is where its at for the US - it allows them the greatest influence over European defence policy. As far as the Russians see it, the West is meddling in Ukraine, they don't belong there, and they will go to the hilt to ensure that Ukraine doesn't move into the Western camp. Whether its true or not is irrelevant. So ultimately this could be a case of "Ukraine should be our ally because the Russians are determined that Ukraine not be our ally." True, but how to stop it? The only way I see forward is a political resolution where Russia gets some of what it wants. Sanctions could go from now until the heat death of the universe, it would not change the Russian position. Just today the BBC is reporting the Ukrainian Rada enacted laws as to the 'special status' of the DNR and LPR that the Russians claim are contrary to Minsk II. This could be a pretext for further fighting. Well to be fair, Obama has repeatedly used military force without Congressional authorization, for example, and has sought it after the fact while saying he has the authority to do so anyway. Bush did the same I believe. No one should trust him - not without verification . But in any event, we agree that the US is already doing what it should be doing per the Budapest Memorandum. Agreed that he wants more - but for the abundance of clarity, I don't think its territory. Donetsk and Lugansk is leverage - they're very significant parts of Ukraine economically (or, were, and can be again). They're a tool to enforce compliance - renewed fighting can damage Ukraine at any time. Yeah, I think Europe's conduct from the beginning of this has been unbelievable. They've nurtured this idea in Ukraine that the moment they signed the EU Association Agreement, everything would somehow magically get better. But they refuse to give any real help to enact the reforms Ukraine needs. A thing to remember about Poland is that it has gotten (IIRC) hundreds of billions in aid from the EU over the decades. This is precisely what Ukraine needs.
  6. This is true, but ultimately Ukraine is not an ally of the United States and the United States' national interests in Ukraine are not strong enough to justify the sort of aid that Kiev wants. It sucks for them, but it is what it is. That's not what I had heard - only that he placed nuclear forces on alert. But that aside, Putin's commentary is purely political: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putins-rattling-of-the-nuclear-saber-makes-it-clear-ukraine-is-non-negotiable/517511.html "The nuclear preparedness remark was a message to the West that Ukraine and Crimea are far more important for Russia than they are for the West, according Vladimir Yevseyev, director of the Center for Social and Political Research think tank. "Putin is saying that under certain conditions, Russia will be ready to use nuclear weapons to defend Crimea," Yevseyev, a retired Russian army colonel, told The Moscow Times. "The question of its sovereignty is shut. It's non-negotiable." According to Yevseyev, as the U.S. busies itself dispatching training missions to Ukraine and mulling the option of pumping Kiev full of lethal aid, Putin's willingness to raise the stakes to the nuclear level demonstrates Russia's willingness to defend its interests in its southwest neighbor, no matter the cost. "Putin is basically letting it be known that Crimea and Ukraine are far more important to Russia than they are to the West, which would never consider going nuclear over Ukraine," he said." It certainly doesn't preclude action, but the question is really whether a particular action - i.e. giving lethal military aid - is wise. Personally, I don't think it is. Ukraine is Russia's top national security issue - entirely different from Afghanistan in importance. At every stage, they have escalated beyond expectations. What the West should actually be doing is giving Ukraine a bunch of money. For free. So it can actually fix its economy. Instead, Ukraine's economy is in a state of utter collapse and the only aid its getting is loans that are a: inadequate and b: it'll have to pay back in the future. The problem is there's no political will in the West to do this, and even if there was, I can understand the reluctance for the reason that Ukraine is still shockingly corrupt and politically dysfunctional, no matter how many nice noises the new government makes about their 'European choice'. There's no guarantee that money won't disappear down the rabbit hole into some oligarch's pocket.
  7. Ah, got it. Thought it might be something like that. Would be nice if it were fixed
  8. Hi John, Sorry, I wasn't clear - when I said " the ... "track skirts" covering the front of the tracks" I'm particularly referrring to the guards protecting the tracks at the front (mud guards? not sure of the technical term) which I've circled below: http://imageshack.com/a/img910/1499/9ybRMc.jpg http://imageshack.com/a/img673/4987/WIoRnd.jpg I agree that the side skirts themselves are definitely not metal. Basically, the guards on the CMBS T-90A in the screenshot are inaccurate, and belong to an 'earlier' tank. Also, to correct myself, that's not a T-72B1 but a full-standard T-72B - its got the full T-72B sight including missile guidance channel - I should've looked closer
  9. Hi guys, I've been looking at the screenshots of CMBS on the website, and I'm just wondering, are all the screenshots there accurate, or have the models been updated since then? I ask particularly because the ... "track skirts" covering the front of the tracks for the T-90A (and pretty much any other Russian tank available in the game I assume, apart from the T-90AM) are the antiquated, all-steel construction used on Soviet tanks prior to in or about 1988/89, when they were replaced with newer skirts of (presumably) rubber construction. Here's CMBS: http://www.battlefront.com/images/stories/CMBlackSea/GalleryBeta2/t-90.png And here's an example of the same steel skirts on an old T-72B1 at Russia's 2014 tank biathlon: http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/Tank-Biathlon-2014/i-C7BNjmL/0/O/TankBiathlon14part1-04.jpg And here's the real T-90A: http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/Tank-Biathlon-2014/i-sD4ZbzP/0/O/TankBiathlon14part1-42.jpg My apologies if this has already been posted about, the search function didn't really help because I wasn't sure what terminology was being used.
  10. Greetings all! Lurker, first time poster. The US has no 'treaty obligations' to Ukraine, and certainly not to 'guarantee' anything. The Budapest memorandum is exceedingly short and easily understood, and is a mere political agrement, not a formal treaty at all. Its provisions are as follows: "1) Respect the independence, sovereignty, and existing borders of Ukraine; 2) Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and pledged that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the UN Charter; 3) Refrain from economic coercion; 4) Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to assist Ukraine, should it be threatened or attacked with nuclear weapons; 5) Not use nuclear weapons against Ukraine unless attacked by Ukraine in association or alliance with a nuclear-armed state; 6) Consult if a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments." That's effectively the long and short of it. There's nothing there that the US has agreed to do that it is not in fact already doing. In fact, its weak 'go to the Security Council' provisions merely applies to the threat of nuclear weapons. As to alterantives to sending weapons directly, that would be massively irresponsible - the Russians will not care whether there is 'smoking gun' proof or not, they will escalate regardless, and more dead people will be the result.
  • Create New...