New offensive in Donbass?

[whitehot78]

 This is a Russian instigated war and it won't end till Russia gets it's bloody hands off Ukraine.  You can criticize the Ukrainian gov't all you want and some of it might even be true, but that is all just a distraction.  We know who started the war, we know who keeps it going.  Get your gov't the hell out of their country and then maybe someone might actually care about your opinion of their gov't.

 

there is in fact the matter of an elected government being removed forcibly by people who did not represent all of Ukraine, which is the event that caused all those that followed. 

 

If Russia has financed a coup to remove the former president, then it's all Russia's fault. Yet I recently watched an interview with an american think-tank, a college teacher in political sciences, who reported that in a meeting during the "revolution" (a G-8 or the like, I believe) Putin asked Obama "are you behind all this thing", and Obama answered "Absolutely so"

Edited May 31, 2015 by whitehot78

[AttorneyAtWar]

there is in fact the matter of an elected government being removed forcibly by people who did not represent all of Ukraine, which is the event that caused all those that followed. 

 

If Russia has financed a coup to remove the former president, then it's all Russia's fault. Yet I recently watched an interview with an american think-tank, a college teacher in political sciences, who reported that in a meeting during the "revolution" (a G-8 or the like, I believe) Putin asked Obama "are you behind all this thing", and Obama answered "Absolutely so"

 

There is no debate on whether this is all Russia's fault, once again people trying to defend this just dance around facts, New Zealand could be behind the previous Ukrainian leaders ousting and wouldn't matter one bit as long as Russia takes military action afterwords, there are no excuses.

 

-Russian forces illegally invaded and annexed Crimea

 

-Russian forces and equipment are being used in a war in eastern Ukraine

 

Can anyone else imagine a talk like that between Putin and Obama? No?

 

Yeah I didn't think so.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Raptorx7

[whitehot78]

 

 

Can anyone else imagine a talk like that between Putin and Obama? No?

 

Yeah I didn't think so.

 

So either I'm lying or the interview video was made by the KGB?

I'll be trying to find that vid and post the link.

 

And even if I don't justify or condone what the Russian government has done after the removal of the previous government, yet I don't think that the opinions of several millions people living in eastern Ukraine, which don't want to live under the Ukrainian flag should be ignored or censored - moreover it's the same people who has had their families killed and their property destroyed because of this war, yet they didn't form up their militias to fight the "eastern invader", but the Ukrainian army.

[AttorneyAtWar]

So either I'm lying or the interview video was made by the KGB?

I'll be trying to find that vid and post the link.

 

And even if I don't justify or condone what the Russian government has done after the removal of the previous government, yet I don't think that the opinions of several millions people living in eastern Ukraine, which don't want to live under the Ukrainian flag should be ignored or censored - moreover it's the same people who has had their families killed and their property destroyed because of this war, yet they didn't form up their militias to fight the "eastern invader", but the Ukrainian army.

 

Even if everything you just said was the absolute truth it still doesn't make what Russia did "right" under any circumstances. Lets state the facts again, just so we are all on the same page.

 

-Russia invaded and illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine

 

-Russia has equipped and sent its own soldiers to aid rebel fighters in eastern Ukraine in an illegal war that it still says it is not involved in, unfortunately for them the rest of the world isn't stupid. If what Russia did was morally correct, why not come out and say what they are doing and why?

 

A large majority of civilian casualties and collateral damage in eastern Ukraine has been caused by Russian influence and equipment, from the artillery to tanks.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Raptorx7

[whitehot78]

here:

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/3/is_ukraine_a_proxy_western_russia

 

At about minute 34 they speak about the phone call between Obama and Putin (not a meeting like I mentioned earlier - I didn't remember that right).

 

In the minutes before that, from about 30 and on, it is described how the United States is involved in the coup which deposed the former president.

 

What you call facts aren't the only ones - it's always been a major problem of all the matters like this, considering the facts that confirm a given point of view, negating the others.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing is something which has happened before, for example, in the Kosovo crisis. I'd say that the US are trying to prevent that the EU reinforce their economic ties with Russia, with the risk of the Euro threatening the Dollar as the major world currency, and to do that, they broker a proxy war right in the middle of EU and Russia (by the way, the pipelines that bring russian gas and oil to Europe pass through Ukraine) But, it's only my opinion, which plenty of people would describe as heretical.

 

As I said, I don't justify nor trust Russia, but I have plenty of facts by which not to trust or justify the USA or the Euro nations. 

[sburke]

here:

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/3/is_ukraine_a_proxy_western_russia

 

At about minute 34 they speak about the phone call between Obama and Putin (not a meeting like I mentioned earlier - I didn't remember that right).

 

In the minutes before that, from about 30 and on, it is described how the United States is involved in the coup which deposed the former president.

 

What you call facts aren't the only ones - it's always been a major problem of all the matters like this, considering the facts that confirm a given point of view, negating the others.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing is something which has happened before, for example, in the Kosovo crisis. I'd say that the US are trying to prevent that the EU reinforce their economic ties with Russia, with the risk of the Euro threatening the Dollar as the major world currency, and to do that, they broker a proxy war right in the middle of EU and Russia (by the way, the pipelines that bring russian gas and oil to Europe pass through Ukraine) But, it's only my opinion, which plenty of people would describe as heretical.

 

As I said, I don't justify nor trust Russia, but I have plenty of facts by which not to trust or justify the USA or the Euro nations. 

you mis interpreted.  You really should pay closer attention, the statement you cited is exactly not what you described.

 

Here is what Stephen Cohen was saying.  The European ministers met and formed an agreement for a coalition gov't to be followed by elections.  Obama and Putin get on the phone and each ask the other "Are you behind this" meaning the coalition.  Both answer yes.  Neither is saying "I am behind the coup".

 

Start at 33:30 mark.

 

From the transcript:

 

Here’s what happened. And he’s right about Crimea. He just let the cat out of the bag here. An agreement was brokered in February. Everybody think back. It’s only one year ago. Foreign ministers of Europe, as violence raged in the streets of Kiev, rushed to Kiev and brokered a deal between the sitting president and the opposition leaders—Yanukovych—that he would form a coalition government and call new elections in December. And everybody thought, "Wow, violence averted. We’re back on a democratic track." And what happened? The next day, mobs took to the streets, stormed the presidential palace; Yanukovych, the president, fled to Russia.

 

But we now know that when that deal was struck by the European ministers, Putin and Obama spoke on the phone, and Putin said to Obama, "Are you behind this?" And Obama says, "I am. Let’s get back on peaceful track." And then he asks Putin, "Are you behind it?" And Putin said, "A hundred percent." And the next day, this happened. So, something happened overnight. Obama lost control of the situation. He didn’t know what was going on. But when he says that they negotiated a peaceful transition to power, he’s not referring to the overthrow of Yanukovych; he’s referring to the deal he signed onto to keep the Ukrainian president in office for another eight or nine months until national elections.

[Sublime]

thanks SBurke

[whitehot78]

you mis interpreted.  You really should pay closer attention, the statement you cited is exactly not what you described.

 

Here is what Stephen Cohen was saying.  The European ministers met and formed an agreement for a coalition gov't to be followed by elections.  Obama and Putin get on the phone and each ask the other "Are you behind this" meaning the coalition.  Both answer yes.  Neither is saying "I am behind the coup".

 

Start at 33:30 mark.

 

From the transcript:

 

Here’s what happened. And he’s right about Crimea. He just let the cat out of the bag here. An agreement was brokered in February. Everybody think back. It’s only one year ago. Foreign ministers of Europe, as violence raged in the streets of Kiev, rushed to Kiev and brokered a deal between the sitting president and the opposition leaders—Yanukovych—that he would form a coalition government and call new elections in December. And everybody thought, "Wow, violence averted. We’re back on a democratic track." And what happened? The next day, mobs took to the streets, stormed the presidential palace; Yanukovych, the president, fled to Russia.

 

But we now know that when that deal was struck by the European ministers, Putin and Obama spoke on the phone, and Putin said to Obama, "Are you behind this?" And Obama says, "I am. Let’s get back on peaceful track." And then he asks Putin, "Are you behind it?" And Putin said, "A hundred percent." And the next day, this happened. So, something happened overnight. Obama lost control of the situation. He didn’t know what was going on. But when he says that they negotiated a peaceful transition to power, he’s not referring to the overthrow of Yanukovych; he’s referring to the deal he signed onto to keep the Ukrainian president in office for another eight or nine months until national elections.

 

Yet  in the preceding minutes he argues several times that the US is involved in the overthrowing of Yanukovich - at 31.50, before Obama speeches, "During an interview on the cnn on sunday, president Obama acknowledged that the United States played a role in the ousting of Ukraine elected president Viktor Yanukovich - I may have misinterpreted that part, but much of what is before sounds like that

[sburke]

First off Stephen Cohen has an agenda.  He has a position about US stance on Ukraine/Russia and he argues it throughout.  He is an apologist for Putin.  He doesn't see much more than Putin being a nationalist.  The nuclear threat against Denmark, the continued air violations etc are simply ignored as he tries to basically say everything is equal.  He even makes the claim that there would be no insurrection in the Donbass if there wasn't local support.  The fact the the so called revolt would have collapsed without Russia intervention or even the admitted actions by Putin's cronies that they in fact started the insurrection is ignored.  Despite all that at no point does Cohen ever say the US was behind the coup, in fact he almost always explicitly says different.

 

Secondly again you are not listening to what is being said, but rather what you want to hear.  This is what preceded the quote from prior.  See the very end (my bold) where Cohen explicitly says Amy Goodman's characterization is incorrect.

 

AMY GOODMAN: During an interview on CNN that aired Sunday, President Obama acknowledged the United States played a role in the ouster of Ukraine’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, last February.

PRESIDENT

BARACK

OBAMA

:

Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine, not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama’s comments made headlines in Russia. This is Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

SERGEY

LAVROV

:

[translated] I have two comments which are important. There has been confirmation that the United States was directly involved, from the very beginning, in this anti-government coup d’état. And President Obama literally called it "the transition of power." Secondly, I would like to note that Obama’s rhetoric shows Washington’s intention to continue doing everything possible to unconditionally support Ukraine’s authorities, who have apparently taken a course toward a military solution to the conflict.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s the Russian foreign minister and, before that, President Obama.

STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, President Obama said something that undoubtably he was later told he shouldn’t have said, because he wasn’t clear what he was referring to. Many people have argued that the United States organized a coup in February to overthrow the president of Ukraine and bring to power of this new pro-American, pro-Western government. I do not know if that’s true. But what Obama said leads people to think that’s what he was acknowledging. He wasn’t.

Edited May 31, 2015 by sburke

[whitehot78]

First off Stephen Cohen has an agenda.  He has a position about US stance on Ukraine/Russia and he argues it throughout.  He is an apologist for Putin.  He doesn't see much more than Putin being a nationalist.  The nuclear threat against Denmark, the continued air violations etc are simply ignored as he tries to basically say everything is equal.  He even makes the claim that there would be no insurrection in the Donbass if there wasn't local support.  The fact the the so called revolt would have collapsed without Russia intervention or even the admitted actions by Putin's cronies that they in fact started the insurrection is ignored.  Despite all that at no point does Cohen ever say the US was behind the coup, in fact he almost always explicitly says different.

 

Secondly again you are not listening to what is being said, but rather what you want to hear.  This is what preceded the quote from prior.  See the very end (my bold) where Cohen explicitly says Amy Goodman's characterization is incorrect.

 

AMY GOODMAN: During an interview on CNN that aired Sunday, President Obama acknowledged the United States played a role in the ouster of Ukraine’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, last February.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:

Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine, not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama’s comments made headlines in Russia. This is Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

SERGEY LAVROV:

[translated] I have two comments which are important. There has been confirmation that the United States was directly involved, from the very beginning, in this anti-government coup d’état. And President Obama literally called it "the transition of power." Secondly, I would like to note that Obama’s rhetoric shows Washington’s intention to continue doing everything possible to unconditionally support Ukraine’s authorities, who have apparently taken a course toward a military solution to the conflict.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s the Russian foreign minister and, before that, President Obama.

STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, President Obama said something that undoubtably he was later told he shouldn’t have said, because he wasn’t clear what he was referring to. Many people have argued that the United States organized a coup in February to overthrow the president of Ukraine and bring to power of this new pro-American, pro-Western government. I do not know if that’s true. But what Obama said leads people to think that’s what he was acknowledging. He wasn’t.

 

Stephen  Cohen may well be having an agenda - I would find hard to believe that anybody talking this subject at the tv hasn't one - senators and congressmen being  constantly lobbied by whoever does that (which is something I don't want to get into but there's plenty of), being a university professor I don't see him being really more involved in this than top level politicians.

Having spoken some facts against the "hardliners" points already makes him a Putin apologist: typical, "Don't listen to what this man has to say, he is in bed with the enemy". Things like the continued air violations - of what? international airspace? because that's where russian planes were flying all the times, although media presented these like russian aircraft were violating the national airspaces of NATO or neutral countries.

Nuclear threats against Denmark? again, seriously? were the danes all running around building shelters and pillaging general-stores? That story probably made more headlines in the US than in Denmark - for sure hasn't made many in Euro countries.

 

And, I find it pretty believable, that the insurrection in the east has started spontaneously, and that it would have collapsed without Russian help, again, these people didn't take arms against Russia, but against Ukraine - otherwise we would see the russian army fighting against the novorossyans, leveling cities with arty and so on. What most westerners seems to be totally failing to understand, and that Cohen knows, being a scholar in Soviet history, is that Ukraine in itself is a country divided in two, with a west that is catholic and sympathetic to Poland, and an east which is orthodox and more close to Russia - two "factions" that don't even speak the same language. As said in the vid, as millions of people in the east do not want a government like the one they got, after an ouster that in any case has been a coup. 

They were to have elections but, for some reason they could not take place. Instead, some thousands of people make a coup and it's instantly recognized by the west as the legit government.

 

What Obama has said, is ambiguous - Cohen comments that he hasn't acknowledged that the west is behind the coup, yet its remarked that Obama said something that should not have said. Fact is, we may not know if that's true, yet we know that an elected government, which has called for elections (evidently with the backing of the US and Russia) has been ousted forcibly, and who did that may be anybody, but not the east Ukrainians who revolted. Unless, you want to imply that the coup has been organized by Putin himself, to have an excuse to support the following eastern revolt

[AttorneyAtWar]

Stephen  Cohen may well be having an agenda - I would find hard to believe that anybody talking this subject at the tv hasn't one - senators and congressmen being  constantly lobbied by whoever does that (which is something I don't want to get into but there's plenty of), being a university professor I don't see him being really more involved in this than top level politicians.

Having spoken some facts against the "hardliners" points already makes him a Putin apologist: typical, "Don't listen to what this man has to say, he is in bed with the enemy". Things like the continued air violations - of what? international airspace? because that's where russian planes were flying all the times, although media presented these like russian aircraft were violating the national airspaces of NATO or neutral countries.

Nuclear threats against Denmark? again, seriously? were the danes all running around building shelters and pillaging general-stores? That story probably made more headlines in the US than in Denmark - for sure hasn't made many in Euro countries.

 

You don't find Russian fighter aircraft flying without any transponders in civilian flight lanes, the least bit provocative or dangerous? There have been numerous close calls since last year when this non sense started, what happens when a Russian plane slams into a passenger aircraft, they already assisted in shooting one down last year.

 

The media does not report it like they have violated the actual air space, of all the reports I have read about Russian intrusions they always mention they were in international areas.. I find it funny though that you deem it acceptable to fly nuclear capable bomber aircraft dangerously near various country's air space that just happen to be NATO and don't see that as provocative or threatening. I guess the U.S. should start flying B-2 spirits near the Russian border, daily, its not provocative, the air is just nicer around those parts.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Raptorx7

[whitehot78]

 

I guess the U.S. should start flying B-2 spirits near the Russian border, daily, its not provocative, the air is just nicer around those parts.

 

afaik, SAC bombers keep patrolling international skies, and for years have patrolled near the Russian borders, with their transponders off.

In regards to B-2s, they wouldn't do much of the desired effect, as they are invisible to radars - B-52 would be kinda more noisy

[AttorneyAtWar]

afaik, SAC bombers keep patrolling international skies, and for years have patrolled near the Russian borders, with their transponders off.

In regards to B-2s, they wouldn't do much of the desired effect, as they are invisible to radars - B-52 would be kinda more noisy

 

How often do they appear to be intending to penetrate said air space, and need an Russian escort?

 

Edited May 31, 2015 by Raptorx7

[sburke]

I'll chime in once more, admittedly futilely as this really is going nowhere. 

 

1. SAC bombers etal do NOT fly in civilian air corridors with their transponders turned off.  Sorry that is a uniquely Russian phenomena.  Twist and turn on that stick all you want, you can't change the fact that Russian aircraft have been doing something incredibly dangerous and have been cited for such.

 

2.  International air space - really, just exactly what are you reading?  Here some possible locations you missed.

 

Swedish News

http://news.yahoo.com/sweden-protests-against-airspace-violation-russian-planes-162456822.html;_ylt=A86.JyC3h2tVd3IAvpQnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTE0YjRnc3NlBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDRkZYVUkyN18xBHNlYwNzcg--

 

Estonian News

http://news.yahoo.com/estonia-russian-military-plane-violated-airspace-162829716.html;_ylt=A86.J5EQiGtVJnEADBgnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTE0NXI5bTBkBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDRkZYVUkyN18xBHNlYwNzcg--

 

Japanese News

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/22/us-japan-russia-idUSBRE97L0IO20130822

 

 

3.  Russia made a threat to Denmark that in actuality got plenty of press in Europe.  I have no idea where you come to the conclusion that it is a US knee jerk reaction.  Here is from a Danish paper which you could have easily googled yourself instead of coming up with that off the wall - "Europeans barely noticed a nuclear threat" nonsense.

 

http://www.thelocal.dk/20150321/russia-threatens-denmark-with-nuclear-attack

 

The gist of all the above is you chose to have a particular perspective.  It isn't like other news sources are hard to find and they are widespread enough in countries beyond the US to put the lie to "It is all US nonsense".  Chose to believe what you want but cut the crap about "as far as I know ..." if you aren't willing to even scratch the surface of news sources.  All of the above took me 15 minutes to find.

Edited May 31, 2015 by sburke

[whitehot78]

I'll chime in once more, admittedly futilely as this really is going nowhere. 

 

1. SAC bombers etal do NOT fly in civilian air corridors with their transponders turned off.  Sorry that is a uniquely Russian phenomena.  Twist and turn on that stick all you want, you can't change the fact that Russian aircraft have been doing something incredibly dangerous and have been cited for such.

 

Ofc you know by hearth all the routes and the patrol zones, or you have links that document that information?

Do we have an official SAC text documenting the usage of civilian transponders while on patrol? If I'd have to redirect B-52s and B-1s to nuclear strike Russia at a moment notice,

I wouldn't have them broadcasting their ids all over, even to russian civilian airspace controllers 

 

 

 

 

2.  International air space - really, just exactly what are you reading?  Here some possible locations you missed.

 

Swedish News

http://news.yahoo.com/sweden-protests-against-airspace-violation-russian-planes-162456822.html;_ylt=A86.JyC3h2tVd3IAvpQnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTE0YjRnc3NlBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDRkZYVUkyN18xBHNlYwNzcg--

 

Estonian News

http://news.yahoo.com/estonia-russian-military-plane-violated-airspace-162829716.html;_ylt=A86.J5EQiGtVJnEADBgnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTE0NXI5bTBkBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDRkZYVUkyN18xBHNlYwNzcg--

 

Japanese News

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/22/us-japan-russia-idUSBRE97L0IO20130822

 

 

Really, the Estonians report "Military aircraft penetrated airspace for 600 meters?", the Japanese one is pretty similar. The swedish have a history with unknown submarines in their waters, for which some officers in the swedish navy coined the term "Budget Submarines", since when they appear, some forces advocate the increase of military spending in Sweden.

 

Moreover, when it comes to airspace violations, Americans have been doing that since the end of WW2 - U-2s, SR-71, drones nowadays and so on (Iran and Syria already shot down a pair), yet nobody has never been crying wolf.

 

 

 

3.  Russia made a threat to Denmark that in actuality got plenty of press in Europe.  I have no idea where you come to the conclusion that it is a US knee jerk reaction.  Here is from a Danish paper which you could have easily googled yourself instead of coming up with that off the wall - "Europeans barely noticed a nuclear threat" nonsense.

 

 

 

 

I don't know if it's an american knee-jerk reaction, or an european one - The statement clearly said that entering the anti-ballistic system would make those country assets targeted by nuclear capable missiles (I presume that they are talking about Iskander theatre systems). Which, for those who can't really read properly, does not mean "We are going to Nuke you", but "If you will join a system which is made to intercept our nuclear missiles, you accept the fact that the assets you employ to contribute to that system will come under strike, IF a nuclear exchange should ever start"

 

Or, in your opinion Russia has to renounce to its nuclear deterrence ? Is that a new find that western nukes are pointed at Russia and Chine and vice-versa?

 

 

 

The gist of all the above is you chose to have a particular perspective.  It isn't like other news sources are hard to find and they are widespread enough in countries beyond the US to put the lie to "It is all US nonsense".  Chose to believe what you want but cut the crap about "as far as I know ..." if you aren't willing to even scratch the surface of news sources.  All of the above took me 15 minutes to find.

 

My perspective is that all over the west, medias and uninformed people are falling for some who-knows-induced mechanism by which Putin's Russia is the new evil empire.

Frankly what I've seen so far, is that most of the time one could realistically surmise that all the moves Russia has done, have happened after some kind of provocation.

 

I'm not willing to accept a vision to which many in the west are falling today, out of their fears, because they have always been injected by terror raising medias that keep barking about the enemies of our democracies and our way of life.

There is a war party in the west which evidently has the resources to manipulate and even create information that will scare people into thinking that "we need to act before it's too late", and act means usually not good news at all.

 

Older people (and you don't seem to be among the youngest here) remember the kind of "games" happened during the cold war period, and whatever happens today is pretty similar, although on a smaller scope and depth. Older people would also know that this kind of things happen because of economical reasons, and all the sabre rattling normally goes to the public which needs to be constantly pressurized into believing that "your life may be changing for the worse, look at this, how can your children sleep peacefully with Russian aircraft flying into international airspace". When some country, or coalition takes charge, with a self-claimed moral or ethical superiority, while employing basically the same means (and I don't even want to mention the Snowden matter, things he cited would kinda make Putin's secret police appear as amateurs, but for some reason it's totally missing when it comes to draw some democracy rating in the west), my reaction is to profoundly doubt about its agenda.

Edited June 1, 2015 by whitehot78

[sburke]

you calling me old?  Damn you, as soon as I finish my mush I am gonna tan your hide!!!

 

Beyond that I think I am done here.  No matter how much data anyone provides, you have confirmed my impression that it will never be enough.  I am gonna go watch my lawn grow...oh wait I am in California and right now it isn't... oh well.  I am gonna go watch my lawn die.

[kuri]

Looking at the newsfeed from liveuamap.com, looks like things have certainly heated up. Several tweets about heavy shelling and intense battles in the last 30-40 minutes including one about a "tank battle" in Spartak area.

[Sublime]

snowdens an attention whore clown

[agusto]

Ofc you know by hearth all the routes and the patrol zones, or you have links that document that information?

Do we have an official SAC text documenting the usage of civilian transponders while on patrol? If I'd have to redirect B-52s and B-1s to nuclear strike Russia at a moment notice,

I wouldn't have them broadcasting their ids all over, even to russian civilian airspace controllers 

 

Are there any documents supporting your accusation that US military aircraft are flying in civillian air corridors with transponders turned off? If you cant provide any, in dubio pro reo.

 

 

snowdens an attention whore clown

 

A very valueable contribution to this discussion. The complete lack of interpunction and grammar elegantly underlines your sharp political analysis, while a smattering of swear words shows how highly qualified you are to make that judgement.

 

Seriously, you should stop typing from your phone and use a computer again. The quality of your posts has slackned in past few months. I am not trying to insult you here, it' s just my observation.

Edited June 1, 2015 by agusto

[whitehot78]

Are there any documents supporting your accusation that US military aircraft are flying in civillian air corridors with transponders turned off? If you cant provide any, in dubio pro reo.

 

 

Military aircraft from all the world are not obliged by international aviation laws to enable their transponders. The problem with the medias outcry, is that they exploit the public ignorance on the subject. A transponder is a radio device that simply broadcasts a numeric, usually 4 digit code. Airplanes flying in VFR conditions normally use the 1200 code, at least in the continental US. Aircraft in IFR conditions (like airliners) get a code assigned by ATC when their control is passed to a specific ATC - before take off, and often when entering an area covered by a different ATC. Military airplanes "at home" (like ANG planes flying over the United States) may, or may not employ a digit which is reserved to the military.

 

The system works like this: civilians air controllers, monitoring flights on their radars, can watch the blips on their screens with a datablock displayed near every return: this usually renders the altitude, the bearing and speed of the observed airplane. At last, IF the observed flight has its transponder on, that 4 number digit is displayed, along with the aforementioned data. So basically it is a measure which makes ATC work a little easier - air controllers can find a specific flight on the screen just by scanning it quickly, as the transponder code univocally identifies a single airplane with a number the controller knows. As air control radars are normally pretty cluttered with flights, especially in areas with mayor cities and airports, it somehow reduces the controller's workload.

 

But, having the transponder on or off doesn't change at all if an aircraft is visible or not - if an AC is observed without the transponder code, it is classified as "uncollaborative return" - yet the flight parameters of the aircraft are still displayed just like all the other contacts, so it's just the matter of that single air controller knowing at a glance which plane he is observing. 

 

For a military aircraft, using the transponder while on training or other operations, is kinda a rare thing. Russian military aircraft don't even have a transponder which is compatible with western ATC radars, they carry a military IFF transponder not unlike those carried by western military, which broadcasts an encrypted signal to military radar controllers and identify the aircraft as friendly or unknown (any plane not carrying that equipment would be classified as unknown).

 

As already said, flying in international airspace with no transponder broadcast has never been considered an aggressive action, and it would be treated like pretty much routine for ATCs located in Poland or Denmark, for example. "Civilians corridors" are not reserved to airliners by no aviation international law - they get criss-crossed every day hundreds of times by military aircraft all over the world - not only russian.

 

Having an interest in aviation, and a knowledge about said technologies and procedures, actually makes me think that medias are actually playing the usual game of terrorizing the ignorant public. There have been instances of russian military aircraft dangerously flying close to civilians, yet again, getting at like 500 meters from an airliners would be a feat happening tens of times on a daily base, all over the world - with nobody actually even bothering to report what happened, both the  civilian and the military crews as well as the radar controller.

[Baneman]

...

 

The system works like this: civilians air controllers, monitoring flights on their radars, can watch the blips on their screens with a datablock displayed near every return: this usually renders the altitude, the bearing and speed of the observed airplane. At last, IF the observed flight has its transponder on, that 4 number digit is displayed, along with the aforementioned data. So basically it is a measure which makes ATC work a little easier - air controllers can find a specific flight on the screen just by scanning it quickly, as the transponder code univocally identifies a single airplane with a number the controller knows. As air control radars are normally pretty cluttered with flights, especially in areas with mayor cities and airports, it somehow reduces the controller's workload.

 

But, having the transponder on or off doesn't change at all if an aircraft is visible or not - if an AC is observed without the transponder code, it is classified as "uncollaborative return" - yet the flight parameters of the aircraft are still displayed just like all the other contacts, so it's just the matter of that single air controller knowing at a glance which plane he is observing. 

 

...

 

How come then, that Malaysian flight MH370 effectively disappeared by turning its transponder off and was only tracked on military radar thereafter ?

 

I always understood that the transponder sent all the info to the civilian ATC - the altitude, bearing and speed and its number, hence why only military radars can easily spot and track aircraft without transponders on.

 

 ( internet disclaimer ) - not trying to be snarky, genuinely looking for information.

[whitehot78]

How come then, that Malaysian flight MH370 effectively disappeared by turning its transponder off and was only tracked on military radar thereafter ?

 

I always understood that the transponder sent all the info to the civilian ATC - the altitude, bearing and speed and its number, hence why only military radars can easily spot and track aircraft without transponders on.

 

 ( internet disclaimer ) - not trying to be snarky, genuinely looking for information.

I don't know where you did read that, but what you imply is that radars work only if the object they observe has a device on them that broadcasts data back to the receiver.

 

A radar contact stays exactly the same, with or without transponder collaboration from the observed object, and ATC radars aren't really different from military ones (except for very expensive 3D complexes carried by navy ships or in some ground installation) - often they are more modern and complex systems.

 

The transponder, depending on the model, is capable of sending back only the altitude of the plane that carries it, after reading the data from its barometric altitude. Yet an ATC won't depend on this feature to get altitude data out of a contact, since the large numbers of planes that don't carry a transponder - or don't use it.

 

Another usage of the transponder is as a sort of emergency radio - For example, if I'm a pilot whose airliner is being hijacked, and I can't talk to the control tower by voice over the radio because the terrorists would hear me, I would change my transponder code to one out of a number of standard codes used to communicate emergency situations - in this case 7500 (if the situation doesn't endanger the airplane and the passengers). Other codes are employed if a pilot would want to communicate he experienced total radio failure or yet other situations.

 

In any case, as I mentioned, a radar contact is not by any means lost if the transponder is turned off or missing, and there is no ICAO or FAA regulation which require at all to employ transponders on aircraft. Most civilians planes have them and use them - but with military, on training or patrol or some other mission the norm is that they are not used.

[Sublime]

Are there any documents supporting your accusation that US military aircraft are flying in civillian air corridors with transponders turned off? If you cant provide any, in dubio pro reo.

A very valueable contribution to this discussion. The complete lack of interpunction and grammar elegantly underlines your sharp political analysis, while a smattering of swear words shows how highly qualified you are to make that judgement.

Seriously, you should stop typing from your phone and use a computer again. The quality of your posts has slackned in past few months. I am not trying to insult you here, it' s just my observation.

if i didnt have to work two jobs i.d have more time to post from a computer. regardless my statement stands. i believe time continues to bear snowden out as someone who just wanted attention and did what he did. and people probably died because of it. just like walker sold the soviets secrets for money for a lavish lifestyle and people died for it. what snowden did wasnt whistleblowing it was treason.

oh and your assessment that one.s using swear words makes their opinion any less valid just shows me either the validity of your opinions to me, or your prudishness, or both. speaking of grammar it.s valuable not valueable.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Sublime

[agusto]

if i didnt have to work two jobs i.d have more time to post from a computer. regardless my statement stands.

Well even if you are working hard on two jobs simultaniously, you should still try to show at least some etiquette. I am sure most people here will appreciate it.

 

i believe time continues to bear snowden out as someone who just wanted attention and did what he did. and people probably died because of it. just like walker sold the soviets secrets for money for a lavish lifestyle and people died for it. what snowden did wasnt whistleblowing it was treason.

 

Whatever, that' s not what i want to discuss with you now.

 

oh and your assessment that one.s using swear words makes their opinion any less valid just shows me either the validity of your opinions to me, or your prudishness, or both. speaking of grammar it.s valuable not valueable.

 

Correct use of grammar and the use of well defined vocabulary are necessary to be correctly understood by others and to be taken seriously in a discussion. Communication between two people works best if both agree to use a set of well defined grammatical rules and vocabularies. Any deviation from those norms to which both parties agree increases the risk of a misunderstanding and is hence to be avoided, at least in that kind of rational discussion that we are trying to have here. Using badly defined swear words and metaphores like "attention whore" or calling someone a "clown" is inaccurate and hence reduces the value of your statement.

 

Furthermore what you posted earlier may be your opinion to which you are entirely entiteld but it does not at all meet the criteria of an arguement or even any kind of rational thought, which lessens the value of your statement even more.

 

One could even argue that to post something like you did is offensive towards the people who read your post because it clearly shows that you have no intent to contribute something of value but instead just want to disturb others with worthless outbursts of hate-speech.

 

speaking of grammar it.s valuable not valueable.

 

Thanks for correcting me. I am not a native english speaker and i see participating in english speaking forums as an opportunity to improve my english. I always try to do my best to use proper english, but natuarally i may sometimes make mistakes.

[Nidan1]

How come then, that Malaysian flight MH370 effectively disappeared by turning its transponder off and was only tracked on military radar thereafter ?

 

I always understood that the transponder sent all the info to the civilian ATC - the altitude, bearing and speed and its number, hence why only military radars can easily spot and track aircraft without transponders on.

 

 ( internet disclaimer ) - not trying to be snarky, genuinely looking for information.

Because of the mysterious circumstances of this particular flight, there has been renewed impetus to install real time flight data transmitters that would continuously send flight data information about an aircraft to a receiving station. That would include engine performance, instrument readings, etc. All the information that is now stored on the so called black box. Something that is always searched for after plane wreckage has been recovered.

 

From what I understand, the area where MH370 was flying contained numerous holes where radar and other tracking systems were either not present or not adequate enough to continuously track the aircraft's flight. It would not really have mattered if the transponder were turned off in those areas because there were no scanning systems watching that area of the sky anyway.