Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Part Deux

[The Huskar Social Union]

The US fears it's not ready for a war with Russia.

You know im honestly not surprised, after directing your military forces to counter terrorism and combating insurgent attacks for near two decades any military force is going to have some issues when it tries to reassert itself for battle preparation against another large military force. But its unlikely it ever will kick off in that regard thankfully.

[New Werpland]

Scraping the barrel, Russian style.

That's what most Russians believe anyway.

[West Aurelia]

The US fears it's not ready for a war with Russia.

You know im honestly not surprised, after directing your military forces to counter terrorism and combating insurgent attacks for near two decades any military force is going to have some issues when it tries to reassert itself for battle preparation against another large military force. But its unlikely it ever will kick off in that regard thankfully.

My military forces?

[The Huskar Social Union]

You know im honestly not surprised, after directing your military forces to counter terrorism and combating insurgent attacks for near two decades any military force is going to have some issues when it tries to reassert itself for battle preparation against another large military force. But its unlikely it ever will kick off in that regard thankfully.

My military forces?

No not you directly, its just a saying.

[Estruia]

The US fears it's not ready for a war with Russia.

I'm sorry, but I'm disinclined to take this seriously. Unnamed Military Officials? No sources for the supposed chatter in the Pentagon and US military about being unable to fight Russia? No one in their right mind would speak to the Daily Beast about this, especially if they were in the Pentagon or High-ranking DOD/Military Officials.

This smells really over-hyped and/or exaggerated.

[New Werpland]

The US fears it's not ready for a war with Russia.

I'm sorry, but I'm disinclined to take this seriously. Unnamed Military Officials? No sources for the supposed chatter in the Pentagon and US military about being unable to fight Russia? No one in their right mind would speak to the Daily Beast about this, especially if they were in the Pentagon or High-ranking DOD/Military Officials.

This smells really over-hyped and/or exaggerated.

Well it is obviously, saying that the US would have trouble in a war with Russia is silly in almost every context.

[Estruia]

I'm sorry, but I'm disinclined to take this seriously. Unnamed Military Officials? No sources for the supposed chatter in the Pentagon and US military about being unable to fight Russia? No one in their right mind would speak to the Daily Beast about this, especially if they were in the Pentagon or High-ranking DOD/Military Officials.

This smells really over-hyped and/or exaggerated.

Well it is obviously, saying that the US would have trouble in a war with Russia is silly.

There's also the issue of the Daily Beast's credibility. They're on par with RT.

[Bojikami]

The US fears it's not ready for a war with Russia.

Because very likely, it is not. The US army as of late has only dealt with insurgents, not professional troops.

Not only this, but should the US and Russia actually come to war (unlikely as it is) neither would be able invade the other.

[New Werpland]

The US fears it's not ready for a war with Russia.

Because very likely, it is not. The US army as of late has only dealt with insurgents, not professional troops.

Not only this, but should the US and Russia actually come to war (unlikely as it is) neither would be able invade the other.

That doesn't mean they aren't capable.

And take in mind the budget differences.

[United Marxist Nations]

Because very likely, it is not. The US army as of late has only dealt with insurgents, not professional troops.

Not only this, but should the US and Russia actually come to war (unlikely as it is) neither would be able invade the other.

That doesn't mean they aren't capable.

And take in mind the budget differences.

A large portion of that budget would not really be in much position to strike at Russia, for example, the Navy (23% of the budget) would be pretty limited in what it could do. Afaik, no great power is prepared for a war with any other great power.

[Novus America]

The US fears it's not ready for a war with Russia.

I'm sorry, but I'm disinclined to take this seriously. Unnamed Military Officials? No sources for the supposed chatter in the Pentagon and US military about being unable to fight Russia? No one in their right mind would speak to the Daily Beast about this, especially if they were in the Pentagon or High-ranking DOD/Military Officials.

This smells really over-hyped and/or exaggerated.

Regardless it is indisputable that the cuts over the last 6 years have devastated our military in terms of both quantity and quality.

[The balkens]

May be old news, but its worth a mention.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/world ... raine.html

As if my opinion of the Rebels can go ANY further lower.

[Bratislavskaya]

May be old news, but its worth a mention.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/world ... raine.html

As if my opinion of the Rebels can go ANY further lower.

I gathered that they were trying to say that Mozgovoi was a Cossack. Mozgovoi was not a Cossack. He wasn't affiliated to them either. And are you know trying to say that all the rebels are bad because they are trying to stop the Cossacks going around and being dicks, which if I recall happened a while back, as it was in this or the last thread. The Ukrainians got into combat with troops from Azov Battalion, you didn't condemn them for that. Oh I forgot, you just come here and "satirize" stuff (aka, just keep saying "putin bad, russia bad, 'murica good", and complaining every time the rebels do anything, yet ignoring the shit the Ukrainians also get up to).

[Korva]

That doesn't mean they aren't capable.

And take in mind the budget differences.

A large portion of that budget would not really be in much position to strike at Russia, for example, the Navy (23% of the budget) would be pretty limited in what it could do. Afaik, no great power is prepared for a war with any other great power.

Is this a joke?

First the Navy is basically the only important and capable arm behind the Army, and second Russia is no more a great power than Pakistan.

Pictures of T-90As in Ukraine last year have emerged.

BTR-3 production to increase from 20 to 30 per month, which is still a bit of a joke, but better than before.

[Shofercia]

So even the Daily Mail backs up my point instead of yours. What exactly were you trying to accomplish? Either way, you failed. Once again, LNG cannot compete against GazProm at FMV, and I challenge to have an actual source that says otherwise. An actual source. With actual numbers. That talk about actual events. That exist in this reality. Thank you in advance!

The daily mail source says clearly why Lithuania left Gazprom depency and turned to LNG. Read it once more, I know you can.

Apparently you seem to have forgotten my argument, so let me state it very clearly: LNG cannot compete with GazProm at FMV. If Lithuania left GazProm, that means that Lithuania was overcharged by GazProm. For someone who claims they know something about economics, you certainly embarrassed yourself there, as FMV is an extremely common economic term.

Yeah, I cited a much better article from Forbes that explains why that occurred. I'm not going to recite articles, but just for entertainment purposes, tell me, how does the economy work? How do various interest rates affect the economy? Why's PPP so important? How does the stock market correlate with economic growth? I look forward to your answers since I suspect that the source is the Daily Fail or Radio Free Bullshit. Furthermore, I said that oil affects Russia's economy, but that Russia's economy isn't dependent on oil. The economy fell partially, because the oil prices drastically. But if the economy was dependent on oil, it would've also fallen drastically

.
Again, read once more. I said that Russia will collapse slowly, and that is how economy works. Neither Yeltsins Russia has collapse over nighz. It took few years.

So instead of actually answering my questions, you simply regurgitate your extremely uninformed opinion. Got it.

Oil comprises less than 10% of Russia's GDP. What do you think makes up the remaining 90%? Santa Claus and Bear Cavalry?

Source for all that. Even the few industry it has is colerated with Oil or resources.

If you cannot figure out how to find that stuff on your own, you really shouldn't be talking about economics. And yes, industry is correlated with oil, so what? Again, correlation doesn't mean dependence.

I see your knowledge of Russian history is unparalleled, in that it doesn't parallel with anything in this reality. The 1905 Revolution was a Popular Revolution, as was that of 1917. Popular doesn't mean elitist. It means the opposite.

I see you do not either. The Bolsheviks did not removed the Tsar. It was the Februar revolution and that was led by the burgeoise. There was two revolutions in 1917 and you do not seem to know it. Also, even Lenin was not democraticall elected so his follower started a insurgency, the Russians were passive in the whole event.

The February Revolution was led by the workers and peasants, not the bourgeoisie. Like the FMV, this is a commonly known factoid that you didn't know about, so please, please Dortmundia, read the basics before continuing to debate, as it's not really debating at this point; it's me correcting your bullshit with actual facts. And yes, I know that Lenin wasn't democratically elected, but I don't see how that's relevant to a discussion on the revolution that predates Lenin.

Want to bet? Name your price, I'm good with anything.

Say your price.

I asked first.

No, I'll state it in simpler terms: saying that BUK was given to Rebels by Russia is, by this point, Climate Change Denial level of stupidity. Saying that it was deliberately shot down by a plane is, by this point, also Climate Change Denial level of stupidity.

Right, let's just ignore all the hard work that the Russian Investigative Committee. Apparently they are just as stupid as climate change deniers, because they actually analyzed the evidence around the crash and found the eyewitnesses, both of which show that the Russian government was right all along.

Part of their evidence is a phantom group being able to infiltrate the Rebels and launch the missile from within. I've yet to see any real evidence backing that up.

Azov Battalion now has it's own summer camp, where kids do weapons training and such. The only article I could find was on RT, but there was a Ukrainian website with many photos.

Of course, typical Western reporting. They won't report on events like this, but when RT does, we're all supposed to say "lol RT", and then they're wondering why few in Russia take them seriously.

I guess it shouldn't surprise us, fascists have always been big on youth organisations as part of their indoctrination program. The truly disturbing thing is that the people training these kids to kill Russians were trained and armed by the US.

You mean like the Kremlin Youth Camps that are oh-so famous in Russia? They claim to be Anti-Fascist, but their behavior is anything but Anti-Fascist.

The Kremlin Youth Camps don't indoctrinate killing machines.

What!? NO! HOW DARE YOU SLANDER THE GREAT RUSS-

ah forget about it. Its not even worth satirizing.

And yet you satirize it. You're entire purpose here seems to be to provoke the other side, and then acted shocked when you're called out on it.

I do not support the Russian invasion of Crimea, I do not support the riots the indirectly caused it, I do not support the violence caused by Ukraine in the Donbass, I do not support the covert Russian/US support of either side, I do not support the shooting down of the Malaysian Airlines aircraft, I do not support the disgusting acts that occurred in Odessa, I do not support the puppet government in Kiev, I do not support the EUs shadow support, I do not support the Putin Administration.

What I do support is the people of Crimea and Donbass, who have by majority made it clear they do not want to be a part of Ukraine. Russia's actions were unjustified, Ukraines weren't any better, both sides are being rather unreasonable, the EU is overstepping it's boundaries, and the US shouldn't even be involved.

What was wrong with the Bloodless Crimean Annexation? (Note balkens, I'm not questioning his entire post, so please don't pretend otherwise.)

For all I care, Putin can sodomize a bottle of bleach.

Really, Ukraine deserves it's territorial integrity and democracy. When an invasion followed by a rigged referendum takes place, it frustrates me.

Right, because Saakashvili, Taruta, and Kolomoisky were democratically elected

[Shofercia]

Scraping the barrel, Russian style.

No different than the idiots claiming that Putin gave Rebels BUKs so that they could shoot down MH-17. Welcome to the World of Propangandistic Idiocy. Now, do you see why I was so pissed off when we were debating the Ossetian War?

Because very likely, it is not. The US army as of late has only dealt with insurgents, not professional troops.

Not only this, but should the US and Russia actually come to war (unlikely as it is) neither would be able invade the other.

That doesn't mean they aren't capable.

And take in mind the budget differences.

US and Russia have the Pacific and the Atlantic separating one another, and slowly moving fleets are very nukable. And yes, they'd move slowly compared to the speed of missiles.

I'm sorry, but I'm disinclined to take this seriously. Unnamed Military Officials? No sources for the supposed chatter in the Pentagon and US military about being unable to fight Russia? No one in their right mind would speak to the Daily Beast about this, especially if they were in the Pentagon or High-ranking DOD/Military Officials.

This smells really over-hyped and/or exaggerated.

Regardless it is indisputable that the cuts over the last 6 years have devastated our military in terms of both quantity and quality.

Not really. There are numerous other things that demoralize the military, like having retired soldiers tell them how "totally awesome" the Department of Veteran's Affairs is. Or the lack of education in new recruits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2Jd3M6_w4Q

As if my opinion of the Rebels can go ANY further lower.

Oh, I'm sure you'll find a way for your opinion of the Rebels to go lower.

A large portion of that budget would not really be in much position to strike at Russia, for example, the Navy (23% of the budget) would be pretty limited in what it could do. Afaik, no great power is prepared for a war with any other great power.

Is this a joke?

First the Navy is basically the only important and capable arm behind the Army, and second Russia is no more a great power than Pakistan.

Pictures of T-90As in Ukraine last year have emerged.

BTR-3 production to increase from 20 to 30 per month, which is still a bit of a joke, but better than before.

Russia has a lot of missiles. In relation to missile speed, the US Navy, (just as any other navy,) moves very slowly. Also, in a war between US and Russia, nukes can fly.

[Chossudovsky]

Right, let's just ignore all the hard work that the Russian Investigative Committee. Apparently they are just as stupid as climate change deniers, because they actually analyzed the evidence around the crash and found the eyewitnesses, both of which show that the Russian government was right all along.

Part of their evidence is a phantom group being able to infiltrate the Rebels and launch the missile from within. I've yet to see any real evidence backing that up.

No it isn't. The areas under rebel and government control were not always clearly defined at the time. But the Buk manufacturer has confirmed that the SAM missile was launched from government held territory.

Then there is the eyewitness testimony of the Ukrainian air force mechanic, and the physical evidence showing fragments from an air to air missile and damage from aircraft cannon fire. But according to you, trusting eyewitness and physical evidence means you are as stupid as a climate change denier, and instead we should assume that the rebels fired the missile because the western media told us so with no evidence

[Costa Fierro]

No it isn't. The areas under rebel and government control were not always clearly defined at the time. But the Buk manufacturer has confirmed that the SAM missile was launched from government held territory.

Except that the base at which the Buks were being stored were under rebel control. The rebels themselves said that they had possession of at least one system.

Then there is the eyewitness testimony of the Ukrainian air force mechanic, and the physical evidence showing fragments from an air to air missile and damage from aircraft cannon fire. But according to you, trusting eyewitness and physical evidence means you are as stupid as a climate change denier, and instead we should assume that the rebels fired the missile because the western media told us so with no evidence

Hang on one minute. You said that the SAM missile was launched from Ukrainian government territory yet you said that the wreckage contained parts from an anti-air missile and that it was damaged by cannon fire? Which is it?

Also, whilst I'm sticking my head down this rabbit hole, there are so many problems with the "it show down with an air-to-air" missile and cannon fire" theory. Firstly, the aircraft usually given as the culprit cannot fly high enough to shoot it down, not to mention that said aircraft is not designed for air-to-air combat.

Secondly, air-to-air missiles do not explode at the front of the aircraft but instead use infrared targeting systems which lock onto heat sources. This means that the engines would be targeted in the event of an attack with an air-to-air missile. Now, modern airliners are designed to and have, survived with one engine being largely destroyed (as what happens with uncontained engine failures) so it'd be difficult to shootdown an airliner as large as a Boeing 777 with only missiles. Secondly, it'd also be difficult to attack an aircraft like it with cannon fire because, again, the aircraft involved couldn't fly that high and even if it could, it'd be extremely difficult make a successful attack from the angle it was and do enough damage to bring it down.

[Shofercia]

Part of their evidence is a phantom group being able to infiltrate the Rebels and launch the missile from within. I've yet to see any real evidence backing that up.

No it isn't. The areas under rebel and government control were not always clearly defined at the time. But the Buk manufacturer has confirmed that the SAM missile was launched from government held territory.

Then there is the eyewitness testimony of the Ukrainian air force mechanic, and the physical evidence showing fragments from an air to air missile and damage from aircraft cannon fire. But according to you, trusting eyewitness and physical evidence means you are as stupid as a climate change denier, and instead we should assume that the rebels fired the missile because the western media told us so with no evidence

You think I like the Western media? Have you not read some of my other posts? The testimony of one Ukraine air force mechanic isn't all that reliable; Ukraine also has numerous testimonies from Russians they tortured/bribed. Until I see proof that's beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm going to call it an accident. Furthermore, every massive Rebellion has a few groups with a few unsavory characters, and this one is no exception. I'm not blaming all of the Rebels that shot it down. Not even a majority. Heck, probably 99 percent of the Rebels had nothing to do with it. I was against the recent Circus Resolution. However, there most likely was a single guy of some group that fired that tragic shot. If members of said group didn't fire, why did some of them celebrate initially, only to stop after they realized what happened?

[Geilinor]

No it isn't. The areas under rebel and government control were not always clearly defined at the time. But the Buk manufacturer has confirmed that the SAM missile was launched from government held territory.

Then there is the eyewitness testimony of the Ukrainian air force mechanic, and the physical evidence showing fragments from an air to air missile and damage from aircraft cannon fire. But according to you, trusting eyewitness and physical evidence means you are as stupid as a climate change denier, and instead we should assume that the rebels fired the missile because the western media told us so with no evidence

You think I like the Western media? Have you not read some of my other posts?

I know how you Russophiles love to shit on everything non-Russian, but Western media is better than either Pravda or RT or ITAR-TASS. And yes, I have seen your other posts. Do you know what I see? A hardline nationalist.

[The balkens]

You think I like the Western media? Have you not read some of my other posts?

I know how you Russophiles love to shit on everything non-Russian, but Western media is better than either Pravda or RT or ITAR-TASS. And yes, I have seen your other posts. Do you know what I see? A hardline nationalist.

Getting a western education?

Hilarious.

[Chossudovsky]

No it isn't. The areas under rebel and government control were not always clearly defined at the time. But the Buk manufacturer has confirmed that the SAM missile was launched from government held territory.

Then there is the eyewitness testimony of the Ukrainian air force mechanic, and the physical evidence showing fragments from an air to air missile and damage from aircraft cannon fire. But according to you, trusting eyewitness and physical evidence means you are as stupid as a climate change denier, and instead we should assume that the rebels fired the missile because the western media told us so with no evidence

You think I like the Western media? Have you not read some of my other posts? The testimony of one Ukraine air force mechanic isn't all that reliable; Ukraine also has numerous testimonies from Russians they tortured/bribed. Until I see proof that's beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm going to call it an accident. Furthermore, every massive Rebellion has a few groups with a few unsavory characters, and this one is no exception. I'm not blaming all of the Rebels that shot it down. Not even a majority. Heck, probably 99 percent of the Rebels had nothing to do with it. I was against the recent Circus Resolution. However, there most likely was a single guy of some group that fired that tragic shot. If members of said group didn't fire, why did some of them celebrate initially, only to stop after they realized what happened?

I don't know if you like the western media but you have certainly bought into their agenda hook, line and sinker.

I'm sure that the Ukrainians have tortured and bribed witnesses. But I'm not talking about the Ukrainians I'm talking about the Russian investigative committee. Are you accusing the highest investigation body in Russis of using torture or bribery to extract false testimony, thus jeopardising one of the most important investigations in its history? If not, why did the witness cooperate of his testimony is false? What about all the physical evidence of an air to air engagement? What about the evidence from the buk manufacturer?

And where exactly is your evidence that it was the rebels? Yes, they celebrated initially because all they knew was a large aircraft had been shot down so they assumed it was a rebel group taking down a military transport. They couldn't know at the time that the missile was fired by the Ukrainian military or that it was a deliberate attempt to discredit the rebels by attacking a civilian aircraft.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You think I like the Western media? Have you not read some of my other posts? The testimony of one Ukraine air force mechanic isn't all that reliable; Ukraine also has numerous testimonies from Russians they tortured/bribed. Until I see proof that's beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm going to call it an accident. Furthermore, every massive Rebellion has a few groups with a few unsavory characters, and this one is no exception. I'm not blaming all of the Rebels that shot it down. Not even a majority. Heck, probably 99 percent of the Rebels had nothing to do with it. I was against the recent Circus Resolution. However, there most likely was a single guy of some group that fired that tragic shot. If members of said group didn't fire, why did some of them celebrate initially, only to stop after they realized what happened?

I don't know if you like the western media but you have certainly bought into their agenda hook, line and sinker.

I'm sure that the Ukrainians have tortured and bribed witnesses. But I'm not talking about the Ukrainians I'm talking about the Russian investigative committee. Are you accusing the highest investigation body in Russis of using torture or bribery to extract false testimony, thus jeopardising one of the most important investigations in its history? If not, why did the witness cooperate of his testimony is false? What about all the physical evidence of an air to air engagement? What about the evidence from the buk manufacturer?

And where exactly is your evidence that it was the rebels? Yes, they celebrated initially because all they knew was a large aircraft had been shot down so they assumed it was a rebel group taking down a military transport. They couldn't know at the time that the missile was fired by the Ukrainian military or that it was a deliberate attempt to discredit the rebels by attacking a civilian aircraft.

Go look at the past threads, we went over how an Su-25 couldn't have shot down the plane more than a few times.

You're also oddly ignoring all the video evidence of a Buk being thrown onto a truck and driven away from the area right after the plane was shot down.

[Wolfmanne]

I don't know if you like the western media but you have certainly bought into their agenda hook, line and sinker.

I'm sure that the Ukrainians have tortured and bribed witnesses. But I'm not talking about the Ukrainians I'm talking about the Russian investigative committee. Are you accusing the highest investigation body in Russis of using torture or bribery to extract false testimony, thus jeopardising one of the most important investigations in its history? If not, why did the witness cooperate of his testimony is false? What about all the physical evidence of an air to air engagement? What about the evidence from the buk manufacturer?

And where exactly is your evidence that it was the rebels? Yes, they celebrated initially because all they knew was a large aircraft had been shot down so they assumed it was a rebel group taking down a military transport. They couldn't know at the time that the missile was fired by the Ukrainian military or that it was a deliberate attempt to discredit the rebels by attacking a civilian aircraft.

Go look at the past threads, we went over how an Su-25 couldn't have shot down the plane more than a few times.

You're also oddly ignoring all the video evidence of a Buk being thrown onto a truck and driven away from the area right after the plane was shot down.

He believes what he wants to see. That's the mind of a Russophile.

[Vassenor]

Oh, are we onto the version of events where the Separatist SAM crew was practising painting targets and a Ukrainian SAM caught their beam and rode it all the way to MH17?