Meanwhile in Russia
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
74 comments displayed.
#17 to #4
-
meowmrrr (02/16/2015) [-]
U.S. provoked an ultra-right wing coup in early 2014. When anti-coup protestors started disappearing/and some killed via secret police, the ones who could picked up arms to defend themselves and their families. The region where the rebels are is called Novorossija "New Russia" would be the literal translation. It's been called that for 300 - 400 years ever since Ottoman Turkish empire's influence was ended in the area through war (I'm not very familiar with history of that time period for the region but I'll err on the 1700s). There is also a city nearby named Novorossijsk for same reason.
#35 to #31
-
krasnogvardiech (02/16/2015) [-] About 430 kilometres. Or one train ride.
More if the family come with us.
More if the family come with us.
#9
-
postalmate (02/16/2015) [-] Have some context - This is a DNR(rebel) retaliation strike after Ukie artilery wiped out a bus full of civilians.
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30798426
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30798426
#51 to #50
-
postalmate (02/16/2015) [-]
That would be over 450+ million people across asia and eastern europe, sir. Would you like gas chambers or maybe a Generalplan Ost menu with that?
#36 to #9
-
Airmanator (02/16/2015) [-] I've been keeping up with this since the protests ignited almost a year ago. No one knows whose shots hit the bus, though the Russians rebels seem to have a nice track record of destroying civilian modes of transportation.
Really and truly, Russia has no business in Ukraine and should've left it to its own devices. Maybe they should be more accepting or NATO and possibly ALLY with it instead of trying to be the bad guys most of the time. You might take my comment with a grain of salt, but don't believe what the Russian media tells you, they try to defame America and Ukraine at every turn, even going to far as to blame the Americans for the Charlie Hebdo massacre via the Live TV program.
That's about it for me. There's a lot of misinformation and ignorance about this conflict, and Putin's political smokescreens and troops are not helping.
Really and truly, Russia has no business in Ukraine and should've left it to its own devices. Maybe they should be more accepting or NATO and possibly ALLY with it instead of trying to be the bad guys most of the time. You might take my comment with a grain of salt, but don't believe what the Russian media tells you, they try to defame America and Ukraine at every turn, even going to far as to blame the Americans for the Charlie Hebdo massacre via the Live TV program.
That's about it for me. There's a lot of misinformation and ignorance about this conflict, and Putin's political smokescreens and troops are not helping.
#32
-
venumb (02/16/2015) [-] He said they were launching them because of those innocent that had died in a bus explosion.
#37 to #32
-
Airmanator (02/16/2015) [-] The rebels are a strange breed; the bombed the bus and pinned it on the Ukrainian state. They've been doing this **** for months, claiming Ukrainian secret raids on homes, state shellings of schools and even a crucifixion of a young child. They're ******* insane and people believe them.
If not for Putin, they would've been defeated in September and the DNR dismantled swiftly. NATO has no backbone.
If not for Putin, they would've been defeated in September and the DNR dismantled swiftly. NATO has no backbone.
#45 to #37
-
comradewinter ONLINE (02/16/2015) [-]
I doubt Russia is the prevention here. The IS started out with nothing, now they're expanding faster than I do in a Total War campaign. Their allies? Some cunts in the Phillipines and Boko Haram. They don't have reliable allies in close proximity, hell they were even at war with Al-Nusra. Didn't see NATO step in there.
#52 to #45
-
Airmanator (02/16/2015) [-] What? I'm talking about the Ukrainian/Russian rebels, not ISIS.
#54 to #52
-
comradewinter ONLINE (02/17/2015) [-]
It was a comparison. If the NATO can't bother to handle an enemy who have proclaimed their utmost hate for the West, what makes you think they will bother with some Ukrainian rebel group? The only reason why the US and the West gives a **** about Ukraine is because a separate Ukraine could benefit Russia.
#55 to #54
-
Airmanator (02/17/2015) [-] But we HAVE been acting against ISIS. US, Germany, France, Jordan, UAE, etc etc have all been working to counter the ISIS threat. NATO as whole isn't bothered by it, but member & non-member states ARE acting.
As for the Ukrainian rebels, they're backed with vehicles, weapons and troops from Russia. Putin has pretty much declared if NATO acts in the defense of the Ukraine state, he'd go nuclear. That's unfortunately enough for NATO to stand by idly -- though now we (the US) are discussing whether or not to send military aid, and if Putin will made good on his threat. After all, the nuclear button is the only advantage he has.
Russia's conventional forces are lagging behind the West, and quite a bit of their aircraft and vehicles are technically outdated. But against the poorly-equipped Ukrainians with tech from the 80s and 90s? They really don't stand a chance -- which is why they need help. Ukraine is a corrupt cesspool, but nearly as bad as Russia. We're going with the lesser of the two evils here because Ukraine isn't headed by a tyrannical dictoator who imprisons his political opponents on false charges.
That's about it for me. I can go on all day about this but I think I've made my point. Comparing DNR/affiliates with ISIS is a poor parallel, as is NATO to individual member states it contains.
As for the Ukrainian rebels, they're backed with vehicles, weapons and troops from Russia. Putin has pretty much declared if NATO acts in the defense of the Ukraine state, he'd go nuclear. That's unfortunately enough for NATO to stand by idly -- though now we (the US) are discussing whether or not to send military aid, and if Putin will made good on his threat. After all, the nuclear button is the only advantage he has.
Russia's conventional forces are lagging behind the West, and quite a bit of their aircraft and vehicles are technically outdated. But against the poorly-equipped Ukrainians with tech from the 80s and 90s? They really don't stand a chance -- which is why they need help. Ukraine is a corrupt cesspool, but nearly as bad as Russia. We're going with the lesser of the two evils here because Ukraine isn't headed by a tyrannical dictoator who imprisons his political opponents on false charges.
That's about it for me. I can go on all day about this but I think I've made my point. Comparing DNR/affiliates with ISIS is a poor parallel, as is NATO to individual member states it contains.
#57 to #55
-
comradewinter ONLINE (02/17/2015) [-]
Also, Ukrainia is much, much worse than Russia. The crippling corruption has left the economy in ruins, whereas most Russians get by. Picture in last comment is related, it's the GDP per capita in US dollars, adjusted for purchasing power. They also proclaimed a known Far Right extremist as president, Oleksandr Turchynov, who had to abdise because Russia used his political views as propaganda to prove how terrible their leadership was. This man also destroyed evidence on the case of Semyon Mogilevich, while he was Head of Security. Ukrainian president Kuchma also most likely killed a journalist in 2000.
cpj.org/killed/2000/georgy-gongadze.php
This event goes hand in hand with several experiences journalists have had covering the Ukraine incident.
rt.com/news/180140-journalists-killed-abducted-ukraine/
This list compiles some of the journalists who have received ill treatment in Ukraine, a majority of them Russian nationals working independently. Abductions and harsh interrogation is not unusual in the Balkans.
They rank 142nd in the Corruption Index published by Transparency International, while Russia ranks 136th. This does not mean they are very different at first view, but Russian economy allows for more corruption to be sustained, such as the lack of benefit from oil and gas, while it severely impedes Ukraine.
www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results/ (Hover over countries to view rank, view the PDF for info on what's taken into account)
What people have to understand is that Russia may be a bad country, but they're primes inter pares in the Balkans. Russia is by a very long stretch the best country there, as expected given the head of Soviet heritage, but it's the only country you hear about because they're a major opposition to the West, while the rest remain neutral, or are deemed too weak to spend any time on. China has 300 million starving people, but not many people report on that. Russia bans homosexuality from public view with fines as standard punishment, Uganda gives you the death penalty for even keeping it a secret. Russia is not the worst place in the worst to live, and certainly not in the Balkans, they just have a lot of attention directed towards them.
cpj.org/killed/2000/georgy-gongadze.php
This event goes hand in hand with several experiences journalists have had covering the Ukraine incident.
rt.com/news/180140-journalists-killed-abducted-ukraine/
This list compiles some of the journalists who have received ill treatment in Ukraine, a majority of them Russian nationals working independently. Abductions and harsh interrogation is not unusual in the Balkans.
They rank 142nd in the Corruption Index published by Transparency International, while Russia ranks 136th. This does not mean they are very different at first view, but Russian economy allows for more corruption to be sustained, such as the lack of benefit from oil and gas, while it severely impedes Ukraine.
www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results/ (Hover over countries to view rank, view the PDF for info on what's taken into account)
What people have to understand is that Russia may be a bad country, but they're primes inter pares in the Balkans. Russia is by a very long stretch the best country there, as expected given the head of Soviet heritage, but it's the only country you hear about because they're a major opposition to the West, while the rest remain neutral, or are deemed too weak to spend any time on. China has 300 million starving people, but not many people report on that. Russia bans homosexuality from public view with fines as standard punishment, Uganda gives you the death penalty for even keeping it a secret. Russia is not the worst place in the worst to live, and certainly not in the Balkans, they just have a lot of attention directed towards them.
#56 to #55
-
comradewinter ONLINE (02/17/2015) [-] I guess ignorance is good for some people, makes them sleep at night or something.
1. Ukraina is not part of NATO. That means the West has no reason to dedicate any resources. It would generally be benefitial to let it go, as Russia is a major exporter of gas that the West uses. The only reason why the West would act against such a rebellion, is because Russia is on the other side. Whenever Russia backs a side, the US always picks the other, and vice versa, apart from Mujahideen factions who miraculously manage to make enemies out of both. Nobody really loses anything significant regardless of who controls Ukraine or not, as the only region worth speaking of is the tactical advantage over the Caspian Sea Crimea has. Russia being in control of that is a big blow to the West, as is any further expansion of the Russian borders. Notice how little support the Ukrainian government had before Russia was involved? Whole country went to hell, yet nobody truly condemned the rebel actions until Russia started backing them. This is not unusual for a country like the US, trying to hold onto the hegemony which has detoriorated since the end of the Cold War.
2. Ukraine has outdated gear, although not enough to give the West a significant advantage. Russian tech is meant to last. The T-34 was active for a very long time only to be replaced by different models which only had slight changes. The AK-47 has only been slightly modifiied, and still is one of the most effective assault rifles in the world. They still retain modern equipment such as radars, homing missiles and large explosies. The IS on the other hand use guerrilla gear, meaning they don't have operational aircraft and only a few tanks, which predate the Seperatists vehicles by at least 10 years. They drive around in old pickup trucks, as opposed to Ukrainian rebels who can enjoy the comfort of armored personell carriers. They can move and expand fast because nobody hits them hard enough.
3. NATO countries are acting against them independently (Not together!) because it's everyone's interest to see them crushed. So far the majority of those countries involved dump a single airstrike on IS locations, barely hitting anything worth mentioning given how they are barely stalled, and then they return to normal. Obama has tried to hold a meeting with numerous political figures to settle the matter numerous times, but can't rally enough countries to really make an impact. Soldiers win wars, not aircraft. Bombing them once every month or even week won't be more than a hassle for a rapidly growing group like the IS, and it continues to become a bigger issue as their expansion means more resources and manpower. Had they acted against them early, this could've been avoided, but at this rate the IS will control the majority, or maybe even all, of Syria and Iraq before the war effort goes beyond the prettiness of sitting safe in an aircraft.
So even though the Ukrainian rebels would basically have nothing to go on without Russia, it's a simple matter of dedication, not equipment. The rebellion worked perfectly fine before Russia moved in, and it would've continued to do so with or without their help. However, for Russia to annex Crimea the rebels wanted gear, and Russia provided. That's when it became an international issue, and not just some headlines in newspapers.
1. Ukraina is not part of NATO. That means the West has no reason to dedicate any resources. It would generally be benefitial to let it go, as Russia is a major exporter of gas that the West uses. The only reason why the West would act against such a rebellion, is because Russia is on the other side. Whenever Russia backs a side, the US always picks the other, and vice versa, apart from Mujahideen factions who miraculously manage to make enemies out of both. Nobody really loses anything significant regardless of who controls Ukraine or not, as the only region worth speaking of is the tactical advantage over the Caspian Sea Crimea has. Russia being in control of that is a big blow to the West, as is any further expansion of the Russian borders. Notice how little support the Ukrainian government had before Russia was involved? Whole country went to hell, yet nobody truly condemned the rebel actions until Russia started backing them. This is not unusual for a country like the US, trying to hold onto the hegemony which has detoriorated since the end of the Cold War.
2. Ukraine has outdated gear, although not enough to give the West a significant advantage. Russian tech is meant to last. The T-34 was active for a very long time only to be replaced by different models which only had slight changes. The AK-47 has only been slightly modifiied, and still is one of the most effective assault rifles in the world. They still retain modern equipment such as radars, homing missiles and large explosies. The IS on the other hand use guerrilla gear, meaning they don't have operational aircraft and only a few tanks, which predate the Seperatists vehicles by at least 10 years. They drive around in old pickup trucks, as opposed to Ukrainian rebels who can enjoy the comfort of armored personell carriers. They can move and expand fast because nobody hits them hard enough.
3. NATO countries are acting against them independently (Not together!) because it's everyone's interest to see them crushed. So far the majority of those countries involved dump a single airstrike on IS locations, barely hitting anything worth mentioning given how they are barely stalled, and then they return to normal. Obama has tried to hold a meeting with numerous political figures to settle the matter numerous times, but can't rally enough countries to really make an impact. Soldiers win wars, not aircraft. Bombing them once every month or even week won't be more than a hassle for a rapidly growing group like the IS, and it continues to become a bigger issue as their expansion means more resources and manpower. Had they acted against them early, this could've been avoided, but at this rate the IS will control the majority, or maybe even all, of Syria and Iraq before the war effort goes beyond the prettiness of sitting safe in an aircraft.
So even though the Ukrainian rebels would basically have nothing to go on without Russia, it's a simple matter of dedication, not equipment. The rebellion worked perfectly fine before Russia moved in, and it would've continued to do so with or without their help. However, for Russia to annex Crimea the rebels wanted gear, and Russia provided. That's when it became an international issue, and not just some headlines in newspapers.
#58 to #56
-
Airmanator (02/17/2015) [-] ISIS has nothing to do with this. As much as I hate the Ukrainian rebels, they can't be compared to the ******* insane and genocidal group that is ISIS. If you're comparing the two, that's on you. I'm discussing NATO's response to Ukraine, not ISIS. Jordan and the UAE are not part of NATO. Ignorance is bliss.
Ukraine is not part of NATO and I never said it was. It had the opportunity but Russia invaded and said no. The rebels get their vehicles and munitions from looted State bases as well as through Russian supply.
Again, all I'm saying is Putin has no business in Ukraine and the only real power he has is his nuclear arsenal. Other than that, they best be can do is crush Ukraine and hamper trade with surrounding states like Latvia.
Ukraine is not part of NATO and I never said it was. It had the opportunity but Russia invaded and said no. The rebels get their vehicles and munitions from looted State bases as well as through Russian supply.
Again, all I'm saying is Putin has no business in Ukraine and the only real power he has is his nuclear arsenal. Other than that, they best be can do is crush Ukraine and hamper trade with surrounding states like Latvia.
#59 to #58
-
comradewinter ONLINE (02/17/2015) [-]
So let me get this straight.
You say the IS is much worse than the Ukrainian rebels, an opinion you share with pretty much the entire world. You also acknowledge that NATO is responding to the Ukraine crisis, and not to the IS except for independent operations country by country.
What then, may I ask, makes you think NATO would give a single **** about what goes down in the corrupt hell hole of Ukraine, if not for thwarting Putin's attempt at establishing hegemony in the Balkans and the Caspian Sea? Because I can pretty much assure you the US and NATO don't get involved in every single conflict in the world, only those that would be in their interest. The IS, having declared war on the West, is such an interest. NATO would have a very strong interest in seeing them destroyed, but refuse to commit themselves due to war weariness, especially in the US. If NATO can overlook a major incident in the Middle East despite it being in their interest, why would they possibly bother with Ukraine?
Putin and Russia are the only reasons why anyone even cares about Ukraine. If left to their own devices, the rebels would still fight the government, and the government would eventually have lost. They are losing control due to poor leadership, as presented by the example that Kiev could not contain anything during the revolution that saw Yanukovich removed. Putin's involvement in this conflic may be the factor that makes the rebels lose, as they can't face off against both the government and the West. Russia is there to make sure the West doesn't get involved, but if the West moves in, Russia will move out. It's a game of fear, and neither Russia nor the West want a war.
And no, Russia is very much a strong military state. They have the same technology the US has, they just have models of vehicles and arms that date back longer than what the US has. Doesn't make them worse. They have radars, thermal vision, long-distance artillery, drones, tested and proven quality tanks, top-of-the-line aircraft and a powerful navy. Why people assume Russia has a poor military is beyond me. They've won every conflict they've been involved in since the founding of the Soviet Union, apart from conflicts around its dissolution. Equipment-wise, look at the Middle East. The US relies heavily on bombings and drone attacks because they know very well that fighting on the ground is dangerous. You'd think trained soldiers with gear from the last decade could easily best hillmen fighting with guns older than your grandfather, but it's not that easy. Aircraft and drones make the difference in losses there, and Russia has sufficient technology to shoot those things out of the sky in a flash. They also have more vigorous training to survive a harsh environment, something US soldiers lack. If you seriously think beating Russia, even without nuclear weapons, would be anything short of a catastrophe for the West, I suggest you turn off Call of Duty and read up on what their machines are capable of. They are ferocious in war, and they build things to last.
You say the IS is much worse than the Ukrainian rebels, an opinion you share with pretty much the entire world. You also acknowledge that NATO is responding to the Ukraine crisis, and not to the IS except for independent operations country by country.
What then, may I ask, makes you think NATO would give a single **** about what goes down in the corrupt hell hole of Ukraine, if not for thwarting Putin's attempt at establishing hegemony in the Balkans and the Caspian Sea? Because I can pretty much assure you the US and NATO don't get involved in every single conflict in the world, only those that would be in their interest. The IS, having declared war on the West, is such an interest. NATO would have a very strong interest in seeing them destroyed, but refuse to commit themselves due to war weariness, especially in the US. If NATO can overlook a major incident in the Middle East despite it being in their interest, why would they possibly bother with Ukraine?
Putin and Russia are the only reasons why anyone even cares about Ukraine. If left to their own devices, the rebels would still fight the government, and the government would eventually have lost. They are losing control due to poor leadership, as presented by the example that Kiev could not contain anything during the revolution that saw Yanukovich removed. Putin's involvement in this conflic may be the factor that makes the rebels lose, as they can't face off against both the government and the West. Russia is there to make sure the West doesn't get involved, but if the West moves in, Russia will move out. It's a game of fear, and neither Russia nor the West want a war.
And no, Russia is very much a strong military state. They have the same technology the US has, they just have models of vehicles and arms that date back longer than what the US has. Doesn't make them worse. They have radars, thermal vision, long-distance artillery, drones, tested and proven quality tanks, top-of-the-line aircraft and a powerful navy. Why people assume Russia has a poor military is beyond me. They've won every conflict they've been involved in since the founding of the Soviet Union, apart from conflicts around its dissolution. Equipment-wise, look at the Middle East. The US relies heavily on bombings and drone attacks because they know very well that fighting on the ground is dangerous. You'd think trained soldiers with gear from the last decade could easily best hillmen fighting with guns older than your grandfather, but it's not that easy. Aircraft and drones make the difference in losses there, and Russia has sufficient technology to shoot those things out of the sky in a flash. They also have more vigorous training to survive a harsh environment, something US soldiers lack. If you seriously think beating Russia, even without nuclear weapons, would be anything short of a catastrophe for the West, I suggest you turn off Call of Duty and read up on what their machines are capable of. They are ferocious in war, and they build things to last.
#60 to #59
-
Airmanator (02/17/2015) [-] You brought ISIS into this. What does ISIS have to do with this conflict? They declared war on the world, and the world is responding, not just NATO.
Russia's conventional forces are lagging behind that of the West. They're spending billions to revitalize their military forces, but their fleet is past aging and their fifth generation fighters need work. That is not to say they are not powerful, but that they are not as strong as you think they are. This is why Putin is flaunting and revitalizing his nuclear arsenal.
Russia's conventional forces are lagging behind that of the West. They're spending billions to revitalize their military forces, but their fleet is past aging and their fifth generation fighters need work. That is not to say they are not powerful, but that they are not as strong as you think they are. This is why Putin is flaunting and revitalizing his nuclear arsenal.
#61 to #60
-
comradewinter ONLINE (02/17/2015) [-]
Jesus, you really are dense. They serve as an example of where NATO stands today. The world is responding to specific actions. They execute prisoners of a certain nationality, certain nation responds with a single airstrike and call it a day. There is no plan in motion to destroy them, just to take revenge. Same as the US involvement against Al Qaeda is revenge for 9/11. They don't do cooperative work like they did against Saddam Hussein or during the Cold War. Again, if they can leave an issue like that alone, which actually is a threat against the West, what makes you think something as irrelevant as the Ukrainian conflict will even have an affect on NATO's actions? You'll probably just bring this up in the next comment, as drawing lines between incidents is clearly beyond your comprehension. But well done, I say. You singlehandedly and inadvertidly discedited everything Descartes and David Hume worked for, something trained politicians can't.
Revitalizing the military is an act of gaining the upper hand against forces larger than their own, not to recover from a technological stagnation. Their new Sukhoi Pak FA program was designed to ensure mass production of T-50 planes, which will only be second to a few American types, but will make up for it in numbers and production costs, as well as versatility, a common concept with any Russian armament. Their current models are still highly effective, but would lose to NATO air superiority, as NATO focuses on their airspace fighting more than anything. The fifth generation aircraft will be introduced next year, and when that happens they'll have plenty of aircraft for the next 20 years or so until they have to work on their next models. The
Russian Navy has historically been weak, as their lack of free access to the oceans have been restricted apart from the Pacific. The US has relied on this due to their unrestricted access on both sides of the country, and thus geographically benefit more from a strong navy. They still possess technology second only to the US, despite their main focus on the army.
Again, their new projected nuclear weapons are nothing but a response. The US has budgeted over 1 trillion dollars over the next 30 years to develop nuclear weapons. They now possess fewer weapons than the US, depending on which sources you ask, although their megatonnage is higher. This is evened out when you consider that the Great Britain, an ally of the US, also possess warheads. There's no durability with nuclear weapons, and you don't want to cut corners when working with dangerous weapons like that, so prices remain the same for every producing country. Thus Russia simply has to keep up on that technology, in case a war breaks out. They're not lacking in nuclear power, they're just preparing for the future so when the US starts stockpiling more they'll have just as much munition to wipe out humanity as the US does.
Revitalizing the military is an act of gaining the upper hand against forces larger than their own, not to recover from a technological stagnation. Their new Sukhoi Pak FA program was designed to ensure mass production of T-50 planes, which will only be second to a few American types, but will make up for it in numbers and production costs, as well as versatility, a common concept with any Russian armament. Their current models are still highly effective, but would lose to NATO air superiority, as NATO focuses on their airspace fighting more than anything. The fifth generation aircraft will be introduced next year, and when that happens they'll have plenty of aircraft for the next 20 years or so until they have to work on their next models. The
Russian Navy has historically been weak, as their lack of free access to the oceans have been restricted apart from the Pacific. The US has relied on this due to their unrestricted access on both sides of the country, and thus geographically benefit more from a strong navy. They still possess technology second only to the US, despite their main focus on the army.
Again, their new projected nuclear weapons are nothing but a response. The US has budgeted over 1 trillion dollars over the next 30 years to develop nuclear weapons. They now possess fewer weapons than the US, depending on which sources you ask, although their megatonnage is higher. This is evened out when you consider that the Great Britain, an ally of the US, also possess warheads. There's no durability with nuclear weapons, and you don't want to cut corners when working with dangerous weapons like that, so prices remain the same for every producing country. Thus Russia simply has to keep up on that technology, in case a war breaks out. They're not lacking in nuclear power, they're just preparing for the future so when the US starts stockpiling more they'll have just as much munition to wipe out humanity as the US does.
#62 to #61
-
Airmanator (02/17/2015) [-] You can be pro-Russia, but being pro-Putin is unforgivable.
-The invasion of Iraq in response to 9/11 was a cooperative effort.
-There is a plan to destroy ISIS. the US has literally done 90% of the bombings; the only problems we have is a million dollar payload worth a thousand dollar truck, alongside unneeded civilian casualties. There is only so much you can do in terms of bombing and invasion as guerrilla forces would just retreat and strike at chances of opportunity.
-It's incredibly expensive and some nations don't see it worth the involvement, like the Soviet invasion of Chechnya and Afghanistan. A lot of kids lost their lives needlessly. Google Chechclear.
-Ukraine's only strategic importance is its access to its warm water port, of which Russia currently owns. Otherwise it's a proxy front like Korea and Vietnam.
-You claimed the Russians had a powerful navy, whereas its actually out of date and falling apart. Putin has invested in newer nuclear attack subs and anti-ship weaponry to make up for this deficit.
-The new Russian fifth generation fighter has a poor heat profile which lends it to have marginal stealth when compared to American craft. It is theorized the Chinese J-31 would have better performance than it, though still lacking. NATO's bulk air superiority will be tarnished with the F-35B, but still has crafts like the F-22 to assert dominance. Still, Russian and Chinese infrastructure for producing fifth generation fighters that are on par with American/NATO fighters is lagging and undeveloped in comparison.
-False. Russian arsenal contains more individual nukes, but their megatonnage per bomb is lower. At least, that's what the article I read a few weeks ago claimed.
The whole idea of creating a parallel between ISIS and Ukraine's rebels only serves to compare the Russian proxies to genocidal savages. All in all, I see no reason to support Putin or his administration. Will NATO react to Ukraine? Probably only the US will. But other border states are now increasing military spending as a response to them. Remember this started when Ukraine tried to join NATO, and Putin rolled in and claimed to come int the defense of ethnic Russians.
-The invasion of Iraq in response to 9/11 was a cooperative effort.
-There is a plan to destroy ISIS. the US has literally done 90% of the bombings; the only problems we have is a million dollar payload worth a thousand dollar truck, alongside unneeded civilian casualties. There is only so much you can do in terms of bombing and invasion as guerrilla forces would just retreat and strike at chances of opportunity.
-It's incredibly expensive and some nations don't see it worth the involvement, like the Soviet invasion of Chechnya and Afghanistan. A lot of kids lost their lives needlessly. Google Chechclear.
-Ukraine's only strategic importance is its access to its warm water port, of which Russia currently owns. Otherwise it's a proxy front like Korea and Vietnam.
-You claimed the Russians had a powerful navy, whereas its actually out of date and falling apart. Putin has invested in newer nuclear attack subs and anti-ship weaponry to make up for this deficit.
-The new Russian fifth generation fighter has a poor heat profile which lends it to have marginal stealth when compared to American craft. It is theorized the Chinese J-31 would have better performance than it, though still lacking. NATO's bulk air superiority will be tarnished with the F-35B, but still has crafts like the F-22 to assert dominance. Still, Russian and Chinese infrastructure for producing fifth generation fighters that are on par with American/NATO fighters is lagging and undeveloped in comparison.
-False. Russian arsenal contains more individual nukes, but their megatonnage per bomb is lower. At least, that's what the article I read a few weeks ago claimed.
The whole idea of creating a parallel between ISIS and Ukraine's rebels only serves to compare the Russian proxies to genocidal savages. All in all, I see no reason to support Putin or his administration. Will NATO react to Ukraine? Probably only the US will. But other border states are now increasing military spending as a response to them. Remember this started when Ukraine tried to join NATO, and Putin rolled in and claimed to come int the defense of ethnic Russians.
#63 to #62
-
comradewinter ONLINE (02/17/2015) [-] - I literally said NATO hadn't done any cooperative missions like the one against Sadam Hussein. It takes less than a minute to proof read this.
- No, there's no plan. As there is no plan for Al Qaeda. Maybe there is a plan, in the way of: "maybe if we bomb these people, making the local populace resent us, they will disperse. Wait, this makes their numbers increase? Oh, well. Rinse and repeat, I guess". The IS is also not a guerrilla force. They occupy areas, and don't fight unconventionally. They fight like any other state does, except they lack vehicles suitable for combat. No small time bombings or Trojan Horses, plain assaults guns blazing, with a military hierarchy. This makes them much easier to get, as they are limited to a certain territory.
- Yes, some nations don't see the it worth the investment to fight against an enemy that wants you dead for who you are. This certainly makes your point that helping out the neutral state of Ukraine when there is no catalyst nor reason much clearer. Are you even reading what I write?
- You are acknowledging exactly what I said, and retracting your original opinion. Russia is not the reason why the Western Powers don't move in, they wouldn't be there if Russia hadn't annexed Crimea. If Russia pulls out, so will any support the government receives, and the rebels would get their victory.
- Are you implying Russia's navy is weak? Just because it bleaks in comparison to the US's Navy, where 60% of their military spending goes to, does by no stretch make them weak. They can still wipe the floor with anything else other countries have to offer.
- Hence why it hasn't been introduced yet. They are working on and improving it. It has been so since 2010, and been delayed and improved since then. It's like saying an anticipated movie is **** because half the screentime is missing.
- Yes. That's what an article you read claimed. My research is based on a lecture Nuclear Expert Robert Litwack held in one of my former classes, regarding the previous and current state of US-Russian relations to nuclear weapons. His research was based on multiple reports by Russian and American sources, as well as independent ones. The backdrop was that the Non-Proliferation Treaty would reduce the amount of nuclear weapons, which both Russia and the US ratified, although neither of them actually wanted to weaken themselves, just the enemy. This makes it difficult to ascertain how many nuclear weapons they have, as they would oftentimes destroy several weapons, then make new ones with higher megatonnage to make up for it. Both sides claim the other has more, while they're hiding large stockpiles away from public eye. Possibly, both sides could have doubly what they claim. Regardless, the majority of sources indicate that Russia have fewer weapons, but were made larger. However, the US also has more launchers than Russia.
I was correct. You are dense. The controversies are heavy on both sides, only that Western journalists mostly publish the rebels's actions while Russian media does it to the Kievan government. Neither side is better than the other morally, although the rebels are doing a much better job governing than the government is. The IS example was to show that even though the most brutal savages in modern history are rapidly expanding and want the Western way of life dead, the West is doing little to prevent it. Given that statement, they could give two ***** about what happens in Ukraine. Laws are silent in the time of war, nothing new there. You previously claimed the West would move in hadn't it been for Putin, a statement you retracted in this comment. Ukraine's bid to join NATO is irrelevant. Russia annexed Crimea in March, the president of Ukraine stated in October that joining NATO was a priority, and in December he promised to hold a referendum for NATO allegiance. Prior to this, Ukraine did not want to join NATO following a legislature in 2010 barring them from involvement with NATO.
- No, there's no plan. As there is no plan for Al Qaeda. Maybe there is a plan, in the way of: "maybe if we bomb these people, making the local populace resent us, they will disperse. Wait, this makes their numbers increase? Oh, well. Rinse and repeat, I guess". The IS is also not a guerrilla force. They occupy areas, and don't fight unconventionally. They fight like any other state does, except they lack vehicles suitable for combat. No small time bombings or Trojan Horses, plain assaults guns blazing, with a military hierarchy. This makes them much easier to get, as they are limited to a certain territory.
- Yes, some nations don't see the it worth the investment to fight against an enemy that wants you dead for who you are. This certainly makes your point that helping out the neutral state of Ukraine when there is no catalyst nor reason much clearer. Are you even reading what I write?
- You are acknowledging exactly what I said, and retracting your original opinion. Russia is not the reason why the Western Powers don't move in, they wouldn't be there if Russia hadn't annexed Crimea. If Russia pulls out, so will any support the government receives, and the rebels would get their victory.
- Are you implying Russia's navy is weak? Just because it bleaks in comparison to the US's Navy, where 60% of their military spending goes to, does by no stretch make them weak. They can still wipe the floor with anything else other countries have to offer.
- Hence why it hasn't been introduced yet. They are working on and improving it. It has been so since 2010, and been delayed and improved since then. It's like saying an anticipated movie is **** because half the screentime is missing.
- Yes. That's what an article you read claimed. My research is based on a lecture Nuclear Expert Robert Litwack held in one of my former classes, regarding the previous and current state of US-Russian relations to nuclear weapons. His research was based on multiple reports by Russian and American sources, as well as independent ones. The backdrop was that the Non-Proliferation Treaty would reduce the amount of nuclear weapons, which both Russia and the US ratified, although neither of them actually wanted to weaken themselves, just the enemy. This makes it difficult to ascertain how many nuclear weapons they have, as they would oftentimes destroy several weapons, then make new ones with higher megatonnage to make up for it. Both sides claim the other has more, while they're hiding large stockpiles away from public eye. Possibly, both sides could have doubly what they claim. Regardless, the majority of sources indicate that Russia have fewer weapons, but were made larger. However, the US also has more launchers than Russia.
I was correct. You are dense. The controversies are heavy on both sides, only that Western journalists mostly publish the rebels's actions while Russian media does it to the Kievan government. Neither side is better than the other morally, although the rebels are doing a much better job governing than the government is. The IS example was to show that even though the most brutal savages in modern history are rapidly expanding and want the Western way of life dead, the West is doing little to prevent it. Given that statement, they could give two ***** about what happens in Ukraine. Laws are silent in the time of war, nothing new there. You previously claimed the West would move in hadn't it been for Putin, a statement you retracted in this comment. Ukraine's bid to join NATO is irrelevant. Russia annexed Crimea in March, the president of Ukraine stated in October that joining NATO was a priority, and in December he promised to hold a referendum for NATO allegiance. Prior to this, Ukraine did not want to join NATO following a legislature in 2010 barring them from involvement with NATO.
#66 to #63
-
Airmanator (02/17/2015) [-] To answer your original post: NATO member nations have shown and demonstrated an interest in destroying ISIS. I can slam you with a dozen articles or proof if you like.
NATO member states are caution of Ukraine because of their economic ties with Russia regarding natural gas and oil. While Germany has distanced themselves from it, the US has sent troops to train with the Ukrainian state, as well as reinforcing other countries along the Russian border with troop exercises and the deployment of military equipment, such as the A-10 other hardware. Again, if you are interested, I can slam you into the ground with evidence of this.
The key player here is the US. They head NATO, so they can do what they like. Their objective, as demonstrated by their deployments in eastern Europe, is tantamount to saber rattling to a close degree -- a move to let Russia know we can and will respond if they are looking for a fight. Now kindly get out of here, you're a supreme embarrassment.
NATO member states are caution of Ukraine because of their economic ties with Russia regarding natural gas and oil. While Germany has distanced themselves from it, the US has sent troops to train with the Ukrainian state, as well as reinforcing other countries along the Russian border with troop exercises and the deployment of military equipment, such as the A-10 other hardware. Again, if you are interested, I can slam you into the ground with evidence of this.
The key player here is the US. They head NATO, so they can do what they like. Their objective, as demonstrated by their deployments in eastern Europe, is tantamount to saber rattling to a close degree -- a move to let Russia know we can and will respond if they are looking for a fight. Now kindly get out of here, you're a supreme embarrassment.
#69 to #66
-
comradewinter ONLINE (02/17/2015) [-]
Sure, everyone wants them dead. How many participate? Not so much. An airstrike is different from ground forces fighting. One costs money, the other costs lives.
I never doubted that the US would act. The only problem is, they only chose to act after Russia did. Then they start demonizing the rebels as the greatest scum of the earth, and appeal to people's pathos by coming in as the white knight saviors. What's interesting to see, of course, is that the Ukrainian government are shelling their own cities like the people living there mean nothing. They claim they still own the territories, but they've completely forsaken the people. Partially why Iraq and Syria aren't doing much to combat the IS in their captured territories; they don't want to hurt their own people. You can say what you want about the rebels, but these rebellions broke out on their own, not because Russia staged them.
I never doubted that the US would act. The only problem is, they only chose to act after Russia did. Then they start demonizing the rebels as the greatest scum of the earth, and appeal to people's pathos by coming in as the white knight saviors. What's interesting to see, of course, is that the Ukrainian government are shelling their own cities like the people living there mean nothing. They claim they still own the territories, but they've completely forsaken the people. Partially why Iraq and Syria aren't doing much to combat the IS in their captured territories; they don't want to hurt their own people. You can say what you want about the rebels, but these rebellions broke out on their own, not because Russia staged them.
#65 to #63
-
Airmanator (02/17/2015) [-] -NATO is irrelevant when it comes to the middle east. Still, NATO exercises and missions are still pursued. These are renamed as "coalition forces" and have been use din Libya, Afghanistan and other places of "interest".
-That is the definition of a guerrilla force. It is very cost efficient when compared to something as expensive and sophisticated as the US military. There is a plan for Al Qaeda. We do what we can, but the middle east is and will always be a cesspool.
-Irrelevant as US troops and non-military equipment have been used to aid the Ukrainian state at this time. Germany might not want to help, but we do in order to prevent further Russian influence.
-Again irrelevant as the US has displayed an interest in Ukraine and Putin has acknowledged such. Are you comprehending the stupidity of your post?
-Yes.
-There is a reason for that: underdeveloped manufacturing facilities to produce such a thing. India seems up to the plate, however. nationalinterest.org/feature/the-russian-air-forces-super-weapon-beware-the-pak-fa-11742?page=2
-Okay. But Russia changed their military doctrine circa 2010 to ramp up their military forces as a precaution to NATO's power. This includes restocking and enhancing their nuclear abilities. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/01/15/russias-new-military-doctrine-same-as-the-old-doctrine-mostly/
-Additionally, it is unclear the amount of warheads either side has, but Russia boasts more nukes despite their stockpiles being poorly maintained. Putin has spent ungodly amounts to revitalize their stockpile, but so have we. Putin have also commissioned bunches of new ships and what not to aid their aging fleet.
www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/us-ramping-up-major-renewal-in-nuclear-arms.html
www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/23/us-russia-navy-ships-idUSKCN0HI16K20140923
You seem driven to discredit NATO. Sure. I think NATO is weak too. Russia is a formidable country, but the ends their military have been used for in Ukraine is unforgivable. It has the right to self rule and should not be a pawn for the new empire Putin seems to be keen on going for.
Tell me, why are you pro-Putin on this? Or even pro-Russia for this conflict?
-That is the definition of a guerrilla force. It is very cost efficient when compared to something as expensive and sophisticated as the US military. There is a plan for Al Qaeda. We do what we can, but the middle east is and will always be a cesspool.
-Irrelevant as US troops and non-military equipment have been used to aid the Ukrainian state at this time. Germany might not want to help, but we do in order to prevent further Russian influence.
-Again irrelevant as the US has displayed an interest in Ukraine and Putin has acknowledged such. Are you comprehending the stupidity of your post?
-Yes.
-There is a reason for that: underdeveloped manufacturing facilities to produce such a thing. India seems up to the plate, however. nationalinterest.org/feature/the-russian-air-forces-super-weapon-beware-the-pak-fa-11742?page=2
-Okay. But Russia changed their military doctrine circa 2010 to ramp up their military forces as a precaution to NATO's power. This includes restocking and enhancing their nuclear abilities. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/01/15/russias-new-military-doctrine-same-as-the-old-doctrine-mostly/
-Additionally, it is unclear the amount of warheads either side has, but Russia boasts more nukes despite their stockpiles being poorly maintained. Putin has spent ungodly amounts to revitalize their stockpile, but so have we. Putin have also commissioned bunches of new ships and what not to aid their aging fleet.
www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/us-ramping-up-major-renewal-in-nuclear-arms.html
www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/23/us-russia-navy-ships-idUSKCN0HI16K20140923
You seem driven to discredit NATO. Sure. I think NATO is weak too. Russia is a formidable country, but the ends their military have been used for in Ukraine is unforgivable. It has the right to self rule and should not be a pawn for the new empire Putin seems to be keen on going for.
Tell me, why are you pro-Putin on this? Or even pro-Russia for this conflict?
#67 to #65
-
comradewinter ONLINE (02/17/2015) [-]
- There are no coalition forces present against the IS. There is one for War on Terror, but it generally works different when you're fighting against a self-proclaimed nation.
- No, it is not. Guerrilla Warfare is more assigned as a civilian type of warfare without a present military, very frequently used during revolutions and the like. The IS started out using this, but as they started occupying territories they started to use conventional warfare. They fight in force, and use little sabotage and ambushing tactics. They fight like any other regular force, except they lack mobilized warfare. They receive military training and fight professionally. The IS documented an attack on an airport in a propaganda video called "The Flames of War". Although the message behind the video is ridiculous, it gives a general idea of how they proceed to capture regions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare
- Your primary argument was that Putin was the reason the Ukrainian government didn't receive help from the West. Maybe you just worded it poor, but the fact remains that the conflict would be outside the sphere of influence had not Putin been involved. That's about the moment when the West started talking about how horrible the conflict was and how Putin is basically the new Hitler for making it happen, despite the fact it would end the exact same way with or without him.
- See above.
- Then you very, very ignorant.
- This comment did not answer mine, nor did it make any sense. It's a colaboration between Russia and India, and it has been in production for a long time, althogh delayed numerous times to root out the quirks. The reason why it's being relevant today is because the flaws are marginal and expected to be released soon.
- Which is exactly what I wrote. They're trying to keep the playing field level in the future. An assault rifle can be relevant for many years based on design, materials and such, an atomic weapon is only relevant while it holds a certain amount of megatons. If the US is stockpiling up on megatons, so will Russia.
- Like I said, it is disputed how many arms either side has. Russia has more weapons, but those are declared to be destroyed. By amount of active nuclear weapons, which means those that are to stay, the majority of sources state that the US retains the most.
I never said I supported him. I'm just stating the fact that Russia is a country that has time and time again been underestimated. They defeated Napoleon and Hitler, and has been one of the longest living united nations of all time, the only notable others being Great Britain and France. It's the same **** every 50 years or so. Some big empire or coalition of forces think they're nothing but stupid peasants, they invade, they lose. They then blame it on the winter, come back with more clothes, lose again. They fight hard any season, and people seem to think themselves above them because they apparently are lagging behind in technology. Whether by cunning or brute force, they always find a way to win, or know when to pull out.
As for Putin, it can be hard for Western people to understand why he is popular. They just discredit it as being propaganda, completely ignoring what Russia was like before, or how other Balkan countries compare. I've seen Russia before Putin, and I've seen the other countries. They were/are nasty places, and upon being elected he more or less fixed those problems in a flash. Alcoholism was reduced to a fraction, economy exploded, crime rate pancaked, unemployment heavily decreased, all within his first few years as president. He's a rational president, with little sense of morality or compassion, but for a country like Russia to develop like it needed back then, he was perfect. His last term has pretty much shown how much Russia has improved, as basic necessities like security and money are no longer a concern compared to his legislation against gay marriage and warfare. (Cont.)
- No, it is not. Guerrilla Warfare is more assigned as a civilian type of warfare without a present military, very frequently used during revolutions and the like. The IS started out using this, but as they started occupying territories they started to use conventional warfare. They fight in force, and use little sabotage and ambushing tactics. They fight like any other regular force, except they lack mobilized warfare. They receive military training and fight professionally. The IS documented an attack on an airport in a propaganda video called "The Flames of War". Although the message behind the video is ridiculous, it gives a general idea of how they proceed to capture regions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare
- Your primary argument was that Putin was the reason the Ukrainian government didn't receive help from the West. Maybe you just worded it poor, but the fact remains that the conflict would be outside the sphere of influence had not Putin been involved. That's about the moment when the West started talking about how horrible the conflict was and how Putin is basically the new Hitler for making it happen, despite the fact it would end the exact same way with or without him.
- See above.
- Then you very, very ignorant.
- This comment did not answer mine, nor did it make any sense. It's a colaboration between Russia and India, and it has been in production for a long time, althogh delayed numerous times to root out the quirks. The reason why it's being relevant today is because the flaws are marginal and expected to be released soon.
- Which is exactly what I wrote. They're trying to keep the playing field level in the future. An assault rifle can be relevant for many years based on design, materials and such, an atomic weapon is only relevant while it holds a certain amount of megatons. If the US is stockpiling up on megatons, so will Russia.
- Like I said, it is disputed how many arms either side has. Russia has more weapons, but those are declared to be destroyed. By amount of active nuclear weapons, which means those that are to stay, the majority of sources state that the US retains the most.
I never said I supported him. I'm just stating the fact that Russia is a country that has time and time again been underestimated. They defeated Napoleon and Hitler, and has been one of the longest living united nations of all time, the only notable others being Great Britain and France. It's the same **** every 50 years or so. Some big empire or coalition of forces think they're nothing but stupid peasants, they invade, they lose. They then blame it on the winter, come back with more clothes, lose again. They fight hard any season, and people seem to think themselves above them because they apparently are lagging behind in technology. Whether by cunning or brute force, they always find a way to win, or know when to pull out.
As for Putin, it can be hard for Western people to understand why he is popular. They just discredit it as being propaganda, completely ignoring what Russia was like before, or how other Balkan countries compare. I've seen Russia before Putin, and I've seen the other countries. They were/are nasty places, and upon being elected he more or less fixed those problems in a flash. Alcoholism was reduced to a fraction, economy exploded, crime rate pancaked, unemployment heavily decreased, all within his first few years as president. He's a rational president, with little sense of morality or compassion, but for a country like Russia to develop like it needed back then, he was perfect. His last term has pretty much shown how much Russia has improved, as basic necessities like security and money are no longer a concern compared to his legislation against gay marriage and warfare. (Cont.)
#68 to #67
-
comradewinter ONLINE (02/17/2015) [-]
(Cont.) I don't think he's the kind of president Russia needs anymore. He'd be better served ruling over a destitute country in Africa, where people don't have the undeniable needs for security, money, or health. He has fixed a great deal in his time, but at the same time turned the country into a figurative warzone for westernization, and opposing sides wanting this and that interest conflict resolved. He realized there were more Orthodox Christians in the country than homosexuals, so he banned gay marriage. Homosexual maritage is not popularly supported in Russia due to its stern religious nature in some regions, but he made himself look like an asshat nonetheless. He's old-fashioned and tries to rationalize the decisions, working towards some perversion of consequencialism, which might've worked in the Machiavellian times, but not suitable for a modern society where we have developed different needs. War is terrible, most can account to that, but the severity of how people view it as such has changed over the years. In that manner, he would be the type of person to justify it by looking at what can be. He wants to restore Russia to its glory. Stalin tried the same, and while the millions he killed can never be justified, he also industrialized the entire country for an eternal economical boost. Putin wants to be that kind of man. Not the one who's loved during his rule, but appreciated when people in Russia 50 years from now can live in a strong Russia, bar no other country. But like I said, that kind of development is old-fashioned, and he's right to be criticized for only seeing what's on the outside of people, and make false assumptions of what the people really want. He's also a flamboyant narcissist, and greedy with both power and money. He'd be the greatest Roman Emperor, but today he's just a petty dictator to most.
#53 to #43
-
Airmanator (02/16/2015) [-] Ethnic Russians are not the majority; and plenty of people in the ex-communist satellite states despise Russia for good reason. Ukraine is most certainly NOT pro-Russian, just a minority of the rebels are, be they ethnic Russians or misguided Ukrainians.
This entire conflict makes zero sense. I can understand the taking of Crimea, but solidifying the DNR's presence? That's simply insane, all for a bid to keep NATO away, of which there is LITERALLY no reason to do.
This entire conflict makes zero sense. I can understand the taking of Crimea, but solidifying the DNR's presence? That's simply insane, all for a bid to keep NATO away, of which there is LITERALLY no reason to do.
#40 to #37
-
jasytis (02/16/2015) [-] That would have happened without NATO intervention, if they did however decide to send Ukraine weapons then they stand a fighting chance even against Russia in an open conflict. People defending their land are more motivated to fight than unsuspecting soldiers thrown in somebody elses' conflict.
