Jump to content

Russian army under equipped?


Recommended Posts

Time as they say, is the only thing that is gonna fix this. I only see two outcomes:

1. It was all a giant global conspiracy to defame Russia. Putin goes down in history as mighty statesman, smiter of corruption, upholder of free speech, defender of the faith etc etc.

2. It was all true and Russia goes through a period of de-Putinisation. Putin not mentioned in Russia until he becomes ironically cool again.

Edited by arjuna_r
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A little humor....😎

I think the Abrams in CMBS is somewhat more godly than in reality. I also think the technical aspects of armored vehicles matters less in real wars than in war games. In an actual war between NATO and

Western tanks were designed to hold the Fulda. They're heavier, bigger and designed with ergonomics in mind. They were to hold out as long as they could, focusing on the anti-vehicle role. Disable as

Posted Images

3 hours ago, kraze said:

That, or many russians are lying on purpose. It's people itself who make rulers get power, even by not stopping them. No honest person will ever claim that people dressed as russian army, armed with modern russian guns and driving modern russian vehicles invading Crimea are "local self-defense volunteer forces". Or those T-72B3-riding asian "miners" from Donbass, who captured modern russian tech from ukrainians with bare hands. Especially here where everybody knows which single army possesses them AK-100s, Tigrs, Vystrels and T72B3s.

In defense of the average Russian, the ability to not recognize the plain truth is a result of almost 100 years of psychological warfare by the state against its people.  Critical thinking has been actively discouraged as a state policy of the Soviet Union and the former republics that still walk that path (Russia is not alone).  This is compounded by deliberate efforts to confuse people into not knowing what is and isn't real.  That is greatly aided by the fact that most Russians only get their news from state controlled media, which is not truthful.

Let's also not forget that some people are beyond logic and reason no matter what system of government and culture they grew up with.  A glance at the US Presidential contest clearly shows that ignorance and illogical beliefs are not unique to Russia.

5 minutes ago, arjuna_r said:

Time as they say, is the only thing that is gonna fix this. I only see two outcomes:

1. It was all a giant global conspiracy to defame Russia. Putin goes down in history as mighty statesman, smiter of corruption, upholder of free speech, defender of the faith etc etc.

2. It was all true and Russia goes through a period of de-Putinisation. Putin not mentioned in Russia until he becomes ironically cool again.

As a historian and someone that specifically predicted Russia's actions in Ukraine years before they happened, I am sure it will go the #2 route.  Though I am not as hopeful as you are about the "de-Putinisation" part.  Russia, Ukraine, and others should have gone through a de-Sovietization and de-Communization process, but did not.  The Baltics and the occupied Eastern European states embraced it right away, yet 25 years later Russia is going the opposite direction by glorifying the Soviet system and it's murderous leaders.  When Putin's regime falls, and it will certainly fall (most likely with bloodshed), I doubt there will be a major improvement short term.  Russians value short term stability over improvement too much.

Ukraine, on the other hand, is on the right path.  They have finally started the process of de-Sovietification.  Ukraine probably has 10 years of difficult political and economic struggles ahead of it, then another 10 years of significant challenges, but at least they have started the process.  Which, again, is why Russia is so desperate to derail Ukraine in any way it can.  A thriving and free Ukrainian state is very bad news for the Russian ruling class.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick points on the missile defence installations in Poland and Romania.

In theory they are supposed to protect the European Allies from the potential attack from the Middle East area.

Poland wants to host missile defence because it just wants to have ANY kind of permanent US military installation on it's territory ( you may guess why ).

As to Russian objections - it's not because Russians believe that this tinny missile defence could prevent a massive retaliation against the US. They claim, that with some alterations, those SM-3 launchers can be also equipped with offensive missiles. I'm not an expert on this subject, but I've heard some US expert who confirmed it. Given the slightly paranoid world view of Mr. Putin, I'm pretty sure he believes, that it's the real purpose behind the missile defence in Central Europe.

Edited by Ivanov
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

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.

 

What if NATO forces on the territory of Poland and the Baltic will be attacked by the Armed Russia Forces,  the result of the war will begin .  What if NATO forces will not be in the territory of Poland and the Baltic Sea, and the country will be attacked by the Armed Russia Forces, the result of the war will begin. Conclusion, Russia will never invade the Baltics and Poland.


What about Ukraine, from a military point of view of the Crimea has a strategic location in the Black Sea region. Politically passed a referendum in which the people chose independence from Ukraine and attaching to Russia. Why did it happen, because there was a revolution in spite of the agreement reached in which the opposition was represented by Western leaders in Kiev. Then these same leaders supported the coup.Then these same leaders supported the coup. And now think that it would be if Russia or China placed their airbase in Venezuela or in Cuba.

P.S. Where's my cake? I prefer Cake "Bird's milk" :)

 

Что будет если войска НАТО на территории Польши и Балтики будут атакованы ВС РФ , итог начнётся война . Что будет если войск НАТО не будет на территории Польши и Балтики , а страны будут атакованы ВС РФ , итог начнётся война . Вывод  , Россия никогда не будет вторгаться в Балтику и Польшу .

Что по поводу Украины , с военной точки зрения Крым имеет стратегическое расположение в Чёрном море и регионе . С политической точки прошёл референдум в котором население выбрало независимость от Украины и присоединению к России. Почему так произошло , потому что в Киеве произошёл переворот несмотря на достигнутые договорённости в котором оппозицию представляли западные лидеры . Потом эти же лидеры поддержали этот переворот . А теперь подумай что было бы если Россия или Китай расположили свои авиабазы в Венесуэла или на Кубе .

П.С.  Где мой торт ? Я предпочитаю торт "Птичье молоко"

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, sburke said:

You don't aim a missile defense system at a country, you aim it at incoming missiles.  So if Russia doesn't intend to launch missiles Voila! it isn't aimed at Russia.  Russia's argument is so incredibly stupid it is amazing that anyone buys into it.

Poland: "Hey I am buying a bullet proof vest."
Russia : "Don't aim that at me"

Poland: "I am not, it is just there in case someone tries to shoot me,"

Russia: "Preventing me from shooting you is an attack on me!"

Poland: " What the f**K, you would shoot me?  I better keep my bullet proof vest!"

Russia: "If you wear that bulletproof vest I might shoot you"

Poland: "Freakin nut job, I am damn well wearing this vest all the time!"

What prevents replace the stuffing in the missile defense system to the shock ? System at any time covertly converted to strike system.

 

А что мешает заменить начинку в системе ПРО на ударную ? Систему можно в любой момент скрытно превратить в ударную систему .

Link to post
Share on other sites

"What prevents replace the stuffing in the missile defense system to the shock ? System at any time covertly converted to strike system."

 

The SM-3 missile used in the Aegis BMD is a kinetic interceptor (31 kg TNT equivalent of kinetic energy at the point of impact.)  About as effective offensively as taking off the bullet proof jacket and throwing it over a wall at someone...

Image%202016-06-09%20at%2011.31.24%20pm.

Edited by Wicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

The ABM missiles are in no way a major threat to Russia, although if the bases are expanded they can be. Russia doesn't like the ABM shield because it is obviously against Russia and to send a message against Russia. Obviously we will not like this, because it further breaks the promises of not expanding east wards. Now you have a ABM shield right next door, which will provide an advantage to NATO early warning radars and what not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ivanov,

I've seen some good arguments to the effect that Putin isn't concerned about either offensive use of the US BMD installations like the one in Romania or some supposed ability to shut down a Russian retaliatory strike in the event of a fully nuclear WW III. The real reason that I've read is that the BMD installations defang Putin by taking his frequently rattled Iskander-Ms out of play. These SRBMs are rightly seen as a credible threat by, among others, the Poles, who have them right next door in Kaliningrad. See, for example, this analysis, which shows the kind of target coverage Iskander-M provides. Bluntly put, Putin hates it that his favorite tool of local-regional intimidation is about to be rendered useless, and he hates it even more that he now has to deal with the very real deterrent effect of a continuing US presence in the countries which have/will have what I recall is correctly termed AEGIS On Land.  Reinforcing this scenario is something dating clear back to 2007 in which senior RA officials talked about supplying Iskander to Belarus as a counter to the evolving BMD.  By the most amazing of coincidences, such a move would put Russian controlled Iskander SRBMs in a position not merely to hit Poland, but the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Hungary.  This is the telltale for his true agenda, since it reveals what he wants to be able to do and how he uses his pet SRBM to threaten, intimidate and coerce. Tell me, what equivalent system has NATO or the US fielded? Lance left service in 1992 and never had that sort of range. Before that, all the Pershing Iis, which did have the legs to hold important Russian target sets at risk, were all destroyed (save INF Treat agreed outer shells for museum pieces) by the end of 1991. The same thing happened with the much slower Tomahawk based GLCMs in 1991. I therefore ask you, who exactly is threatening whom here? Neither the US nor NATO has threatened Russia with nuclear war if it doesn't stop doing one or more things which upset it.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wicky I meant that prevents replace SM-3 container to another container such as a Tomahawk. Yes, I know that these rockets are forbidden, but we live in a new reality.

Я имел ввиду что мешает заменить контейнер SM-3 на другой контейнер например с Томагавком . Да я знаю что такие ракеты запрещены , но мы живём в новых реалиях .

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As noted earlier, from the perspective of the host nations this is all about the percieved security commitment that a physical US presence represents. The missiles themselves are worthless. They are incapable of intercepting ICBMs and are too far away from any launch point to be ideally positioned to intercept SRBMs. Even in controlled tests their success rate has been spotty. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

 

What if NATO forces on the territory of Poland and the Baltic will be attacked by the Armed Russia Forces,  the result of the war will begin .  What if NATO forces will not be in the territory of Poland and the Baltic Sea, and the country will be attacked by the Armed Russia Forces, the result of the war will begin. Conclusion, Russia will never invade the Baltics and Poland.

Yes, but Russia has made definite threats against these states.  It has also attacked Estonia with a cyber attack in 2008 and kidnapped one of its law enforcement agents at gun point on Estonian soil.  Russia also is spending money and effort to undermine the Baltic countries using the Russian minorities.  Russia is, by any reasonable definition, a very bad and untrustworthy neighbor.  Because of these things and recent unprovoked military activities of the Russian Federation there is no choice for NATO but to respond in some way.  Contrary to the crazy stuff I read from Russian media, a couple of battalions is a very reasonable response.

2 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

What about Ukraine, from a military point of view of the Crimea has a strategic location in the Black Sea region. Politically passed a referendum in which the people chose independence from Ukraine and attaching to Russia. Why did it happen, because there was a revolution in spite of the agreement reached in which the opposition was represented by Western leaders in Kiev. Then these same leaders supported the coup.Then these same leaders supported the coup. And now think that it would be if Russia or China placed their airbase in Venezuela or in Cuba.

Fact... Crimea is an internationally recognized part of Ukraine.  Russia agreed to this border when the Soviet Union dissolved.  Russia also signed a treaty to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.  Russia invaded and annexed sovereign Ukrainian territory in violation of its treaty obligations.  What happened or did not happen in Kiev is absolutely irrelevant.  Russia stole the territory and almost every country in the world recognizes this fact.

As for the collapse of Yanukovych, you forget that when the regime understood it was going to be held accountable for its crimes the "rats left the sinking ship".  Yanukovych realized this and he decided, on his own, to flee to Russia.  Nobody violated the February 21st agreement except for Yanukovych.  Putin ordered the invasion of Crimea the next day.  Putin did not go to any international organization because he saw this as an opportunity to steal Crimea from Ukraine.

As for the referendum, it was a very bad joke.  It was decided before the ballots were printed with the "yes" vote already checked off.  The Crimean people were never given a free choice.  That said, I do think that if a real referendum happened probably 65% would have voted to join Russia.  But Russia does not like dissent, so it faked the results to be almost 100% so it could claim everybody wanted to be Russian.  Except, of course, the Tatars and Ukrainians that were prevented from voting.  Even without the violence against them, why go to vote when you can not vote "no"?

2 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

What prevents replace the stuffing in the missile defense system to the shock ? System at any time covertly converted to strike system.

Why do they need to do this?  If the US or NATO wanted to destroy Russia it could do this tomorrow and not use a single physical weapon.   All the US would have to do is remove Russia from SWIFT access and it's economy, which is already terrible, would collapse overnight.  Which is why Russia has threatened "war" if it is removed from SWIFT.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7020c50c-a30a-11e4-9c06-00144feab7de.html#axzz4B7xnKzVq

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

John Kettler , If the missile defense system will be removed from Europe, Russia will remove a large contingent from Kaliningrad, including Iskander. And as a fallback NATO ships have such a system.

 

Если система ПРО будет убрана из Европы , Россия уберёт крупный контингент из Калининграда , в том числе Искандеры . А как запасной вариант у НАТО есть корабли с такой системой .

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

The ABM missiles are in no way a major threat to Russia, although if the bases are expanded they can be. Russia doesn't like the ABM shield because it is obviously against Russia and to send a message against Russia. Obviously we will not like this, because it further breaks the promises of not expanding east wards.

No such promise was ever made.  Gorbachev even stated this very recently.  However, NATO has had an informal agreement to not antagonize Russia as long as it behaved itself.  Russia is not behaving itself and therefore NATO is, very reluctantly, obligated to respond.  In typical NATO way it is doing it very cautiously, small scale, and without major attention.  Contrast this with Russia's "exercises" and buzzing US warships and aircraft. 

I know you don't see it, but the pattern is very clear to others.  Russia is aggressive and a bad neighbor.  It has "attacked" NATO countries in non-military ways before (cutting off gas, funding fascist political parties, hostile propaganda, cyber attacks, etc.) and now it is threatening the West with military action including nuclear war.  If the West was doing these things to Russia I do not think you would be happy about it.  I also think you would demand your government take counter measures.

35 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Now you have a ABM shield right next door, which will provide an advantage to NATO early warning radars and what not. 

NATO already has every advantage it needs to win a war against Russia.  This missile defense gives them nothing they don't already have.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, HUSKER2142 said:

Wicky I meant that prevents replace SM-3 container to another container such as a Tomahawk. Yes, I know that these rockets are forbidden, but we live in a new reality.

Я имел ввиду что мешает заменить контейнер SM-3 на другой контейнер например с Томагавком . Да я знаю что такие ракеты запрещены , но мы живём в новых реалиях .

 

Heck - what's to stop em replacing the guidance system with pigeons trained to aim the missiles at Moscow.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

As for the collapse of Yanukovych, you forget that when the regime understood it was going to be held accountable for its crimes the "rats left the sinking ship".  Yanukovych realized this and he decided, on his own, to flee to Russia.  Nobody violated the February 21st agreement except for Yanukovych.  Putin ordered the invasion of Crimea the next day.  Putin did not go to any international organization because he saw this as an opportunity to steal Crimea from Ukraine.

Well when the legally elected president of Ukraine Poroshenko, will also be run like a rat. And come to power a pro-Russian leader. You tell on FOX "Long live the president of Ukraine," and do not enter the army for political support. If the opposition waited for the elections in May 2014 and the Crimea would remain a part of Ukraine. But in eastern Ukraine would not be a war.

Хорошо когда ЗАКОННО ИЗБРАННЫЙ ПРЕЗИДЕНТ Украины Порошенко тоже будет бежать как крыса . А к власти придёт пророссийский лидер . Вы скажите на ФОКС  "Да здравствуй президент Украины"  , а не введёте войска для политической поддержки .Если оппозиция дождалась майских выборов 2014 , то и Крым бы остался в составе Украины . А на востоке Украины не было бы войны .

28 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Why do they need to do this?  If the US or NATO wanted to destroy Russia it could do this tomorrow and not use a single physical weapon.   All the US would have to do is remove Russia from SWIFT access and it's economy, which is already terrible, would collapse overnight.  Which is why Russia has threatened "war" if it is removed from SWIFT.

Is it the US is not a declaration of war ?

А разве это не объявление войны со стороны США ? 

 

12 minutes ago, Wicky said:

Heck - what's to stop em replacing the guidance system with pigeons trained to aim the missiles at Moscow.

What prevents China to dig a tunnel to Mexico.

А что Китаю мешает прорыть туннель до Мексики .

 

 

P.S. Where are the spoiler in the forum?

 

Edited by HUSKER2142
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Wicky said:

What does Russia intend to do about Poland also building its own and complementing US deployments, by modernising its air defences at a cost of $10 billion with half dedicated to lower-tier missile defense. Is this percieved as also potentially offensive?  http://cepa.org/index/?id=061f193d29d6ec5b5c02ed242396c2a7

Not really, a bunch of missiles are on the stand-by in Kaliningrad. If it's modernizing its own defenses there's nothing Russia can say against it. But if NATO as an organization is posing to face the "Russian threat" that is a threat to Russia itself, there are issues. Again we cannot argue because what we believe in is not compatible and we would have to argue about a bunch of other things. Poland is not much of a threat by itself, we have a fleet on the stand by as well as tactical missiles on large scale. As well as a air defense bubble that is pretty sophisticated. What is a threat is NATO making Russia out to be a aggressive country that can invade at any time and holding large scale maneuvers solely against Russia and bringing relations to almost cold war levels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"making Russia out to be a aggressive country that can invade at any time"

But you've already admitted here somewhat reluctantly that Russian military is playing a significant role in Ukraine! counter to anything I've seen on state sanctioned RT News.  Is that enough to get you in trouble like Andrei Bubeyev with Russian authorities for activities that aim to undermine the nation's security or constitutional order for which you could serve 5 years imprisonment (Amended to makes it an even greater offense if the statement is made in the press or online, even on a private social media account).

Edited by Wicky
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Not really, a bunch of missiles are on the stand-by in Kaliningrad. If it's modernizing its own defenses there's nothing Russia can say against it. But if NATO as an organization is posing to face the "Russian threat" that is a threat to Russia itself, there are issues. Again we cannot argue because what we believe in is not compatible and we would have to argue about a bunch of other things. Poland is not much of a threat by itself, we have a fleet on the stand by as well as tactical missiles on large scale. As well as a air defense bubble that is pretty sophisticated. What is a threat is NATO making Russia out to be a aggressive country that can invade at any time and holding large scale maneuvers solely against Russia and bringing relations to almost cold war levels.

What has Russia done in recent times to make us think it isn't an aggressive country?

You have to be able to piece this together.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wicky said:

"making Russia out to be a aggressive country that can invade at any time"

But you've already admitted here somewhat reluctantly that Russian military is playing a significant role in Ukraine! counter to anything I've seen on state sanctioned RT News.  Is that enough to get you in trouble like Andrei Bubeyev with Russian authorities for activities that aim to undermine the nation's security or constitutional order for which you could serve 5 years imprisonment (Amended to makes it an even greater offense if the statement is made in the press or online, even on a private social media account).

I've talked about it numerous times, with a bunch of people, Russia does support the DPR/LPR armies against Ukraine. Yes I agree, but it did not start the rebellion the people of the east do not support this new government that was thrown in out of no where NO MATTER what you say you do know that a violent riot which killed and injured dozens of people kicked the government out, without the say of any other regions. If the Ukraine will abuse the Russian and Ukrainian peoples (which I view as one in fact I am of Ukrainian descent if we look at it) then Russia will of course support Russian/Ukrainian groups rebelling. If Ukraine did not launch this ATO not one life would have been lost, it is not like the people of Donbass are invading themselves. I support Russia helping Donbass armies, be it arming them or training them. If it was not for this violent and savage overthrow of the government, Crimea would still be Ukrainian, no civil war would have started. Of course you may disagree.

 

1 hour ago, Raptorx7 said:

What has Russia done in recent times to make us think it isn't an aggressive country?

You have to be able to piece this together.

I don't know, what has NATO done to show the world that it is not aggressive? It's bombing records show otherwise, they love to "help" other countries in trouble. Countless of times supporting rebelling sides of conflicts, so when Russia is doing it automatically we are evil? I mean don't get me wrong, I would love for Russia and NATO countries to get along and I have many American and European friends, but if NATO thinks Russia is aggressive now because of Ukraine... Does that make America aggressive for supporting Syrian rebel groups? Or maybe launching a air campaign in Libya supporting a rebellion? Sure you can say Gadaffi was a dictator, but see how there was a rebellion because people didn't get to choose what happened in Kiev? So what makes Russia much more evil than NATO? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I've talked about it numerous times, with a bunch of people, Russia does support the DPR/LPR armies against Ukraine. Yes I agree, but it did not start the rebellion the people of the east do not support this new government that was thrown in out of no where NO MATTER what you say you do know that a violent riot which killed and injured dozens of people kicked the government out, without the say of any other regions. If the Ukraine will abuse the Russian and Ukrainian peoples (which I view as one in fact I am of Ukrainian descent if we look at it) then Russia will of course support Russian/Ukrainian groups rebelling. If Ukraine did not launch this ATO not one life would have been lost, it is not like the people of Donbass are invading themselves. I support Russia helping Donbass armies, be it arming them or training them. If it was not for this violent and savage overthrow of the government, Crimea would still be Ukrainian, no civil war would have started. Of course you may disagree.

Funny how this supposed well spring of opposition has not lead to a lot of support for DPR/LPR - even the supposed insurgents have complained about the lack of support. And the supposed insurgency was admitted started by Russia flunkies coming up from Crimea after Russia illegally seized that. I smell the distinct ordure of horse manure in the whole argument that Russia is supporting a home grown insurgency.  As Russia has shown a very consistent pattern of lying I don't find it a stretch to call this as still another.  Considering even you admit Russia has lied repeatedly, it is kind of on you to back up your statements otherwise they are just gonna get tossed into the heap with the rest of Putin's BS.  While Russia is busy trying to protect the rights of poor oppressed Russian descent folks in Donbass, you think maybe they can spare a moment for all the Tatars being denied their basic rights in Crimea?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sburke said:

Funny how this supposed well spring of opposition has not lead to a lot of support for DPR/LPR - even the supposed insurgents have complained about the lack of support. And the supposed insurgency was admitted started by Russia flunkies coming up from Crimea after Russia illegally seized that. I smell the distinct ordure of horse manure in the whole argument that Russia is supporting a home grown insurgency.  As Russia has shown a very consistent pattern of lying I don't find it a stretch to call this as still another.  Considering even you admit Russia has lied repeatedly, it is kind of on you to back up your statements otherwise they are just gonna get tossed into the heap with the rest of Putin's BS.  While Russia is busy trying to protect the rights of poor oppressed Russian descent folks in Donbass, you think maybe they can spare a moment for all the Tatars being denied their basic rights in Crimea?

Yeah what ever, I gave out the facts you can believe them or not. You can watch videos of people being shelled and killed by Ukrainian artillery, and a bunch of support for the rebellion. Of course propaganda will have you think otherwise, now if you are saying that I'm contradicting myself how so? I don't deny Russian military presence in Ukraine, Although I also don't deny the the people of Donbass were killed by clumsy Ukrainian ATO aimed at killing people who don't want to be apart of a government they did not get a say in. Of course you can twist this and say "No there are 30,000 active Russian soldiers in the Donbass armies very few of them are locals" but I'll tend to agree with a little bit of logic. (yes 30,000 active soldiers in Donbass army)

Edited by VladimirTarasov
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

Well when the legally elected president of Ukraine Poroshenko, will also be run like a rat. And come to power a pro-Russian leader. You tell on FOX "Long live the president of Ukraine," and do not enter the army for political support. If the opposition waited for the elections in May 2014 and the Crimea would remain a part of Ukraine. But in eastern Ukraine would not be a war.

Again, you are factually incorrect.  Yanukovych fled the country because his regime collapsed.  This is a very typical way autocratic regimes collapse.  So what do you think the Ukrainian officials should have done with Yanukovych hiding in Russia?  Done nothing for 4 months?  That is ridiculous.

Russia started the invasion of Crimea within hours of Yanukovych fleeing the country.  Do you not think it is wrong for the one and only action of Russia to take is military force?  Russia spent more than a 100 years governing Ukrainians since the fall of the Tzar and even more hundreds of years before that.  Did the officials in Moscow think they had no ability to reason or negotiate with their "brothers"?  Especially because Russia signed an agreement to NOT invade Ukraine?  You forget this too because it makes a problem for your story.

 

4 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

Is it the US is not a declaration of war ?

I do not understand your comment.  The US does not want conflict with Russia, but the current Russian government REQUIRES conflict with the US.

Steve

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...