Russian army under equipped?

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Ukraine is a bit different compared to Syria, there would be no point in hiding these casualties in Syria.

You really do not understand your own domestic politics.  Casualties are being hidden from the general Russian population because casualties cause people's opinions to change.  Putin is very, very aware that it was the casualties in Afghanistan (which was also a war that officially didn't exist) is one of the major factors that resulted in the Soviet Union collapsing.  He doesn't want to see that happen, so he makes sure that this sort of information is suppressed.

4 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Plus all the Syrian sources I've went through have denied the incident as well.

Syrian sources are no more reliable than Russian sources.  They are state controlled for a reason... to not let information out that they do not want people to know about.  This is the problem with being caught lying too many times and too consistently... even if they are telling the truth it's very difficult to believe it.

4 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

And honestly, looking at the SAT pics it is very odd how the impacts are in the areas that matter. And there isn't any more dispersion.

It's far less odd than the theory that a SU-25 shooting down MH-17.

Steve

[Sublime]

Now now Steve. As I mentioned earlier I have my degree in DCS  and I think really any simpleton on the street knows of the ancient Ukrainian practice of using ground attack planes for high altitude intercepts

[Sublime]

Plus i heard those green tracers are totally more deadly to airplanes

[VladimirTarasov]

15 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

You really do not understand your own domestic politics.  Casualties are being hidden from the general Russian population because casualties cause people's opinions to change.  Putin is very, very aware that it was the casualties in Afghanistan (which was also a war that officially didn't exist) is one of the major factors that resulted in the Soviet Union collapsing.  He doesn't want to see that happen, so he makes sure that this sort of information is suppressed.

Syrian sources are no more reliable than Russian sources.  They are state controlled for a reason... to not let information out that they do not want people to know about.  This is the problem with being caught lying too many times and too consistently... even if they are telling the truth it's very difficult to believe it.

It's far less odd than the theory that a SU-25 shooting down MH-17.

Steve

You shared a link where the US suffered heavy casualties in a taliban raid, That did not affect the US' operations in Afghanistan. Why would losing a few dozen men affect the Russian ops in Syria, ISIS is a threat to Russia, and ISIS affiliated groups in Dagestan and Chechnya have been active. There is a justification for the Russian ops in Syria. Of course, if Russia were to lose men in a combat mission then I can understand a cover up to save face. In Ukraine's term, its a whole different idea. In Syria the casualties will never even be close to the men lost in Afghanistan. 

The SU-25 shooting down the MH-17 is a bit ridiculous. Again the investigations were too late to determine anything, we can only put together theories. It is Ukraine's air traffic control that deserves to be thrown into court for sending an aircraft over a war zone where planes are being shot down. Now we have 298 peoples lives lost, and politics to mask who killed them. I won't rule out an accidental shootdown, but as we know that Russia militarily supports DPR/LPR, I'm sure that it would have been identified that it was a airliner. Either way if the DPR/LPR shot it down then Ukraine bares the same responsibility for it for letting this airplane fly over zones where there is a conflict. Also lets look at it this way, an airplane flying at commercial airliner altitudes 25 miles away from the Russian border heading towards Russia would be very stupid to shoot down by the DPR/LPR. Unless we can get a structure of air defenses of the Ukrainian army and DPR/LPR army I'm not going to really pin it on anyone other than Ukrainian air traffic.

[Sublime]

Nevermind claims on social media of downing a ukrainian plane at the same time and only claims made by seperatists that quickly tried to be removed when the airliner but came out?

Or the commission figuring out it was a Buk that the  Russians simply would have had to supply? Or general consensus amongst experts that it wiuld need an trained military crew to operate a SAM like Buk? That doesnt make one think "coal miners!" Im sure you.ll tell me that theres an ex Soviet SAM operator out of every 5 coal miners. In 20 years Russia will say ya it was our fault. And itll be old so most people wont care. Just like KLM 007.

 I agree its nuts to fly over a warzone but thats on the airline not Ukr ATC. The Russians explanation is so ridiculous its hard to read without imagining Putins laughing at those idiot westerners like the "maybe they got the weapons on ebay comment"

 

As far as why Ukraine and Syria together could potentially harm Russias current govt- iirc Afghanistan wasnt a secret the level of casualties were. However the figures I still see tossed around which Im certain arent correct say like about 30k Soviet war dead. The US lost 58k in Vietnam. Id say the late 1960s was the closest the US has been to a civil war without actually being in one. So it was a lot of trouble. However the US Army survived that and was still running the Cold War etc.

The reason people mention Afghanistan and the fall of the Soviet Union in the same sentence because it was the last war of the SU and ended within a few years of its collapse IMO. I dont completely subscribe to the idea, it definitely played a part IMO though, but its interesting I used to hear people even "commoners" not "grognards" talking about Afghanistan used to mention every country always lost there that invaded back around 2001-2002 when we initially attacked.  It seems in some perverse way the American public perhaps finds some satisfaction that our Afghanistan experience hasnt turned out to be quite as terrible as yours. I dont think this is out of hatred for the Soviet Union or Russia and more a pride in our armed forces.

(Of course if your one of the casualties my last statement is utter nonsense)

Of course this is all just opinion and mine.

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Sublime

[VladimirTarasov]

1 hour ago, Sublime said:

Nevermind claims on social media of downing a ukrainian plane at the same time and only claims made by seperatists that quickly tried to be removed when the airliner but came out?

Or the commission figuring out it was a Buk that the  Russians simply would have had to supply? Or general consensus amongst experts that it wiuld need an trained military crew to operate a SAM like Buk? That doesnt make one think "coal miners!" Im sure you.ll tell me that theres an ex Soviet SAM operator out of every 5 coal miners. In 20 years Russia will say ya it was our fault. And itll be old so most people wont care. Just like KLM 007.

 I agree its nuts to fly over a warzone but thats on the airline not Ukr ATC. The Russians explanation is so ridiculous its hard to read without imagining Putins laughing at those idiot westerners like the "maybe they got the weapons on ebay comment"

A Russian supplied BUK? Ukraine operates those, and they were operating them near the conflict zone. Also, regarding the posts, it could be even a claim that was brought forth because they saw a plane that was dropping from the sky(scheduled AN-26 to fly that day and assumed that a unit hit it). But I don't want to go deep into this for reasons you understand unless Steve goes the go ahead. (flame war and or lock of this thread that has good arguments)

 

1 hour ago, Sublime said:

As far as why Ukraine and Syria together could potentially harm Russias current govt- iirc Afghanistan wasnt a secret the level of casualties were. However the figures I still see tossed around which Im certain arent correct say like about 30k Soviet war dead. The US lost 58k in Vietnam. Id say the late 1960s was the closest the US has been to a civil war without actually being in one. So it was a lot of trouble. However the US Army survived that and was still running the Cold War etc.

The reason people mention Afghanistan and the fall of the Soviet Union in the same sentence because it was the last war of the SU and ended within a few years of its collapse IMO. I dont completely subscribe to the idea, it definitely played a part IMO though, but its interesting I used to hear people even "commoners" not "grognards" talking about Afghanistan used to mention every country always lost there that invaded back around 2001-2002 when we initially attacked.  It seems in some perverse way the American public perhaps finds some satisfaction that our Afghanistan experience hasnt turned out to be quite as terrible as yours. I dont think this is out of hatred for the Soviet Union or Russia and more a pride in our armed forces.

(Of course if your one of the casualties my last statement is utter nonsense)

Of course this is all just opinion and mine.

 

30K Soviet troops did not die in Afghanistan 15K dead in total. A base being attacked and losing 30 men will justify more action against ISIS, like I said the general public likes that we are having an air campaign in Syria against terror groups, and majorily thats what it is, an air campaign. It is nothing like Afghanistan.

Edited June 7, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[antaress73]

hey guys ! so what about discussions that are purely game related ?  I think that discussing what happened or did not happen, each side having a very different view based on the source of information that is used will lead us nowhere. Even though I tend to agree with Vladimir, I think we should all go back to topics that are game related. There is enough disagreement on how things are depicted in the game to avoid getting into more disagreements on politics, media disinfo, bad faith and all

We have to agree to disagree.

Steve: anything in the pipeline for CMBS ? a patch solving some important issues maybe ? (many have been reported, including by yours truly) 

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

You shared a link where the US suffered heavy casualties in a taliban raid, That did not affect the US' operations in Afghanistan.

That one incident did not, but cumulative losses in Afghanistan and Iraq certainly have dramatically changed the US population's approach to armed intervention.  So in a sense it did have an affect on US policy.

Quote

Why would losing a few dozen men affect the Russian ops in Syria, ISIS is a threat to Russia, and ISIS affiliated groups in Dagestan and Chechnya have been active. There is a justification for the Russian ops in Syria. Of course, if Russia were to lose men in a combat mission then I can understand a cover up to save face. In Ukraine's term, its a whole different idea. In Syria the casualties will never even be close to the men lost in Afghanistan. 

Then why doesn't the Russian government tell the truth?  There's been multiple reports of deaths in Syria that have been officially covered up, just like the deaths in Ukraine.  Because lying takes a great deal of energy and cost it must be happening for a reason.  Doing something like that without a reason is insane, and since I don't think Putin is insane there must be a reason.  The reason is almost certainly because he fears erosion of support for his actions.  If you can think of another one, I'm curious to know what it is.

Quote

The SU-25 shooting down the MH-17 is a bit ridiculous.

Yet that is still the official Russian government explanation for what shot down MH-17.

Quote

Again the investigations were too late to determine anything, we can only put together theories.

No, we have science and that science pretty clearly indicates the most likely cause was a BUK fired from within separatists territory by a Russian supplied (and probably crewed) BUK launcher.

Quote

It is Ukraine's air traffic control that deserves to be thrown into court for sending an aircraft over a war zone where planes are being shot down. Now we have 298 peoples lives lost, and politics to mask who killed them.

Malaysian Airlines was ultimately responsible for that flight path.  As was Aeroflot, which was flying over the same territory on the same day as it had every day before it.  This is why Ukraine is not being brought to court... ultimately it wasn't their responsibility.  However, it was Russia's responsibility to not fire surface to air missiles on the sovereign territory of a neighboring country.  It was also Russia's responsibility to not lie about its actions after the fact. 

Quote

Unless we can get a structure of air defenses of the Ukrainian army and DPR/LPR army I'm not going to really pin it on anyone other than Ukrainian air traffic.

That's fun logic there.  You blame some guys sitting in an office in Kiev, not the Russian soldiers who actually tracked and shot down MH-17 while illegally on Ukrainian soil fighting an illegal war, then had the events horribly and badly covered up by the Russian government.  Yeah, you're going to win lots of debates with logic like that.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, antaress73 said:

hey guys ! so what about discussions that are purely game related ?  I think that discussing what happened or did not happen, each side having a very different view based on the source of information that is used will lead us nowhere.

Leaving bad information and bad logic unchallenged leads us to a place worse than nowhere.  As a citizen of this planet I have more moral responsibility to correct the disinformation and horribly and fatally flawed statements made on this Forum than I do to fix bugs in the game.  So if someone wants to post complete and utter BS on our Forum, they will find themselves challenged.  It is either that or banishment.  I will not allow this Forum to be a platform for promoting state sponsored lying of any sort.

10 minutes ago, antaress73 said:

We have to agree to disagree.

When facts and events are reasonably uncertain, agreeing to disagree is an option.  However, when someone says the world is flat or the universe revolves around the Earth there should be no accommodation.  A dangerous distortion of reality needs challenged.  It is a moral obligation.  The other option is to ban people for forcing this sort of challenge in the first place.

10 minutes ago, antaress73 said:

Steve: anything in the pipeline for CMBS ? a patch solving some important issues maybe ? (many have been reported, including by yours truly) 

There are some things in the pipeline, some CMBS specific some CM2 wide.

Steve

[antaress73]

14 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Leaving bad information and bad logic unchallenged leads us to a place worse than nowhere.  As a citizen of this planet I have more moral responsibility to correct the disinformation and horribly and fatally flawed statements made on this Forum than I do to fix bugs in the game.  So if someone wants to post complete and utter BS on our Forum, they will find themselves challenged.  It is either that or banishment.  I will not allow this Forum to be a platform for promoting state sponsored lying of any sort.

When facts and events are reasonably uncertain, agreeing to disagree is an option.  However, when someone says the world is flat or the universe revolves around the Earth there should be no accommodation.  A dangerous distortion of reality needs challenged.  It is a moral obligation.  The other option is to ban people for forcing this sort of challenge in the first place.

There are some things in the pipeline, some CMBS specific some CM2 wide.

Steve

wow... your confidence is ... interesting. Anyway, I was arguing more for people to refrain to post the russian view of events on this forum since this is totally futile. Your post eloquently demonstrated my point. You, of course, totally have the right to fullfill your moral responsabilities by challenging these "fatally flawed" views. This is your company and forums afterall. As for myself, I have no interest in discussing this any further. You guys make interesting games that fits my tastes and this is good enough for me.

regards,

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, antaress73 said:

wow... your confidence is ... interesting.

The most likely explanation is almost always the correct one.  There is only one scenario that fits all the facts and that is a Russian BUK launcher took down MH-17.  What we don't know is if it was deliberate or not, but I suspect the most likely answer (that it was accidental) is the correct one.

BTW, today it was announced that a piece of a BUK is in the hands of the Dutch.  It was collected at the crash site without them knowing, at the time, what it was:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36462853

Quote

Anyway, I was arguing more for people to refrain to post the russian view of events on this forum since this is totally futile. Your post eloquently demonstrated my point.

I welcome the Russian point of view provided that it conforms with reality.  Reality is established by balancing sources of information, knowledge of history, an understanding of how the world works, and intelligent discrimination between fact and fiction.  Stating "there are no Russian forces fighting in Eastern Ukraine because Russia Today says there isn't" falls very short of that standard.

Quote

You, of course, totally have the right to fullfill your moral responsabilities by challenging these "fatally flawed" views.

If someone came here to talk about how Jews control the world, the Earth is 9000 years old, or that most of the world leaders are controlled by aliens... I should let that stand unchallenged?  And yes, I am equating many of the Kremlin invented conspiracy theories as every bit equal to that.  The claim that Russian forces are not being involved in eastern Ukraine is no more accurate than that sort of tripe.

Quote

This is your company and forums afterall. As for myself, I have no interest in discussing this any further. You guys make interesting games that fits my tastes and this is good enough for me.

Fine by me as well.

Steve

[Sublime]

You know the definition of a pathological liar is someone who lies is caught lying presented with irrefutable evidence of the lie and keeps insisting they.re not lying when they know they are and they know you know they.re lying.

By that logic ( and MANY US and other politicians would fit that ) Putin is a pathological liar. Difference between him and say pick some random US govt official is Putin is a dictator in a country where the media is controlled so theres no alternative view points or argument about the lies he tells his people.

" ok so people in russia believe a bunch of crazy nonsense on some subjects who gives a toss"

Actually thats a dangerous game to play. See Germany post Ww1 pre WW2. Myths and urban legends ( the jews stabbed us in the back, the reds did, the front wasnt collapsing) become 'facts' in 10 years and suddenl you have a nation who feels its their right to vondicate the "wrongs"imposed on them by violating treaties ( sound familiar?) And aggressive expansion amongst its neighbors ( sound familiar? )

[VladimirTarasov]

26 minutes ago, Sublime said:

You know the definition of a pathological liar is someone who lies is caught lying presented with irrefutable evidence of the lie and keeps insisting they.re not lying when they know they are and they know you know they.re lying.

By that logic ( and MANY US and other politicians would fit that ) Putin is a pathological liar. Difference between him and say pick some random US govt official is Putin is a dictator in a country where the media is controlled so theres no alternative view points or argument about the lies he tells his people.

" ok so people in russia believe a bunch of crazy nonsense on some subjects who gives a toss"

Actually thats a dangerous game to play. See Germany post Ww1 pre WW2. Myths and urban legends ( the jews stabbed us in the back, the reds did, the front wasnt collapsing) become 'facts' in 10 years and suddenl you have a nation who feels its their right to vondicate the "wrongs"imposed on them by violating treaties ( sound familiar?) And aggressive expansion amongst its neighbors ( sound familiar? )

So we're comparing Putin's actions to say a dictator of post ww1 and pre ww2, btw I don't understand how you know he is a dictator whenever us Russians know he is a elected president of the Russian federation. And the Russian media is not that different(propaganda wise) compared to CNN and Fox News other then that some are state owned. All Russian citizens have access to the internet the same as you (save for some websites that have nothing to do with politics or hindering living standards) we all are aware of Russian politics, and we know our countries cons. Corruption for example, is known in Russia, and Putin is known for attempting to bring corruption low. (which noticeably it has) Pathological liar is different compared to what is known as "Maskirovka" tactics. Russian OPs in Ukraine are ultimately denied to achieve what is knowns as "Maskirovka" US and EU already know of Russian support to DPR and LPR, and have imposed sanctions on Russia based on that. Although there is another truth which your media even if transparent never shows to you. And it is that a government that has not been voted for, and was put in based on some pro-EU rioters which arguably were supported by the EU. 

If such politics will ensue in Ukraine, then obviously the Russian federation will protect itself, (taking Crimea which majority voted yes and majority support this move) And supporting an active rebellion against Ukraine(while winning support because the lack of Ukrainian care for its operations regarding collateral damage). Look at how NATO is moving to isolate Russia since 2004 expanding eastwards, Ukraine was bound to join NATO, which will inevitably happen in the coming 4-5 years. And now look at that, a military isolated Russia which is demonized on every geopolitical thing it does, while NATO countries enjoy the support of its own populations. If you really believe that the Kiev government was installed more democratically than Putin's government then... I don't know what else to tell you. 

Edited June 8, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[Sublime]

Vlad. Personaly Id like to say I like you. 

Second no we.re not comparing Putin to a post ww1 pre ww2 dictator.. iwas comparing the German nationalistic hating certaim foreign nation ideas and propaganda to Russia now.

I also acknowldedged that Putin at first was a genuimely elected official. But can you hinestly deny that Medvedev was Putins puppet?

US presidents by choice iirc limit themselves to 2 terms the exception and only.exception is FDR.

Putin ran his term to legal.limit. Had Medvedev step in serve a term than came back. In America foxnews is known as a pretty biased Republican source. The same with msnbc towards rhe dems. Cnn is seen pro dem but less extreme than msnbc.

However America doesnt have an extremely long track record of anti government public figures and journalists who dont follow the party lkne as it were being found dead from.gunshot robbberies often with all their valuables left on them. Also such crimes are rarely ever solved.

The fact you had to asterisk at all the fact that you assert all Russian citizens have th same access to the net as I do belies your argument from the start man.

No actually our own governments nareative of Ukraine is that after months of street violence and riots and the overthrow of the PRO RUSSIAN president the conflict began. Our media doesnt deny the President was thrown out of office by violent methods. Does Russia have an equivalent of the US and English saying that two wrongs do not make a right?

I do not believe the Kiev government was INSTALLED equally to Russias at all. Remarkably illegally in fact. Do I doubt the current Ukraine government is supported by the Ukrainian populace which means the last govt wasnt supported by most of the population Id answer Im not an expert and dont live in Ukraine and do not speak Ukrainian.

That said it certainly seems the Ukrainian populace supports to coup or revolution and lets not forget how the USSR or US began. As far as NATO nations doing what they want and having their populations support... so does Russia. And Russia even now isnt demonized in Western countries. At least not the UK and US that I know for sure personally. There IS a lot of concern over a war with Russia which I can assure you that NO offensive war against Russia would EVER pass a NATO vote or be a US decision. Im sorry you cannot tell me otherwise. Everyone knows it means the end of the world.

Russia sees NATO.s eastwrd expansion as isolating it. After your guys' history I cant really blame you. Also at the time in America when you took Crimea there was a lot of interest but not as much alarm as you.d think. It seems almost Americans kinda were like welll... it always ways Russian.... Georgia? I dont think it even registers now to most Americans and most it did to it only did after it was over. Ukraine was when genuine alarm over Russia began.

Whats funny is I really really believe with the wat China and the DPRK are acting if Russia let Ukr and everyone joined NATO and asked in 5 years I wouldnt be surprised if they were allowed to join too! Lol imagine that!

Of course itll never happen. 

 

[VladimirTarasov]

21 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Vlad. Personaly Id like to say I like you. 

Hehe thanks buddy, same goes for you.

 

21 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Second no we.re not comparing Putin to a post ww1 pre ww2 dictator.. iwas comparing the German nationalistic hating certaim foreign nation ideas and propaganda to Russia now.

I also acknowldedged that Putin at first was a genuimely elected official. But can you hinestly deny that Medvedev was Putins puppet?

Medvedev was obviously Putin's guy, In Russia there were a bunch of jokes about it.  

 

24 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Putin ran his term to legal.limit. Had Medvedev step in serve a term than came back. In America foxnews is known as a pretty biased Republican source. The same with msnbc towards rhe dems. Cnn is seen pro dem but less extreme than msnbc.

However America doesnt have an extremely long track record of anti government public figures and journalists who dont follow the party lkne as it were being found dead from.gunshot robbberies often with all their valuables left on them. Also such crimes are rarely ever solved.

The fact you had to asterisk at all the fact that you assert all Russian citizens have th same access to the net as I do belies your argument from the start man.

No actually our own governments nareative of Ukraine is that after months of street violence and riots and the overthrow of the PRO RUSSIAN president the conflict began. Our media doesnt deny the President was thrown out of office by violent methods. Does Russia have an equivalent of the US and English saying that two wrongs do not make a right?

I do not believe the Kiev government was INSTALLED equally to Russias at all. Remarkably illegally in fact. Do I doubt the current Ukraine government is supported by the Ukrainian populace which means the last govt wasnt supported by most of the population Id answer Im not an expert and dont live in Ukraine and do not speak Ukrainian.

That said it certainly seems the Ukrainian populace supports to coup or revolution and lets not forget how the USSR or US began. As far as NATO nations doing what they want and having their populations support... so does Russia. And Russia even now isnt demonized in Western countries. At least not the UK and US that I know for sure personally. There IS a lot of concern over a war with Russia which I can assure you that NO offensive war against Russia would EVER pass a NATO vote or be a US decision. Im sorry you cannot tell me otherwise. Everyone knows it means the end of the world.

Russia sees NATO.s eastwrd expansion as isolating it. After your guys' history I cant really blame you. Also at the time in America when you took Crimea there was a lot of interest but not as much alarm as you.d think. It seems almost Americans kinda were like welll... it always ways Russian.... Georgia? I dont think it even registers now to most Americans and most it did to it only did after it was over. Ukraine was when genuine alarm over Russia began.

Whats funny is I really really believe with the wat China and the DPRK are acting if Russia let Ukr and everyone joined NATO and asked in 5 years I wouldnt be surprised if they were allowed to join too! Lol imagine that!

Of course itll never happen. 

 

Of course in Russia anti-government officials have been killed, although it wouldn't be fair to assume Vladimir Putin is behind them. There are too many factors at play to be able to pin on Putin, which btw has a very high approval rating. Personally too, among my friends and family there really isn't anyone who doesn't approve of him. 

Viktor Yanukovich was elected and yes he definitely was pro-Russian, although this gives no right for violent protests with molotov cocktails and guns, and then out of no where you have a sniper shooting into these crowds and at the police. 

Russia is worried about NATO's expansion because it would limit our capability to defend ourselves, and it also limits our geopolitical stance in the world and gives the advantage to other powers.

[Kinophile]

He Who Shall Not Be Named (Godwin's Law and all that) was actually elected democratically by the Germans,  albeit with significant electoral violence (both Left and Right). It was once in power that he began to abuse and twist the system. Putin did the same -  relatively fair and open elections gave him the power base to own the system and subvert it into cronism, authoritarianism and political kleptomania. No election since, nor the political system as a whole,  could be called open,  fair or truly representative of the people. It is biased and arranged to favour a tiny elite -  their needs,  greed,  power bases,  clans and personal whims. I 

Ukraine has very similar and severe problems,  but the last election, after Maidan was open and fair. Their media is open,  albeit dominated by competing interests if various billionaires - but it's that competition that is critical to democracy.  So Ukraine is considered as semi-open, or a democracy in being but with significant (but slowly reducing)  caveats.

The Ukrainian public desire for a transparent, open society where corruption is the outlier rather her than the norm,  where Kiev not the Kremlin decides Ukraine's date, has been very clearly stated by many,  many Ukrainians. 

The Kremlin's denial of that desire as a real thing is possibly the most insulting part of the entire fracas. But it us exactly what Putin has done to Russian civil society - destroyed the possibility of public critical discourse

Russian media is not internally competitive, is essentially directed by the Kremlin and any members if the media who step out of line are killed. This kind of thing directly affects a society's organic ability to regulate it's rulers,  which is why the media is always the first target of every authoritarian leader and his clique in history. 

Vlad, you often have great info on the Russian military, and you are no fool. It's very apprent. But you still repeat and seem to honestly believe, despite massive amounts of evidence,  in far too much of Putin's nonsense. 

I grew up in Ireland. It has held free,  open and transparent elections ever since the Republic came into being (after a nasty little war). I know personally what a free society looks like and how it operates. There will always be underhand tactics, bias, some corruption. But those are the outliers,  not the norm. 

And before we throw around the But [insert country here] Is A Special Unique Case argument  (which is the usual bull**** thrown around by every Authoritarian) think about this:

I could write a damning, evidence laden exposé of every political scandal currently in play in Ireland and I would not be shot, stabbed,  thrown off a building, harrassed by the police, financially ruined, blackmailed by the internal security services, mugged, sued by the State, my family threatened imprisoned, or myself  publicly reviled or mocked on state TV. Every one of those things has happened to dissenting media members in Russia over the last two decades.  

In Ireland,  I would be acclaimed, lionized,  feted,  publicly praised and congratulated by private individuals and pretty much every public institution in existence. I could walk the streets without fear and if I were attacked the public anger would overwhelm any attempt to cover up. After the state police has finished nailing my attackers to the wall I could then sue them in civil court and be absolutely assured of a fair and open trial.

NONE of that is a realistic possibility in Russian civili society today, and you should be mad as ****ing hell that that scrawny KGB spy has subverted and raped  every reasonable expectation of a clean,  open and fair society. Putler has enacted a decade long, creeping, slow motion coup d'etat that has destroyed any possibility of real dissent, discussion or criticism of him or his policies. 

If someone started trying to do that in Ireland I would fly home and fight tooth and nail. My family fought in the civil war and I would be proud as hell to stand by the values I grew up with, to fight for the ordinary family so that they can work and live without any concern or fear of the State other than how much it can provide for them. Ireland is not perfect,  but it's civil society is free of dominance by a single person and his clique. 

This is the viewpoint of someone who grew up in a demonstrably honest, open society. It blows my mind that you value more that piece of ****'s lying drivel about the Donbass War he started,  than over what he has done to your country. You could be as stable, prosperous and as advanced as Europe. You should be furious at him that you are not.

........ 

This probably should have been a PM.

But if you're going to regurgitate Putin's verbal diarrhoea then this is the polar opposite and just as valid to be made public. 

 

Edited June 8, 2016 by kinophile

[VladimirTarasov]

I totally edited this post, I won't go on because obviously this thread is heading towards a lock. I'm done arguing politics further.

Edited June 8, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Corruption for example, is known in Russia, and Putin is known for attempting to bring corruption low.

A dubious statement at best, given that Putin himself has been shown to be at the top of the corruption food chain, such as in the documentary below:

EDIT: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/putins-way/

Edited June 8, 2016 by LukeFF

[A Canadian Cat]

30 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

 It is kind of as if someone is telling you "F you and your service, and your country" 

While I cannot speak for @kinophile I highly doubt that is what he intends.  One of the dangers of criticism is in the how it will be taken and how the response to that will be taken too.  I see the same pattern repeat it self.  I could site many other examples but I'll stick to recent Canadian history to minimize the number of people I'll upset . When Canadian troops were sent to Afghanistan I would say most Canadians supported that move but it was far from unanimous.  The problem came when someone spoke out against the war frequently what people heard was "you are against our troops" and not "this is why I do not feel our troops should be there".  I personally know people were opposed to that military action.  Not a single one of them actually thought our soldiers were bad people they wanted our government to make a different decision.  Huge difference.  But alas one that is lost on too many people.  We had people with bumper stickers that said "If you are not behind our troops feel free to stand in front of them". When to a person I never hear a single soul say that they did not support our troops.  One sizable segment of our society just could not hear the actual message and seemed to only hear something else.

So, I believe those that serve their country honourably should be honoured regardless of if you support the politician who sent them or the ideology behind it. Those are two separate things.

[Kinophile]

I hold ordinary Russians blameless. It's extremely hard to counteract such a system as Putin has built. It's that man himself,  the lionizing and ceaseless head nodding to him that gets to me. He's a politician like every  other,  and as trustworthy as any - ie not. 

Re military service -  troops go where they're tolf,  that's the primary function of a soldier - obey first. It's a critical part of what keeps you alive, that instinct. 

Someone's service to their country is completely honourable and admirable,  no matter what their government is like,  if their own conduct is honourable. A good person in a bad system is still a good person.  Witness the many "Good"  Germans of the Wehrmacht. Also witness the many Bad....

Many, many Americans were opposed to Bush War 2. But the British &  US troops fought like lions,  no matter what,  and only a churlish fool would deny them that honour. I was and still am totally against the Idea of the US invasion. But I don't blame the infantry,  or the tankers or the pilots. I blame Bush and his boys. The Elite.

Same with Russia. Putin has created a system that works to obey him. If that system delimbs children in Syria, Ukraine or any other unlucky part of the world I don't blame the pilot,  gunner if infantryman. I blame Putin. He's made a system that starts and ends with him,  so the guilt and blame start and end with him. A soldier's duty is to obey first,  within the bounds of honourable human conduct. 

Basically I have a knee jerk reaction to blindly accepting what any given public figure (ESPECIALLY a politician)  is telling me is the truth, and especially if that Truth holds a latent advantage in power for they themselves. The more they argue for it, the less I trust them. That scepticism of the Leader is what's lacking in Russian civil society, to the detriment of the society at large and to the insidious advantage if Putin. 

Putin equates his personal security,  power and prestige with Russia's. A democratic society instead draws that from its own people, is validated and empowered by them. No need for a single person to embody the country's fate and future. It's every Authoritarian's primary mission to convince the country that they are vital. Yet many so it's have and still exist with a beloved leader and are ALWAYS more prosperous,  happier, stable,  fair and open. 

Edited June 8, 2016 by kinophile

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Hehe thanks buddy, same goes for you.

 

Medvedev was obviously Putin's guy, In Russia there were a bunch of jokes about it.  

 

Of course in Russia anti-government officials have been killed, although it wouldn't be fair to assume Vladimir Putin is behind them. There are too many factors at play to be able to pin on Putin, which btw has a very high approval rating. Personally too, among my friends and family there really isn't anyone who doesn't approve of him. 

Viktor Yanukovich was elected and yes he definitely was pro-Russian, although this gives no right for violent protests with molotov cocktails and guns, and then out of no where you have a sniper shooting into these crowds and at the police. 

Russia is worried about NATO's expansion because it would limit our capability to defend ourselves, and it also limits our geopolitical stance in the world and gives the advantage to other powers.

Looking at ultimately where he wound up, Yanukovich wasn't so much the president of the Ukraine, as much as the personal representative of Putin in the Ukraine.  When his people called him on being a corrupt terrible leader, his choice was to try to violence away the fact he wasn't acting in their interest.  I think that pretty much set things up for polite discussion being off the table.  Yanukovich choose to ignore the wishes of his people to appease Putin, and he paid the price for it.  

The issue was not being pro-Russian.  It was a continued unyielding preference for Russian interests over the interests of most Ukrainians.  You don't elect someone supreme lord for life in most real functional democratic systems, you elect him to represent your interests.  

Re: NATO expansion

Here's the silly thing.  NATO doesn't expand itself.  It's not actively recruiting folks, setting up bases in countries that otherwise are neutral, or secretly invading countries with "vacationers" driving Leo 2s.    NATO is at its heart, a defensive alliance.  It ensures that if one country is attacked, it does not stand alone against the aggressor.

NATO is on Russia's doorstep because Russia's neighbors do not feel safe from Russian aggression.  Full stop.  That's why they've joined NATO.  There's literally nothing else NATO offers to members beyond a defensive military alliance (or it's not like there's a free trade zone or something).  Literally the only way NATO goes east is if Eastern Europe feels threatened by an exterior threat.

Which Russia had enthusiastically given honestly.  From nuclear saber rattling, to out and out invasion, there is virtually no reason to trust the Russian state to behave itself in Eastern Europe.  And just like Russia relies on its nuclear weapons to deter invasion, the only really viable option for a country dealing with Russian aggression is to join NATO.  
So basically if you're really worried about NATO being next door, stop giving your neighbors reasons to join NATO.  It really is as simple as that.  

The geopolitical stance thing is also funny simply because all NATO really does realistically is deny Russia the ability to threaten military action against its neighbors.  That is literally it.  The fact most countries in the world can get along with their neighbors without green men border crossing should be pretty indicative of how silly this "limitation" is.  

I won't even address the "defense" aspect.  Russia's territorial integrity is under no realistic threat from external forces.  

[HUSKER2142]

21 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

NATO is on Russia's doorstep because Russia's neighbors do not feel safe from Russian aggression.  Full stop.  That's why they've joined NATO.  There's literally nothing else NATO offers to members beyond a defensive military alliance (or it's not like there's a free trade zone or something).  Literally the only way NATO goes east is if Eastern Europe feels threatened by an exterior threat.

 

22 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I won't even address the "defense" aspect.  Russia's territorial integrity is under no realistic threat from external forces.  

Can remove NATO troops from the Baltic States and Poland. For there are placed only Polish army and the Baltic States Army.

^{Может убрать войска НАТО из балтии и Польши . Чтобы там располагалась только польская армия и армии прибалтики .}

31 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Which Russia had enthusiastically given honestly.  From nuclear saber rattling, to out and out invasion, there is virtually no reason to trust the Russian state to behave itself in Eastern Europe.  And just like Russia relies on its nuclear weapons to deter invasion, the only really viable option for a country dealing with Russian aggression is to join NATO.  
So basically if you're really worried about NATO being next door, stop giving your neighbors reasons to join NATO.  It really is as simple as that.  

Let NATO give a written guarantee that the missile defense system in Romania and Poland is not aimed against Russia. Leaders of NATO countries answered only by word of mouth and the fact that the missile defense system directed against Iran. Now Iran will not create nuclear weapons. And Russia only in response warns countries to take the missile defense system, will now be under the gun.

_{Пусть НАТО даст письменную гарантию что система ПРО в Румынии и Польше не направлена против России . Руководство блока НАТО и лидеры стран отвечали только устно и то что система ПРО направлена против Ирана . Иран теперь не создаст ядерное оружие . А Россиия только в ответ предупреждает страны принявшие систему ПРО , будут теперь под прицелом .}

[AttorneyAtWar]

It is hard to say AEGIS ashore is ONLY for the middle east or anyone but Russia I have to concede at least that, I think we all know wheres that's predominantly pointing.

BUT!

If anyone here realistically thinks in a nuclear war that that missile shield is going to stop Russia from carrying out successful nuclear strikes with its over 2000 warheads on land air and sea than that's just silly. Of course this is an iterative process and I am sure the missile shield is intended to be able stop massive strikes EVENTUALLY but it is no where near that capability as of right now. Everyone (Russians and NATO members alike) should be at peace knowing that we can wipe eachother off the face of the planet 80x over with what we both have right now, regardless of missile shields!

Edited June 8, 2016 by Raptorx7

[Kinophile]

Exactly so,  @Raptorx7 and @panzersaurkrautwerfer. 

It's defensive.  Countries ASK to join. They are not forced,  pressured or invaded into doing so. If they did not feel threatened they would not ASK to join.

Russia's threats are utterly empty - how exactly would Putin hurt Romania or Poland in any effective way without activating NATO or yet more severe sanctions? What tish tosh. EU, US and NATO currently has zero tolerance for any Russian shenanigans in any allied country. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

50 minutes ago, HUSKER2142 said:

 

Can remove NATO troops from the Baltic States and Poland. For there are placed only Polish army and the Baltic States Army.

^{Может убрать войска НАТО из балтии и Польши . Чтобы там располагалась только польская армия и армии прибалтики .}

Let NATO give a written guarantee that the missile defense system in Romania and Poland is not aimed against Russia. Leaders of NATO countries answered only by word of mouth and the fact that the missile defense system directed against Iran. Now Iran will not create nuclear weapons. And Russia only in response warns countries to take the missile defense system, will now be under the gun.

_{Пусть НАТО даст письменную гарантию что система ПРО в Румынии и Польше не направлена против России . Руководство блока НАТО и лидеры стран отвечали только устно и то что система ПРО направлена против Ирана . Иран теперь не создаст ядерное оружие . А Россиия только в ответ предупреждает страны принявшие систему ПРО , будут теперь под прицелом .}

There was more or less only Polish and Baltic troops there until Russia invaded the Ukraine.  There was occasional training exercises, but no additional large scale permanent non-Polish/Baltic NATO member presence.

Of course Russia screwed that up pretty bad now.  Russians only have Russia to blame for NATO being in Eastern Europe.  Without your aggression, NATO was on the verge of becoming a historical organization vs an active one.

Frankly folks who work at NATO HQ ought to bake Putin a cake for saving their jobs.

In regards to the missile defense system, it's way too small, way too weak, and totally improperly placed to impact a nuclear exchange (again, look where the sensors and the launch systems are positioned, it'll do exactly nothing to stop your usual ICBM route).  Unless you guys are down to the low single digit range for nuclear weapons and they're fired from the middle east, you've got nothing to fear.

Which is more than I can say for folks who live next door to ya'll.

Edited June 8, 2016 by panzersaurkrautwerfer