Russian army under equipped?

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The activities of western NGOs in the Ukraine seems to have been completely overlooked in the summary of recent events presented above. 

Because it is not relevant   The people of Ukraine did not show up for the Maidan protests because they were happy with their lives and suddenly decided they wanted a cookie from Nuland.  No, they were pissed about how crappy their lives were compared to their Western neighbors.  Sure, evil Western NGOs did spread horrible ideas like the importance of rule of law or Human Rights could be had by Ukrainians if they wanted them.  Or that elections could be monitored to ensure they weren't rigged.  Or that the media could involve journalists who reported on facts instead of sponsored lies.  Yup, those evil NGOs... the world would be so much better off without them.

This is the crux of the whole problem for Russia.  When people are truly allowed to compare/contrast the ideas coming out of the West and those coming out of Moscow, they tend to pick the Western ideas.  Even stubborn Russians who actively fight against a better life for themselves often admit that they would prefer Western ideas to take root in Russia.  The difference between Russians and Ukrainians is that they do not want to fight for those beliefs because fighting is risky.  Personally and nationally.  Therefore, they say they want freedoms and then do nothing when they are denied to them or taken away.

As I've said, I have sympathy about this because I do understand Russians are, through years of conditioning by the state, not inclined to "rock the boat".  They would rather have a stable and repressive government than take a risk on something better.  They remember the 1990s too well as previous generations remember Stalin's time and the ones before that the Bolshevik Revolution.

If Russia weren't so interested in creating chaos and disorder in the countries around it, I'd not care too much.  You don't see me railing about Uzbekistan or other Stans that are just as corrupt and if not more repressive.  They aren't seeking to export their misery on others, Russia is.

Steve

[JUAN DEAG]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The difference between Russians and Ukrainians is that they do not want to fight for those beliefs because fighting is risky.  Personally and nationally.  Therefore, they say they want freedoms and then do nothing when they are denied to them or taken away.

It’s terrible to lie in chains,
To rot in dungeon deep,
But it’s still worse, when you are free
To sleep, and sleep, and sleep.

-Taras Shevchenko (1814-1861), Ukrainian Poet and Nationalist

[Sgt.Squarehead]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Because it is not relevant   The people of Ukraine did not show up for the Maidan protests because they were happy with their lives and suddenly decided they wanted a cookie from Nuland.  No, they were pissed about how crappy their lives were compared to their Western neighbors.  Sure, evil Western NGOs did spread horrible ideas like the importance of rule of law or Human Rights could be had by Ukrainians if they wanted them.  Or that elections could be monitored to ensure they weren't rigged.  Or that the media could involve journalists who reported on facts instead of sponsored lies.  Yup, those evil NGOs... the world would be so much better off without them.

This is the crux of the whole problem for Russia.  When people are truly allowed to compare/contrast the ideas coming out of the West and those coming out of Moscow, they tend to pick the Western ideas.  Even stubborn Russians who actively fight against a better life for themselves often admit that they would prefer Western ideas to take root in Russia.  The difference between Russians and Ukrainians is that they do not want to fight for those beliefs because fighting is risky.  Personally and nationally.  Therefore, they say they want freedoms and then do nothing when they are denied to them or taken away.

As I've said, I have sympathy about this because I do understand Russians are, through years of conditioning by the state, not inclined to "rock the boat".  They would rather have a stable and repressive government than take a risk on something better.  They remember the 1990s too well as previous generations remember Stalin's time and the ones before that the Bolshevik Revolution.

If Russia weren't so interested in creating chaos and disorder in the countries around it, I'd not care too much.  You don't see me railing about Uzbekistan or other Stans that are just as corrupt and if not more repressive.  They aren't seeking to export their misery on others, Russia is.

Steve

I guess the 'no politics' policy has gone right out of the window then? 

I don't think I've ever read a more biased post! 

[Battlefront.com]

31 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I guess the 'no politics' policy has gone right out of the window then? 

In case you hadn't noticed, it's been gone in this thread for a long time.  And before this thread there was another thread and before that there was another.  I found it was absolutely impossible to talk about any purely military scenario between Russia and the West that did not get into politics.  This thread, therefore, serves as an outlet for those discussions.  As long as the posts are within the normal bounds of debate and the Forum rules, then it stays unlocked.  I've warned specific people about their behavior and I have locked some of the previous threads that have been in violation.  It seems to work so it will continue.

31 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I don't think I've ever read a more biased post! 

Yup, I'm biased against autocratic states seeking to spread death, destruction, and chaos to its neighbors while at the same time lying about it and obligating my country to deal with the messes it deliberately creates.  Guilty as charged   At least my biased messages here are based on facts and sound arguments, unlike others.

Steve

[Sublime]

Vlad i dont think the Ukrainians had this great love of Russians and spirit of brothwrhood you imagine in Sovirt times. I think youre looking at the past with nostalgia and rose tinted glasses.

Stalin made the Ukraine suffer millions dead in the 30s famines. The Ukr resisted the Nazis but also fought the Red Army into the late 40s early 50s. Of course you know General Vatutin was killed by Ukr partisans.

As a side note do you not think it odd that American board members here know all about theGPW includint even obscure stuff such as Vatutins demise, yet you had never heard of Op Market Garden and Varsity?

Basic American history classes dont give a great in depth account of ww2 but its truthful and acknowledges the Red Army foufht the brunt of the Germans and lost millions. Examples of Russian texts range from soviet era that implied we helped the nazis and were tryn for a seperate peace with them all along to more modern readings that still basically say the west deliberately let russians die to make it easier for them.to invade western europe and completely glosses over lend lease. I think without lend lease germany would have defeated russia. Temporarily. The war wouldnhave started again. But Berlin would ended up nuked and I also note Russian histories dont mention Stalin not speaking the first 11 days of the invasion paralysed by shock, ignoring dozens of deserters and the spy Sorge in Japan. Russian histories also leave out the fact that in late summer 41 Stalin sent overtures to the Germans hinting they could keep the zukraine and what they had in exchange for armistice. If the Germans had took that they definitely would have won especially in abscence of lend lease. The Germans definitely wouldhave viewed it as a pause not a real peace and Stalin too. However the Germans may actually have been able to start actually extracting resources from what it had captured. And also prepared an elastic defense.  I also would get Franco to let German troops sevretly travel thru Spain and seize Gibralter. Of course with token contingent of Spaniards to do the actual capture. Like Patton and deGaulle in Paris. The Spanish would hold Gibralter but basically itd be German run. Suddenly torch is almost impossible and North Africas a lost cause.

That and ramping up Uboat production ( or better yet telln the navy war was imminent not in 45 and not building any capital ships just pumping out type IXs and VIICs. Britain would have had a major problem.

But still Vlad it hasnt struck you how very much we know about your country and its history compared to your lack of ours? I know about the assasination of an individual Soviet general in 1944. You didnt know anything about the 2 biggest paratrooper drops of all time in war Op market garden and Op varsity. And you were a paratrooper!

Vlad again your intelligent butbyears of propaganda, your military service nationalism and patriotism blind you to your govt. I dont blame you anyways with the new laws that passed its dangerous to criticize the govt.

But the reason you dont know about the west like we know abt you is exactly bc propaganda and hiatory being told to you selectively. Or outright lies. Nothing anyone here that arent at risk of the fsb and u dnt know in person is going to change your mind. But seriously. Think about it.

 

 

(To be fair your txt books arent nearly as insulting as modern Japanese ones. That basically read they were peacekeeping in china, no mention of rape of nanking or nothing, no mention of unit 731 or comfort women, then theres this vague mention of a "battle" not surprise attack wasnt much of a battle between Jap/ US forces in Pearl Harbor. Then suddenly in the book the US drops 2 nukes on Japan andntheres a few chapters on that. Basically its glossed over anbthey still dont even feel they rlly were wrong. I absolutely believe th3 nukes saved a crapton of allied lives but more japanese. They were trainin even school girls tonthrow themselves under tanks with satchel charges. To use sharpened sticks if nothing else. We would have had to eradicate the populace when theybwerent committing suicide. Honestly us occupying west germany and japan were the best things that coulda happened to them. And as long as uwerent one of the millions dead from aerial bombing the strategic bombing inadvertently helped both countries a decade later because all the industry had to be rebuiltt and so they got all new stuff generally.)

Edited September 14, 2016 by Sublime

[Kinophile]

That was pretty weird,  that he didn't know of Varsity or MG. 

Like a tanker not knowing about Kursk,  Tobruk or El Alamein. 

Kinda puts the proof to the idea that Russian training is up to scratch. 

Or maybe he just missed that class. 

[hattori]

In all fairness, the west in turn completely glosses over the Soviet contribution to defeating Japan.  I don't know too many people that can describe in any sort of detail of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, and it had an immensely bigger impact than Operation Market Garden.  

 

 

[sburke]

That is a way over simplification of the pacific war and the Japanese mindset and perspective, but way way off topic here (but yeah Japanese textbooks do suck)

just for grins, keep in mind Japan until the 1860s was a closed feudal state that got it's education on global politics from the British, US and Russia and those basically said, might is right and the world is our apple. Unfortunately they jumped onto that bandwagon right at the crisis point of the colonial world.  

We can rail on Japanese treatment of the Chinese (and should), but don't forget the British empire was financially founded on essentially being a drug pusher in China that enforced that relationship with the aid of Russia, France, the US and Germany  Even the fabled Manchu mile the US army does in Korea is a legacy of it's involvement in putting down China's war of resistance   In fact Japanese troops that participated in the 8 nation alliance to put down the Boxers were reportedly astonished to watch foreign troops raping civilians  According to E J Dillon thousands of Chinese women committed suicide to avoid rape by alliance forces  

A good read on how much the US had a part in creating the conditions for a pacific war is "The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War".   It is a classic example of how complicated negotiations can be when you don't understand the impact of cultural viewpoint affecting communications.  Worse what the long term affects of misunderstanding are. 

When correcting someone else and challenging them to revisit their history with an open mind, it is best that you take the same perspective. The US view of the pacific war has a similar blindness to the actions and involvement of the western powers including the US.   It does not excuse the actions of the Japanese gov't and army, but we are not blameless victims in that conflict either. 

Okay we now return you to our previously scheduled discussion on the conflict in Ukraine. 

 

Note I didn't even get into US atrocities in the Philipines (remember water boarding anyone?) hell we could be here all week!

Edited September 14, 2016 by sburke

[Sublime]

1 hour ago, hattori said:

In all fairness, the west in turn completely glosses over the Soviet contribution to defeating Japan.  I don't know too many people that can describe in any sort of detail of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, and it had an immensely bigger impact than Operation Market Garden.  

 

 

I can. And i can also tell you about the US Marine/Brit expedition into Russian to fight the reds right after WW1 as well.plus the US is undeniably the world leader in all forms of entertainment and whilst Ive yet to see Op Varsity and Grenade covered Market Garden had its own massive movie made about it, a movie made immediately post war with Brit vets of the battle, and featured prominently.in Band of Brothers. Just sayin

[Sublime]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

That is a way over simplification of the pacific war and the Japanese mindset and perspective, but way way off topic here (but yeah Japanese textbooks do suck)

just for grins, keep in mind Japan until the 1860s was a closed feudal state that got it's education on global politics from the British, US and Russia and those basically said, might is right and the world is our apple. Unfortunately they jumped onto that bandwagon right at the crisis point of the colonial world.  

We can rail on Japanese treatment of the Chinese (and should), but don't forget the British empire was financially founded on essentially being a drug pusher in China that enforced that relationship with the aid of Russia, France, the US and Germany  Even the fabled Manchu mile the US army does in Korea is a legacy of it's involvement in putting down China's war of resistance   In fact Japanese troops that participated in the 8 nation alliance to put down the Boxers were reportedly astonished to watch foreign troops raping civilians  According to E J Dillon thousands of Chinese women committed suicide to avoid rape by alliance forces  

A good read on how much the US had a part in creating the conditions for a pacific war is "The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War".   It is a classic example of how complicated negotiations can be when you don't understand the impact of cultural viewpoint affecting communications.  Worse what the long term affects of misunderstanding are. 

When correcting someone else and challenging them to revisit their history with an open mind, it is best that you take the same perspective. The US view of the pacific war has a similar blindness to the actions and involvement of the western powers including the US.   It does not excuse the actions of the Japanese gov't and army, but we are not blameless victims in that conflict either. 

Okay we now return you to our previously scheduled discussion on the conflict in Ukraine. 

 

Note I didn't even get into US atrocities in the Philipines (remember water boarding anyone?) hell we could be here all week!

But Im actually am acknowledging youhave a point and also would like to point out that the US involvement in Latin America has been atrocious at best and I said so a couple pages back. know we arent saints, Vietnam in many ways and our subsequent throwing the RVN to the wolves is a shameful chapter in our history made only good by the bravery of some of those who exfercised their right to protest, and imo most of all the average American GI who didnt rape anyone or witness any extremw atrocities - he just wanted to survive and go home.

[hattori]

1 hour ago, Sublime said:

I can. And i can also tell you about the US Marine/Brit expedition into Russian to fight the reds right after WW1 as well.plus the US is undeniably the world leader in all forms of entertainment and whilst Ive yet to see Op Varsity and Grenade covered Market Garden had its own massive movie made about it, a movie made immediately post war with Brit vets of the battle, and featured prominently.in Band of Brothers. Just sayin

Gold star for you, but I expected you of all people to have read about it on wiki after our previous discussion of it.  Also hilarious how american you can be sometimes, assuming someone in another non-english speaking country would have bothered to watch an american war movie from 1977.  How many Russian war movies have you watched?

[Battlefront.com]

OK, we're straying too far off topic.  It's pretty clear that most people are generally clueless about history even when they live in an open society with decent educational standards.  Wargamers tend to be a bit more informed than the average person, but mot wargamers only have superficial knowledge of specific periods of warfare.  Being in a military at some point doesn't necessarily do much to change the equation unless the person in question. 

Steve

[VladimirTarasov]

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

See, this is the whole problem.  Ukrainians do not share this view.  They have revolted, numerous times, against Moscow's control.

The majority of the population or a portion of the Ukrainian population? In world war 2 there were Ukrainian fascists who've joined the German army against their own motherland, however this does not mean by any means that Ukrainians enjoyed killing Jews, and Russians collectively. It sounds as if you're judging the whole Ukraine. 

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

In response Moscow has murdered millions of Ukrainians.

Elaborate on that? If you're talking about the famine then you need to do a little more research on that.

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

And in 1991 when Ukraine was finally given a choice to remain ruled by Moscow and being independent, what did it choose?  Independence.

 I'm not saying Russia owns Ukraine, the government of Ukraine got their independence because the USSR collapsed however you cannot just throw centuries of history out the window because of that. We were still very much tied to each other in many things. Anyways, I that's beside the point, I wasn't arguing wether Ukraine is independent or not. Of course Ukraine is its own country now... But you are twisting what I'm saying, I was listing reasons on how Russia is justified to protect Russian rights in Ukraine. Over night a historical ally of Russia is essentially chased out of power, by foreign influenced riots my evidence being this btw:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-ukraine-protests-support-just-cause

In the article it doesn't mention him meeting the far right leader however this article on the same story does

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahnybok-in-ukraine-2013-12

Anyways I'm sure if you do your research you can find many more articles, with pictures, and evidence showing Western support for far right groups in Ukraine, but you know beside that fact, we all know why this event took place. Russia gave Ukraine 2 billion dollars which Yanukovich accepted out of the 15 billion dollar deal, and you know some guys in Ukraine especially some Oligarchs weren't happy. Add in Western support, and wallah you have a mini Syria in Kiev. The president escapes fearing for his life because some extremist EU groups want to be apart of the almighty EU. I pity this very much the more it comes to my mind.

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

How the Tzar or Stalin treated Russians is not relevant.  Russians today suffer under Putin, so does that somehow excuse what Putin is doing to Ukraine?  No.

You've got to be joking or something.

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

You have been conditioned to hold this belief, just as a battered wife believes that it would be worse to leave her husband

Oh yes it is in my genetic codes, because I am a Russian poor me.

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Oh, I'm aware of what Russian propaganda states, but I am also aware it is as much of a lie as "there are no Russian soldiers in Crimea".

President Yanukovich before escaping asked Russia to reinstall constitutional order in Ukraine, before those pro  EU people ousted him. Him being the legitimate leader, gave Russia all the right especially since Putin issued an order, and the Russian parliament permitted it before doing so. Crimea was secured, a voting process among the people were established voting choices being. Remain in Ukraine or join the Russian federation. Sevastopol and Crimea voted join Russia, not shocking... majority are pro-Russia over there anyways. But you of course will say "it broke Ukraine's constitution" show me where in Ukraine's constitution it shows you can violently overthrow your elected president because he wasn't pro-EU. Lol... 

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Of course Western NGOs and other groups encouraged Ukrainians to stand up for their rights and to oppose an autocratic and corrupt government.  Why shouldn't they?

I wish it was just Western NGOs, but anyways I can use this same argument against you in case of Donbas.

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, you are stupid for saying this.

Thanks I don't get that alot.

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

  Let's see what other options Russia had...

1.  Wait and see if there really was a problem to worry about.  Putin waited about 12 hours before signing the orders to invade Ukraine.  Surely you don't think that in 12 hours Ukraine's military could form a credible threat to Russian security even if it was motivated to?

God's sake.... wait and see about any problems. What else was there to see?

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Go to the UN and make a case for some form of action.  Raise the issue of security for Russian speaking Ukrainians and have a credible monitoring force put in place.

Swift veto by any other nation to impose any policy, because the US and UK fully supported the EU revolts. Great choice!

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

3.  Not invade and steal territory.

Seems like a fair trade off that you stole the Russians and Ukrainians president and government they voted for from them.

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

4.  Not lie about everything it is doing.

Somewhat could agree here only in the case of the covert intervention of course. Sanctions took their toll.

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Which is why you deny so much and so hard.  I've said this before... I think you are at heart a good person who doesn't want to question his love of country. 

I also think you are a good person, politics would never change my mind on an individual. We're just having civil discussions.

 

Edited September 14, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[VladimirTarasov]

5 hours ago, Sublime said:

Stalin made the Ukraine suffer millions dead in the 30s famines.

Not to say Stalin was a good guy, but there's more to it then that. But I am not willing to go into that off topic.

5 hours ago, Sublime said:

As a side note do you not think it odd that American board members here know all about theGPW includint even obscure stuff such as Vatutins demise, yet you had never heard of Op Market Garden and Varsity?

I am grateful there are people with great knowledge on here, however that is more of a individual basis, let's not collectively assume stuff. No offense but that is very ignorant.

5 hours ago, Sublime said:

Basic American history classes dont give a great in depth account of ww2 but its truthful and acknowledges the Red Army foufht the brunt of the Germans and lost millions.

Russian history books don't pretend that we were the only ones fighting the AXIS powers. Let's not jump to conclusions.

5 hours ago, Sublime said:

Examples of Russian texts range from soviet era that implied we helped the nazis and were tryn for a seperate peace with them all along to more modern readings that still basically say the west deliberately let russians die to make it easier for them.to invade western europe and completely glosses over lend lease.

I'd like to catch a fool to say that when I'm around, I will lay down the facts very quickly to him  in no way was I taught in school anything like that. 

5 hours ago, Sublime said:

But still Vlad it hasnt struck you how very much we know about your country and its history compared to your lack of ours?

I'd wager I'm also familiar with American history. Why do you think I know English and speak it so well. I'm intrigued by US history. 

4 hours ago, kinophile said:

Or maybe he just missed that class. 

Probably, maybe I was too busy learning squad/platoon based tactics.

 

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

The majority of the population or a portion of the Ukrainian population?

I can't say in the past because there are no accurate records.   But in recent years it is absolutely the majority of the Ukrainian population that wish to be independent of Russia.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/10/3-ukrainian-public-opinion-dissatisfied-with-current-conditions-looking-for-an-end-to-the-crisis/

And a very interesting series of questions in 2014 that I'll mention further below:

http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2014 April 5 IRI Public Opinion Survey of Ukraine, March 14-26, 2014.pdf

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

In world war 2 there were Ukrainian fascists who've joined the German army against their own motherland, however this does not mean by any means that Ukrainians enjoyed killing Jews, and Russians collectively. It sounds as if you're judging the whole Ukraine. 

Ukrainians have revolted against Russia rule more times than that.  Two significant uprisings in the 1800s, the struggle against Russian Bolsheviks, and the fight against Soviet forces 1941 through the early 1950s.  For sure there has been a lot more small scale opposition to Russian rule than that.

Anyway, the point here is that you said that Ukrainians are a part of Russia.  The majority of Ukrainians do not share this view that they were a willing part of Russia.  It's been proven recently as it has in the past.

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Elaborate on that? If you're talking about the famine then you need to do a little more research on that.

The enforced famine certainly was the biggest part of it, but Ukrainian citizens (as well as those of other republics) were murdered and terrorized in large numbers throughout the Stalin years in particular.  As for the more sympathetic explanation of the famine, I'm certainly familiar with it.  There might even be some truth to the claim that it was simply bad management and bad timing more than deliberate Soviet action.  But the fact remains that the Soviet state was responsible for the deaths of millions of Ukrainians.  Given Stalin's other documented cases of targeted mass murder, I don't think it's unfair to suggest that the famine was at least partially deliberate.

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

 I'm not saying Russia owns Ukraine, the government of Ukraine got their independence because the USSR collapsed however you cannot just throw centuries of history out the window because of that. We were still very much tied to each other in many things. Anyways, I that's beside the point, I wasn't arguing wether Ukraine is independent or not. Of course Ukraine is its own country now... But you are twisting what I'm saying, I was listing reasons on how Russia is justified to protect Russian rights in Ukraine. Over night a historical ally of Russia is essentially chased out of power, by foreign influenced riots my evidence being this btw:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-ukraine-protests-support-just-cause

I don't throw out the history of what happened before.  In fact, I am highlighting it.  Russia has had a long history of interference in Ukraine's internal politics since 1991 and the result was bad government for the Ukrainian people.

As for outsiders encouraging Ukrainians to have better governance... there is nothing wrong with that.  Far better to have Western politicians openly calling for change in Ukraine than Russian politicians secretly plotting to deny them change.

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

In the article it doesn't mention him meeting the far right leader however this article on the same story does

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahnybok-in-ukraine-2013-12

Yup, I'm aware of this.  McCain is "old school" Republican in many ways.  Cold War concepts of support the enemy of your enemy no matter how bad they are.  As you can see from the article, there were many in the West that did not approve of this any more than Russia did.  With Svoboda's support being in the single digit %, it's pretty obvious that McCain wasn't talking to the right people anyway.

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Anyways I'm sure if you do your research you can find many more articles, with pictures, and evidence showing Western support for far right groups in Ukraine, but you know beside that fact, we all know why this event took place. Russia gave Ukraine 2 billion dollars which Yanukovich accepted out of the 15 billion dollar deal, and you know some guys in Ukraine especially some Oligarchs weren't happy. Add in Western support, and wallah you have a mini Syria in Kiev. The president escapes fearing for his life because some extremist EU groups want to be apart of the almighty EU. I pity this very much the more it comes to my mind.

Well, I know that's ONE of the many conspiracy theories that Russian propaganda has put out there. 

However, the more logical explanation, which fits the facts and history of Ukraine and Russia, is that... Ukrainians were sick and tired of being poorly ruled.  They saw the EU as a way to force their government to perform to higher standards and Yanukovych agreed.  But Yanukovuych only said that to increase the pressure on Russia to pay him off.  Once Russia did this Yanukovych reversed his position and that upset millions of Ukrainians so much that they protested on the Maidan.  Despite the weather and violence against their protests, they got stronger.  The West definitely encouraged the peaceful protests as they do in other countries.  Russia pushed Yanukovych (or as Yanukovych hints, Russia did it on its own) to crack down in February.  This resulted in the armed conflict and 100 dead protestors.  This exposed the regime for what it was, an autocratic and illegitimate government, and it fell apart when the "rats left the sinking ship".  Yanukovych had no choice so he packed up as much treasure as he could and fled to Russia because he knew he would be held accountable for his crimes if he did not.  Recently the Ukrainian government announced that Yanuvkovych is believed to have stolen about $26 Billion from the Ukrainian people.

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

You've got to be joking or something.

No, I'm not.  And Human Rights groups and economic evidence clearly shows this is the case.  Sure, it's not as bad as before Putin got into power and it is definitely better than under most of the Soviet years, but Russians are suffering because of Putin's corrupt and autocratic rule.

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Oh yes it is in my genetic codes, because I am a Russian poor me.

No, it's not in your genetic DNA.  There are plenty of Russians that understand how bad things are in Russia.  Which is why there are so many Russians living in the West and more coming every year.  In fact, more are leaving Russia now than even during the 1990s.

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/problem-russias-best-and-brightest

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

President Yanukovich before escaping asked Russia to reinstall constitutional order in Ukraine, before those pro  EU people ousted him. Him being the legitimate leader, gave Russia all the right especially since Putin issued an order, and the Russian parliament permitted it before doing so. Crimea was secured, a voting process among the people were established voting choices being. Remain in Ukraine or join the Russian federation. Sevastopol and Crimea voted join Russia, not shocking... majority are pro-Russia over there anyways. But you of course will say "it broke Ukraine's constitution" show me where in Ukraine's constitution it shows you can violently overthrow your elected president because he wasn't pro-EU. Lol... 

None of this is even remotely true.  I know Russian media tells you these things over and over again, but it also told you that there were no Russian forces in Crimea and Donbas.  Even you know that is a lie.

Yanukovych fled Ukraine.  There is nothing in the Ukrainian Constitution that allows it's President the authority to rule from a foreign country.  Yanukovych could have stayed in Kiev, but he chose to leave.

Also, there was no violent revolution.  The Yanukovych government chose to use force against protestors and the government collapsed as a result.  A violent revolution, by contrast, is something like what happened in Romania.

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I wish it was just Western NGOs, but anyways I can use this same argument against you in case of Donbas.

Er, no you can not.  Unless you classify Russian Armed Forces as an NGO.

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

God's sake.... WAIT AND SEE WHAT TO WORRY ABOUT. What else was there to see?

A real reason to use military force. Russia invaded because Russia wanted Crimea and to destabilize Ukraine.  It doesn't care one iota for Russians living in Ukraine.  Proof?  Look at the massive destruction Russia has caused in Donbas.  How is that good for the ethnic Russians living there? 

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Swift veto by any other nation to impose any policy, because the US and UK fully supported the EU revolts. Great choice!

Yet the US and other countries go this route even when Russia and China are for sure going to veto.  If Russia doesn't think there's a reason to be in the UN, then it should give up its seat on the Security Council to someone that does.

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Seems like a fair trade off that you stole the Russians and Ukrainians president and government they voted for from them.

Encouraging Ukrainians to stand up against a corrupt and autocratic regime is not against international law or any decent morale view of life.  Invading a country, taking its land by force, killing thousands of people, and increasing the chance of another world war while at the same time lying about it every single day doesn't seem like a "fair trade".

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Somewhat could agree here only in the case of the covert intervention of course. Sanctions took their toll.

This is an important point.  If Russia's position is a morale and legal one, then why does it put so much energy into lying about it?  Normally lying is used when actions are not morale and/or legal.  Do you not agree?

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I also think you are a good person, politics would never change my mind on an individual. We're just having civil discussions.

Yes, and I thank you for that.

Steve

[General Jack Ripper]

I just finished reading this entire thread, and I have to say it's pretty epic.

I don't have anything constructive to add.

Sorry.

 

1 hour ago, hattori said:

Gold star for you, but I expected you of all people to have read about it on wiki after our previous discussion of it.  Also hilarious how american you can be sometimes, assuming someone in another non-english speaking country would have bothered to watch an american war movie from 1977.  How many Russian war movies have you watched?

How can you not have read this book: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22523

Not only was there an American invasion of Siberia, but there was also a combined U.S. - British operation in the Archangel region.

Something about Communists just rubs people the wrong way.

[VladimirTarasov]

35 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I can't say in the past because there are no accurate records.   But in recent years it is absolutely the majority of the Ukrainian population that wish to be independent of Russia.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/10/3-ukrainian-public-opinion-dissatisfied-with-current-conditions-looking-for-an-end-to-the-crisis/

This link you've provided shows the discontent of Ukrainians with Mr.Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk, and against the new system's court and what say you. I'd think the people now are more discontent with the Ukrainian economy than before with Mr. Yanukovich

I don't like to dismiss polls, but I'd like to know alot of the factors ranging on how much people, and what region was asked this poll. However, it wouldn't be hard for me to believe this honestly. Not like the Ukrainian government before this new one was perfect. However, looking back speaking on behalf of my Ukrainian neighbors I'd say they were doing way better before. 

39 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ukrainians have revolted against Russia rule more times than that.  Two significant uprisings in the 1800s, the struggle against Russian Bolsheviks, and the fight against Soviet forces 1941 through the early 1950s.  For sure there has been a lot more small scale opposition to Russian rule than that.

Again we'd have to look into detail. There are Chechens who hate Russia with all their guts, who've rebelled against Russian forces in wars. And there were loyalist Chechens who chose the Russian government side. I'd think you know that we'd have to look into many other factors. But I get the point you are putting across.

43 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Anyway, the point here is that you said that Ukrainians are a part of Russia

Misunderstanding, or a goof off on my part. But Ukrainians definitely "were" apart of Russia. I'm by definition of Ukrainian descent, however I consider myself to be Russian historically I think of each other as the same. My point was that Russia has a sphere of influence in Ukraine, because we have a size-able force of Russian people, and Ukrainians who consider themselves "pro-Russia" and also we are obliged to support Russians there. We can argue that the Russian intervention caused deaths militarily then if it weren't to, and that fact is not deniable of course, but this does not justify one bit the hell ATO brought to the region. DPR/LPR obviously started off as a pure rebellion by the populace, later leading to Russian involvement. But again if we were to just look at the event with one side, it would not be correct to do so. I'm trying to point out why Russia is not bad  in "saving" the last pro-Russian thing in the country. Ukraine did a radical 180 degree turn and we cannot deny this. They destroyed statues of Soviet heroes who've fought against Fascism the same way our US colleagues have. It is very apparent that the new system brought into Ukraine has many faults, mainly being a discriminatory system against Russians or things of Russian influence. If you'd like for me to elaborate on that I can. That is just a small piece of why I think it is not fair the Maidan revolution is not fair.

53 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The enforced famine certainly was the biggest part of it, but Ukrainian citizens (as well as those of other republics) were murdered and terrorized in large numbers throughout the Stalin years in particular.  As for the more sympathetic explanation of the famine, I'm certainly familiar with it.  There might even be some truth to the claim that it was simply bad management and bad timing more than deliberate Soviet action.  But the fact remains that the Soviet state was responsible for the deaths of millions of Ukrainians.  Given Stalin's other documented cases of targeted mass murder, I don't think it's unfair to suggest that the famine was at least partially deliberate.

Well I like to contribute the famine to bad management, the USSR obviously would not have gained anything from such a horrible act. It is very horrible that people had to die that way, unimaginable on my part. 

55 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup, I'm aware of this.  McCain is "old school" Republican in many ways.  Cold War concepts of support the enemy of your enemy no matter how bad they are.  As you can see from the article, there were many in the West that did not approve of this any more than Russia did.  With Svoboda's support being in the single digit %, it's pretty obvious that McCain wasn't talking to the right people anyway.

McCain is not the only one who's done things like this. The US government out right supported the ousting of the government in many ways, however I will not point fingers at anyone in particular, but I'd like to think even if you think it is justified Western nations did support the revolts. Svoboda isn't very popular however far right groups are not only limited to this party. There are many other groups that have done terrible acts in Ukraine, I won't blame the whole revolution for the things they've done, but what they did do justifies my view on the crisis.

59 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

However, the more logical explanation, which fits the facts and history of Ukraine and Russia, is that... Ukrainians were sick and tired of being poorly ruled.  They saw the EU as a way to force their government to perform to higher standards and Yanukovych agreed.

Sure the EU on paper could have "forced" Ukraine into higher standards, but just because a sizeable portion of the country was upset by what Yanukovich did does not make it right that the other sizeable portion was looked over. I don't think it was a balanced process, and the people who were upset had the spot light. 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Despite the weather and violence against their protests, they got stronger.

I'd like to point out that even in Ukraine, the protests were looked at wrongly in quite a few cases. Especially when the protesters were violating laws. Berkut forces being burnt to a crisp because young Mikhail wants the Euro dream, he'd rather his country go into total disarray. The violence against the protests were justified in cases where government officials, and government sites were under threat. It is horrible 100 protesters had to die, but again we must not focus on only the protester's side. 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

No, I'm not.  And Human Rights groups and economic evidence clearly shows this is the case.  Sure, it's not as bad as before Putin got into power and it is definitely better than under most of the Soviet years, but Russians are suffering because of Putin's corrupt and autocratic rule.

Putin is not corrupt to majority of Russians. But anyways this is not a productive part of our discussion.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yanukovych fled Ukraine.  There is nothing in the Ukrainian Constitution that allows it's President the authority to rule from a foreign country.  Yanukovych could have stayed in Kiev, but he chose to leave.

I believe he wrote the letter to the Russian government asking for restoring of constitutional order before he was ousted, Russia only intervened to land grab Crimea however. Selfish sure, but again Russian troops in Kiev where thousands of thousands of pro EU protesters are brutally hunting old government guys was not going to work out. Instead, the Russian government seized Crimea. Even Yanukovich was against this, but sadly no Russian soldier was going to change what happened in Kiev. 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Also, there was no violent revolution.  The Yanukovych government chose to use force against protestors and the government collapsed as a result.  A violent revolution, by contrast, is something like what happened in Romania.

One would be a fool to deny that the government did crack down on the protesters, but what led them to do so? If you remember, the protesters were throwing rocks and using bats hitting the Berkut police forces helmets, fighting them, in some cases bringing firearms. We also cannot deny that, I can elaborate on this if you'd please.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Er, no you can not.  Unless you classify Russian Armed Forces as an NGO.

Russian NGOs did provide aid to Donbas, even equipment for the Donbas militia was bought by Oligarchs or from peoples. But again, we can't deny the Russian government's involvement in the region to provide the necessary advisory and training and in some cases equipment to the Militia.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yet the US and other countries go this route even when Russia and China are for sure going to veto.  If Russia doesn't think there's a reason to be in the UN, then it should give up its seat on the Security Council to someone that does.

United Nations can be arguably not needed, but they are needed. UN has many good sides to it. However, relying on the UN to get stuff done takes too long, and Russia went in for the initiative in securing Crimea.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Encouraging Ukrainians to stand up against a corrupt and autocratic regime is not against international law or any decent morale view of life. 

Correct I absolutely agree, however the way it was done is immoral and very corrupt. And only one side's case was taken into play. 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Invading a country, taking its land by force, killing thousands of people, and increasing the chance of another world war while at the same time lying about it every single day doesn't seem like a "fair trade".

In no way is taking Crimea by popular vote, and supporting Russian rebellions in Donbas alive making us closer to world war 3. What is making us closer to world war 3 is you not releasing the modules for Combat Mission Black Sea. Jokes aside back to the seriousness of the topic without offending(hopefully) anyone, I've told you my case on why I think it is justified, but I'm not throwing your arguments into the trash, I actually give you credits in some of your arguments, but I also see that you are lopsidedly criticizing one side, and taking input only from the new Ukrainian government, which leads to some bias views. I won't deny I have had quite a few bias looks before and I probably still do sometimes. But there are many things wrong about the revolution in Ukraine, and the crisis that has evolved from it. 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is an important point.  If Russia's position is a morale and legal one, then why does it put so much energy into lying about it?  Normally lying is used when actions are not morale and/or legal.  Do you not agree?

It is morally just, however internationally we are still considered breaking laws, hence why EU and the US is sanctioning us and demonizing us(every day ), so this leads the Kremlin to new forms of tactics. Covert operations, and denying involvement in the region (Donbas) and arguably the Ukraine and US in some cases do exaggerate Russian involvement in the region. Going as far as to saying 12,000 plus Russian soldiers being deployed, and that GRU operatives are the only reason for  the people uprising in Donbas. But anyways, this leads to many confusions in the Russian masses, quite a few of Russians do not think Russia was involved, but still alot of Westerners think brigades of Russian troops poured in and they are the only "rebels" in Donbas. More so Russian troops probably arrived in critical zones to propel the Militia forces, and in complete support/advisory or training roles. 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, and I thank you for that.

My pleasure, it is very rare to have discussions with people on the internet like this. Especially on a forum  and especially with the owner of it.

[Wicky]

"I'm by definition of Ukrainian descent, however I consider myself to be Russian historically I think of each other as the same."

Plus you said Russia's motives in being in Ukriane was for the reason of looking out for the Russian speakers  - What have you to say about the enforced Russification of Ukraine over decades that played its part in creating you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Ukraine 

In the 1960s, the Ukrainian language began to be used more widely and frequently in spite of these policies. In response, Soviet authorities increased their focus on early education in Russian. After 1980, Russian language classes were instituted from the first grade onward.

On a literary note if you get the chance read a play by Irish playright Brian Friel, called 'Translations' that's set in early 19th century > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translations that has interesting themes of imperialism of language and culture.

[VladimirTarasov]

2 minutes ago, Wicky said:

"I'm by definition of Ukrainian descent, however I consider myself to be Russian historically I think of each other as the same."

Plus you said Russia's motives in being in Ukriane was for the reason of looking out for the Russian speakers  - What have you to say about the enforced Russification of Ukraine over decades that played its part in creating you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Ukraine 

In the 1960s, the Ukrainian language began to be used more widely and frequently in spite of these policies. In response, Soviet authorities increased their focus on early education in Russian. After 1980, Russian language classes were instituted from the first grade onward.

On a literary note if you get the chance read a play by Irish playright Brian Friel, called 'Translations' that's set in early 19th century > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translations that has interesting themes of imperialism of language and culture.

The Ukrainian region was influenced by many factors, just like the Turks of Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan, speaking varied versions of their language. they speak a varied version of slavic languages, in some areas we lose word connections with each other, in other terms compatibility. Also, majority of Ukrainians speak Russian. Any Ukrainian I know (including relatives if you'd consider them Ukrainian anyways) speak Russian, but this does not point to "Russification" there is a song called "Tachanka" very commie but it says "Эх, тачанка-киевлянка, наша гордость и краса, Украинская тачанка, все четыре колеса"  Ukraine is apart of our history the same way we are for them. It is a shame because of politics regardless who is wrong who is right, we face hatred towards each other. I hope that Ukraine and Russia will once again open arms to each other after all this blood filled history passes.

[JUAN DEAG]

43 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Also, majority of Ukrainians speak Russian.

This is factually incorrect.

43 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

but this does not point to "Russification"

Explain Russian Tsars throughout history issuing decrees banning the use of the Ukrainian language. Explain the repression of Ukrainian churches during Soviet rule. Explain a systematic famine targeting Ukrainian villages in the 1930s followed by a mass migrations of Russians to the territories in which millions of Ukrainians died. Explain the complete removal of the Ukrainian language from government institutions (schools, transportation, etc.) in later Soviet rule. Explain the fact that Ukraine has the largest group of Russian speakers that are not ethnically Russian. Some might call this "Russification".

Edited September 15, 2016 by JUAN DEAG

[Kinophile]

As an Irish person,  I am keenly aware pf my cultural history. This year we celebrated our 100 year anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising. This marked the beginning of the end of an 8 century long relentless conquest of our Island by the British. 

Now,  that's 800 years plus of saying **** OFF to the British. No Country with a coherent,  homogeneous culture and society will ever submit willing to an invasion,  or control by an outsider. 

This gives me a strong affinity for what Ukrainians are going through - the beginning of the end of Russian dominance of their society. 

Interestingly, it was the heavy handed British response to the Rising that galvanized and awakened Irish society into open rebellion. Similarly, the murderous response to the Maiden protests also awakened Ukrainian society from its Russian induced torpor. Both events were red lines that once crossed by the oppressor (either through direct action or local proxies) resulted in a seismic and permanent shift in local opinion.

Ukraine is never going back to how it was,  same as Ireland will never rejoin the UK. 

For Russia to expect and demand that of the Ukraine is pretty pointless and uncaring of the damage and lives it destroys. But it won't stop those kleptocratic c#nts in the Kremlin from trying. 

Edited September 15, 2016 by kinophile

[VladimirTarasov]

9 minutes ago, kinophile said:

For Russia to expect and demand that of the Ukraine is pretty pointless and uncaring of the damage and lives it destroys. But it won't stop those kleptocratic c#nts in the Kremlin from trying. 

You sound very hurt, you obviously are a very biased person. I'd hate to use offensive language on here, I'm trying very hard to be civil when I read stuff like this.

11 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Explain Russian Tsars throughout history issuing decrees banning the use of the Ukrainian language. Explain the repression of Ukrainian churches during Soviet rule. Explain a systematic famine targeting Ukrainian villages in the 1930s followed by a mass migrations of Russians to the territories in which millions of Ukrainians died. Explain the complete removal of the Ukrainian language from government institutions (schools, transportation, etc.) in later Soviet rule. Explain the fact that Ukraine has the largest group of Russian speakers that are not ethnically Russian. Some might call this "Russification".

Hmm, please study on Kievan-Rus. Don't make me go whatabout again! Russification has happened. just not to Ukrainians. That's like saying explain to me why conquered Native lands of the US in school are educated mainly in English. And even then are not comparable to why many Ukrainians speak Russian. 

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[GAZ NZ]

So back on topic

Saying russia is under equipped 

Well what are they under equipped for?

Its a broad statement

They have modernised to an extent there army which was close to full collapse when putin took over and reformed the country and military

The term modernisation is dependent on your views of tech and where you live

Its not as high tech in many regards to the US but there main weapon  - nuclear weapons are up there with the s400 and s500 systems and hypersonic antiship missles

Depending on what it is you need high tech is not always the best way to go depending on systems and reliability and your countries defence / offense strategy

AKs and PKMs are widely used in Iraq and else where by private contractors showing there reliability and stopping power for example in rapid response teams to extract vips etc from ambushes

So some older russian gear is still respected and capable from watching professional contractor interviews and footage

The west dominates with sniper capability and optics/precision

Germany in ww2 had high tech but it limited production and caused supply issues

Russia kept things more simple and mass produced.

While its a different era and technology with ww2 at the end of the day modern russia keeps things simple in many areas and puts money into nukes its main deterrance weapon

Its recent tactics of popping up little green men as they are called into areas they need them is not high tech, is strategic and they need only an ak or basic at weapon etc

so the discussion of gear upgrades to me is also relevant to what they need them for

Currently i only see a defensive requirement as opposed to offensive

And does there gear meet that?

While not all of it is top tier its reliable and cheap to produce and en mass an invader id expect would pay the price with a prolonged invasion

To casualty levels the west would not accept

And it would thus do its job against any invader

 

 

 

[Sublime]

7 hours ago, hattori said:

Gold star for you, but I expected you of all people to have read about it on wiki after our previous discussion of it.  Also hilarious how american you can be sometimes, assuming someone in another non-english speaking country would have bothered to watch an american war movie from 1977.  How many Russian war movies have you watched?

well i AM AMERICAN. I dont kniw when I was a young kid in the early 90s there was a sh*tload of 50s to 80s reruns of everything imaginable on basic cable.stolen frm your neighbor

Russian War Movies

I dont know a few. The one about the company in Afghanistan thats basically annihilated. Parts of the Soviet 60s epic on Borodino. 

I like German ww2 ones best. Stalingrad. Das Boot. Die Brucke. (OLD and obscure but good ant Hitler Youth defending a bridge against US troops.

Wiki threads

Why u surprised? Ive never posted there at all?

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Just some quick comments:

Re: Operation Market-Garden/Varsity

I don't think most humans need to know much about either.  I'm a little surprised Vlad hadn't heard about them simply because there's so few Airborne operations in history.  If you're looking for case studies, missing Market-Garden and Varsity is interesting though.

Re: The Pacific

The Soviet contribution in terms of value is pretty debatable.  I would contend if the Soviet Union only had to initiate hostilities in any overt way to accomplish what it did in regards to ending the war.  While some Soviet/Russian histories make a very big deal about damage inflicted, the Japanese Army on the mainland was pretty well stripped to support operations in the pacific, or defend the homeland, and the American interdiction of Japan all but ensured what remained in Japan meant very little in terms of defending Japan herself.  The fact a nation Japan viewed as a neutral-honest broker in the whole conflict was not honest, or neutral was in effect, enough to get the job done.  

So in that regard the usual "And then the Soviets invaded Manchuria" is sufficient.  Or at least, the Soviet element needs to get in line behind the US Army in the Southwest Pacific (and Australia too), the Commonwealth in the CBI, a honest history of China's part in the war (all parties, not as told by "flowers of partisan fighter activity killed all the Japanese" histories),the Aleutian Campaign in terms of parts of the Pacific War that do not get enough attention.

 Re: Russian movies

Most war movies say more about the years in which they are made, and the nation that made them, than the historical event.  American Western movies (even ones based on "reality") have nothing to do with the years they claim to represent, Soviet-Russian war movies have little to do with the war itself and everything to do with then-current events.  

Re: The Ukraine

I don't know how much more there is to say.  I mean there's more that COULD be said, but I'm pretty unsure if any of it matters.  The Ukraine is an independant nation.  It has a right to choose its destiny.  If Russian speakers in the Ukraine were enough of a justification for intervention, then surely the bond of Islamic faith is enough to justify overt aid to Chechen fighters from the middle east.

Russia would be more secure in this world if she respected borders I imagine.