Machor

Four Ukrainian Su-25s in formation, and they actually seem to be doing formation training - maybe, start with line astern and transition to line abreast? @c3k
And a tantalizing thought: Though I've never flown one - virtually, of course; I've never flown anything IRL  - the Su-25 looks like it should have docile handling and make for a good advanced trainer. Could these be pilot cadets who've skipped the L-39 and are completing their training on Su-25s, simultaneously gaining experience with an operational platform?

This is the same usage in English with examples like 'The Congo' and 'The Sudan': It indicates not so much inferiority, rather a perspective where the territory under discussion lacks sovereignty - it is precisely a colonial 'territory', not a sovereign 'nation'. Therefore, trying to return the favor to Russia doesn't make sense: It's like saying "The Congo invaded Belgium."

Four Ukrainian Su-25s in formation, and they actually seem to be doing formation training - maybe, start with line astern and transition to line abreast? @c3k
And a tantalizing thought: Though I've never flown one - virtually, of course; I've never flown anything IRL  - the Su-25 looks like it should have docile handling and make for a good advanced trainer. Could these be pilot cadets who've skipped the L-39 and are completing their training on Su-25s, simultaneously gaining experience with an operational platform?

One useful thing I find comes out of this sort of intra-European bickering is that it completely dispels the notion that NATO is some kind of sinister agent of US hegemony with a singular goal of crushing that country's enemies. This is what people who see the whole world through the lens of authoritarianism don't understand. In the "free" world, people are not only allowed to disagree on policy, but they openly and continuously debate it. Unfortunately that means we sometimes don't take as decisive action as would be ideal, but what's important is that when the action is taken we can be sure that the process was relatively transparent and the motivations are well-understood, even if not everyone was persuaded. In my opinion it is the freedom to have these conversations that is a big part of what structures like NATO are supposed to be protecting.

Biggest mistake western analyst make regarding Ru artillery is counting number of Russians tubes thinking they produce the same firepower per tube as western ones. It is not the tubes you need to count but round expenditure per gun. Soviet/Russian arty love to exaggerate the firepower by inflating number of tubes while decreasing available rounds per gun for engagement.
They love to say we have ****load of tubes per km of front or we just engaged enemy target with ****load of tubes, go, there is nobody alive there (RU infantry goes, UKR infantry climb out of dugouts and shoots RU infantry to pieces - rinse and repeat until some parts of RU artillery finally zeroes on actual UKR firing points then UKR infantry retreats to the next defensive line). But if you look at actual expenditure per gun the picture is different.
For example, during Goose Green battle UK 3 tubes expended 900 rounds. That is 300 rounds per gun per engagement. Battle was bloody but it was won.
On other hand during the battle for hill 776 the VDV 10 SPGs expended 800-1200 round (depending on the period you take). That is 120 rounds per gun per engagement. The result - two pieces got broken, at least 40% of own troops got hit by friendly arty fire, defense collapsed, and company was overrun and destroyed. 
On paper 3 UK tubes vs 10 RU tubes in support look bad. In reality though...
According to reports small drones like quadcopters are not that useful against artillery - range, time and wind issues. What is needed is a bigger one (akin to airplane not copter) comparable to Orlan. 

Machor, I think it's been the full 40 years since I watched Conan.  I guess I gotta get back on that horse, thanks!  I read most of the Ron E Howard Conan books ~10 years ago.  Actually really really good stuff, Howard was truly gifted.
So Turkey civil war?  What will that game be called?  CM... CM... CMErdogan?  CMOttoman? 

You are reiterating my point: The problem isn't with NATO and Turkey; it's with Erdoğan and Islamism.
Ever since Erdoğan was elected out of obscurity to become the mayor of Istanbul with the promise of converting the Hagia Sophia into a mosque [competing votes were split between two centre-right and two centre-left parties that squabbled among each other] and stated on record: "Democracy is like a tram. You get on where you need to, and you get off where you need to," it was obvious that him and the Islamists had to be nipped in the bud. Instead, both within Turkey and internationally, various factions thought they could draw him to their side, until he became all-powerful. When I stated that Erdoğan was bad news at a leading US university in 2008, I was called an 'elitist' and accused of opposing 'democratization'. Everyone was talking about 'Liberal Islam', and telling me Erdoğan's Islamists were just an Islamic counterpart to Europe's Christian Democrats. If we have made any progress at all, I hope that discourse has now died, and there will be zero tolerance should Islamism rear its ugly head anywhere else. Some Russian (Solzhenitsyn?) said "Russia was crucified on the cross to show the world the evil of Communism;" Turkey was impaled on the stake to show the world the evil of Islamism.
RE: Tensions in the Aegean
The danger is that Erdoğan has every reason to start a phony war, and then use it as an excuse to declare martial law and cancel elections. He does not even need the Turkish military to engineer a provocation since, like a certain someone, he now has his own military organization, who swear allegiance personally to him.
Now, facing Erdoğan's machinations, we have the Greek military who, along with a certain segment of Greece's ruling elite that they are close with, would also love to see Erdoğan start a phony war with Greece. When Erdoğan tried to get cozy with Russia, they responded by killing 37 Turkish soldiers; when he then tried to switch to China, they demanded Turkey extradite all Uyghurs. Therefore, should Turkey lose its ties with the West as well, it would end up more isolated than North Korea. With this reasoning, even if the Greek military does not engineer the first provocation, it would gladly reply to any provocation by Erdoğan with an escalatory provocation, and Erdoğan knows this as well. Thus, you have two actors who would both benefit from a phony war, but these actors aren't nation-states.

@panzermartin
Thank you for the kind wishes. I'm following the developments in the Aegean, and so far it looks like hot air intended for domestic consumption just like last year. I'll start a thread in General Discussion if - God forbid - things get serious.
Assuming I understood the question correctly, I'll try to answer very briefly to avoid derailing the thread: Even though we're celebrating Erdoğan polling lower than 30% nationally for the first time, it is in fact appalling that 29% are still supporting him, even when they have to stand in line for hours to buy discounted bread; for many of these people, Erdoğan is nothing short of a caliph. There are also some 5+ million Syrians and 2+ million Afghans and Pakistanis in the country, who are all loyal to Erdoğan as well. And Erdoğan with his cronies knows that they'll be headed straight for jail after all they've done, as soon as they lose power. Therefore, I still fearfully anticipate - as I've done since 2013 - a civil war that will leave Syria looking like Disneyland. If you think I'm going above my paygrade, Burak Kadercan has also repeatedly stated that civil war is a very likely scenario.
 

You are only telling half the story to match your narrative.  The UNSC passed 3 resolutions to get Serbia to stop killing people (a fourth after the bombings)  and then passed 1244 which authorized a direct ground intervention by NATO (KFOR).  Further, NATO nations tried to get a resolution but were blocked by China and Russia as you note above...why?  Because Serbians were ethnic cleansing again which everyone still remembered from 1995.  This followed the precedent set in 1995 of NATO airstrikes to protect UNPROFOR, which led to UNSCR 1031 and the NATO ground intervention of IFOR.
Making a link back to US politics and "expansion" in Kosovo makes zero sense - just as it does for Libya frankly.  For Libya, UNSCR 1973 was put forward by France, Lebanon and the UK...what in the hell does this have to do with "Congressional approval"?  1973 was a classic Chapter VII, and again, Russia and China were on the SC and let it go.  Kosovo and Libya were interventions to try and stop repeat humanitarian offenders and dictators from doing worse - not some Rub Goldberg attempt by NATO to rule the world as a puppet of the US.
France intervening without the US - you have heard about Mali (Op Serval)?  In fact there were more: https://www.okayafrica.com/french-military-in-africa/
I can say NATO is a defensive alliance - the history of the Alliance has been defensive from the beginning.  NATO has done interventions on behalf of the UN and failing that, with the support from the international community.  To  make all this some self-centered US political issue is frankly insulting to all the nations and its military members who participated on those missions.
Finally, we know NATO is not a US puppet because it stayed out of Iraq in '03 (which did not have UN cover) and only went into Afghanistan when it did.  This is not the behaviour of a "puppet alliance doing the bidding of a US president who can't rule the planet based on domestic political landscape".  Russia is paranoid...because they are Russia, and no one likes/trust them because of history.  And Putin just took out a big red marker and underlined that dislike/trust for the next 50 years by unilaterally invading a neighbor.  And attempts to play "pick-and-chose" history to create a justification for Russian behaviour is just wrong.   
 

I don't speak or understand Russian so I have no take on the verbal part. I reviewed it several times and my conclusion is that it is either a training video or a video of a training area. If you look at the ground it is fairly dry and not a single bullet strike is seen. The grass is crushed down along the trails that each individual travels, biggest clue is the trail where the soldier rolls during the ambush. The other thinner trails could be dismissed as game trails, regular patrol routes, etc but the rolling trail clearly shows that the same movement has been done over that ground multiple times. 
One part that confused me about being a training film or filmed training was the blast from the barrels of the shooting weapons. In the US we had to attach a BFA (blank firing adapter) to the muzzle in order for the M16 to cycle and I didn't see those. Further research shows that apparently the AK blanks will cycle without a BFA or a smaller one that lets most of the gas out where the one we used was basically a plug. So that explains seeing the blast from the firing weapons and no bullet strikes anywhere.

I've just passed to this page and read THIS. Guys, I though this was just a joke, but now my heart is melted down and I can't reject this gift. Though, I feel myself awkward... and also huge gratitude to all of you and Kinophile personally for idea     

Everything else including tiny details (perfect framing; rush to check dead and wounded as if there is no danger of dying UKR soldier pulling pin of grenade on them) is not.  
There was no real discussion. One said **** him and other, commander, immediately rejected it without any thinking or hesitation as if he is hero of cheap military TV series - good guys do not do that!
Let me quote my self: Not only their voice acting skill is poor". Voice acting is NOT swearing. Lack of swearing is on top of extremely fake intonations and dialogs.
Also I need to point to their use of single swearing word - conveniently it was used exactly where would make the most dramatic effect for the audience from the point of view of a script writer.
Currently there is an internal but informal scandal in RU army (akin to big Torpedo Scandal) that they lack drones and bad at integrating them compared to UKR army. The first purpose is to counter that narrative - it implies they have enough drones to use them at the squad level and drones are successfully integrated. 
No, they did a very cunning propaganda trick.
After AzovStal surrender RU nationalists feel betrayed. They expected brutal executions. Instead, they got reports that at least some Evil Nazis were put to hospitals (at least initially indeed they were). RU nationalists blame traitorous pussy Army for the lack of brutal resolve. 
So, the second purpose is to show that RU solders feel the need to brutally kill Evil Nazis, but they are commanded by cool headed commanders who make sure Russian hands stay clean. Not a bad propaganda trick, Ivan, I will give you that!

At this point, I want to ask for a moment of silence (looking at you, Eurosquabblers!) for the heroic defenders of Dovehnke.
And yet another kudos to our own @Combatintman who flagged this innocuous looking (to we lesser mortals) bit of ground as a key barrier to the RA advance from their hard won Izyum bridgehead to Sloviansk.
....On that same note, I'd like to revisit another astute post of CIMan in mid April, where he ID'ed various attack axes for the Russian 'pincer, and then predicted the Russians would end up getting forced onto the hardest, bloodiest paths.

Nailed it, mate.
1.  AA1 promptly bogged down in the open country, and that sector now seems increasingly dominated by UA artillery. No blitzkrieg for you, Popov!
2. AA3 worked ok at first, up until it hit Lyman and then it took 3-4 further weeks of costly fighting to clear that town and the forests behind it, and secure the S-D River line.
3. AA2 hit a dead stop at Dovhenke, as noted and has had to take the hard way around.
4.  AA4? has basically stopped on the start line at Sieverodonetsk.  Ivan is beating his head against a stone wall and getting counterpunched.

Subtle reminder: Turkey is and has been a valued and important member of NATO.  Militarily and strategically located.
Erdogan--not so much. 
But Turkey will be around a LOT longer than Erdogan.  Let's think long term.

Thanks for the insight and I get your points. I sincerely hope for better days for Turkey. I wouldn't want to see them cornered or collapsing, I won't take any joy in that, in fact I find it dangerous. Regardless of the islamist delirium, do you think Turkey is destined to expand westwards as it always pursued. I almost understand the need of Turkey for more access to the sea and in a perfect world where everyone would behave fair, we could probably share the energy wealth of the aegean. That would be beneficial for both, while excluding 3rd parties. But I'm not sure Turkey will stop there if it had the might and the way to go unpunished. 
So far we are avoiding escalation like the plague, we don't even intercept UAV that loiter over the islands. I sincerely hope there are no thoughts of provoking Turkey for short sighted political gains. That would be silly on our part as we bet a lot on international sympathy and support. 

You are reiterating my point: The problem isn't with NATO and Turkey; it's with Erdoğan and Islamism.
Ever since Erdoğan was elected out of obscurity to become the mayor of Istanbul with the promise of converting the Hagia Sophia into a mosque [competing votes were split between two centre-right and two centre-left parties that squabbled among each other] and stated on record: "Democracy is like a tram. You get on where you need to, and you get off where you need to," it was obvious that him and the Islamists had to be nipped in the bud. Instead, both within Turkey and internationally, various factions thought they could draw him to their side, until he became all-powerful. When I stated that Erdoğan was bad news at a leading US university in 2008, I was called an 'elitist' and accused of opposing 'democratization'. Everyone was talking about 'Liberal Islam', and telling me Erdoğan's Islamists were just an Islamic counterpart to Europe's Christian Democrats. If we have made any progress at all, I hope that discourse has now died, and there will be zero tolerance should Islamism rear its ugly head anywhere else. Some Russian (Solzhenitsyn?) said "Russia was crucified on the cross to show the world the evil of Communism;" Turkey was impaled on the stake to show the world the evil of Islamism.
RE: Tensions in the Aegean
The danger is that Erdoğan has every reason to start a phony war, and then use it as an excuse to declare martial law and cancel elections. He does not even need the Turkish military to engineer a provocation since, like a certain someone, he now has his own military organization, who swear allegiance personally to him.
Now, facing Erdoğan's machinations, we have the Greek military who, along with a certain segment of Greece's ruling elite that they are close with, would also love to see Erdoğan start a phony war with Greece. When Erdoğan tried to get cozy with Russia, they responded by killing 37 Turkish soldiers; when he then tried to switch to China, they demanded Turkey extradite all Uyghurs. Therefore, should Turkey lose its ties with the West as well, it would end up more isolated than North Korea. With this reasoning, even if the Greek military does not engineer the first provocation, it would gladly reply to any provocation by Erdoğan with an escalatory provocation, and Erdoğan knows this as well. Thus, you have two actors who would both benefit from a phony war, but these actors aren't nation-states.

You are reiterating my point: The problem isn't with NATO and Turkey; it's with Erdoğan and Islamism.
Ever since Erdoğan was elected out of obscurity to become the mayor of Istanbul with the promise of converting the Hagia Sophia into a mosque [competing votes were split between two centre-right and two centre-left parties that squabbled among each other] and stated on record: "Democracy is like a tram. You get on where you need to, and you get off where you need to," it was obvious that him and the Islamists had to be nipped in the bud. Instead, both within Turkey and internationally, various factions thought they could draw him to their side, until he became all-powerful. When I stated that Erdoğan was bad news at a leading US university in 2008, I was called an 'elitist' and accused of opposing 'democratization'. Everyone was talking about 'Liberal Islam', and telling me Erdoğan's Islamists were just an Islamic counterpart to Europe's Christian Democrats. If we have made any progress at all, I hope that discourse has now died, and there will be zero tolerance should Islamism rear its ugly head anywhere else. Some Russian (Solzhenitsyn?) said "Russia was crucified on the cross to show the world the evil of Communism;" Turkey was impaled on the stake to show the world the evil of Islamism.
RE: Tensions in the Aegean
The danger is that Erdoğan has every reason to start a phony war, and then use it as an excuse to declare martial law and cancel elections. He does not even need the Turkish military to engineer a provocation since, like a certain someone, he now has his own military organization, who swear allegiance personally to him.
Now, facing Erdoğan's machinations, we have the Greek military who, along with a certain segment of Greece's ruling elite that they are close with, would also love to see Erdoğan start a phony war with Greece. When Erdoğan tried to get cozy with Russia, they responded by killing 37 Turkish soldiers; when he then tried to switch to China, they demanded Turkey extradite all Uyghurs. Therefore, should Turkey lose its ties with the West as well, it would end up more isolated than North Korea. With this reasoning, even if the Greek military does not engineer the first provocation, it would gladly reply to any provocation by Erdoğan with an escalatory provocation, and Erdoğan knows this as well. Thus, you have two actors who would both benefit from a phony war, but these actors aren't nation-states.

You are reiterating my point: The problem isn't with NATO and Turkey; it's with Erdoğan and Islamism.
Ever since Erdoğan was elected out of obscurity to become the mayor of Istanbul with the promise of converting the Hagia Sophia into a mosque [competing votes were split between two centre-right and two centre-left parties that squabbled among each other] and stated on record: "Democracy is like a tram. You get on where you need to, and you get off where you need to," it was obvious that him and the Islamists had to be nipped in the bud. Instead, both within Turkey and internationally, various factions thought they could draw him to their side, until he became all-powerful. When I stated that Erdoğan was bad news at a leading US university in 2008, I was called an 'elitist' and accused of opposing 'democratization'. Everyone was talking about 'Liberal Islam', and telling me Erdoğan's Islamists were just an Islamic counterpart to Europe's Christian Democrats. If we have made any progress at all, I hope that discourse has now died, and there will be zero tolerance should Islamism rear its ugly head anywhere else. Some Russian (Solzhenitsyn?) said "Russia was crucified on the cross to show the world the evil of Communism;" Turkey was impaled on the stake to show the world the evil of Islamism.
RE: Tensions in the Aegean
The danger is that Erdoğan has every reason to start a phony war, and then use it as an excuse to declare martial law and cancel elections. He does not even need the Turkish military to engineer a provocation since, like a certain someone, he now has his own military organization, who swear allegiance personally to him.
Now, facing Erdoğan's machinations, we have the Greek military who, along with a certain segment of Greece's ruling elite that they are close with, would also love to see Erdoğan start a phony war with Greece. When Erdoğan tried to get cozy with Russia, they responded by killing 37 Turkish soldiers; when he then tried to switch to China, they demanded Turkey extradite all Uyghurs. Therefore, should Turkey lose its ties with the West as well, it would end up more isolated than North Korea. With this reasoning, even if the Greek military does not engineer the first provocation, it would gladly reply to any provocation by Erdoğan with an escalatory provocation, and Erdoğan knows this as well. Thus, you have two actors who would both benefit from a phony war, but these actors aren't nation-states.

Mind you Erdogan is facing a election and he's completely ****ed the economy, this is probably a nationalistic ploy to win votes. While he's veered towards authoritarianism, turkey is still a democracy and he is on the chopping block.
 

About Turkey in NATO. Erdogen's Turkey is not quite the same country as the Turkey of president Bayar in 1952 when they first joined. You can't blame 1952 NATO for not 'Minority Reporting' the government of Turkey 70 years in the future.

A reminder that when Turkey joined NATO along with Greece in February 1952, it had free-and-fair elections with a two party system, an independent judiciary, and a GDP close to that of Italy. The only criterion by which Greece would be allowed to join and Turkey refused would be declaring membership open solely to Christian nations.

A reminder that when Turkey joined NATO along with Greece in February 1952, it had free-and-fair elections with a two party system, an independent judiciary, and a GDP close to that of Italy. The only criterion by which Greece would be allowed to join and Turkey refused would be declaring membership open solely to Christian nations.

A reminder that when Turkey joined NATO along with Greece in February 1952, it had free-and-fair elections with a two party system, an independent judiciary, and a GDP close to that of Italy. The only criterion by which Greece would be allowed to join and Turkey refused would be declaring membership open solely to Christian nations.

A reminder that when Turkey joined NATO along with Greece in February 1952, it had free-and-fair elections with a two party system, an independent judiciary, and a GDP close to that of Italy. The only criterion by which Greece would be allowed to join and Turkey refused would be declaring membership open solely to Christian nations.

'rok armor' is the first upgrade for Ork vehicles. You can spend a few points more per vehicle and upgrade to 'loot armor', which does not increase protection, but provides a morale bonus for the crew: