The Situation in the Ukraine. #8

Hannibal Barca wrote:Can you explain to me why?
When USA or UK destroys a country (Japan, Serbia, Germany) this country loves them. Russia left all this countries live alone and this dogs come back to bite.
I really don't get this. Probably is because Russians have no idea how to demand respect. By beating the crap out of this low lives.

Easy. You've got to be very self-absorbed and self-righteous. And let's be honest, noone's beaten the americans at that game. They say they're the kings of the world (doesn't matter that they got that title through getting out of two world wars with minimal losses, because everyone else bled while they got fat) and they have the nukes to make everyone believe that.

Yeah. You see what's the point? That if USA was in the 888 war they would had bomb Tbilisi to the ground they would had hanged Saakashvili immediately they would had conquered the country to this day raping killing and rooting and they would had get eternal respect and friendship. Take as an example this Serbians who supposedly where more decent people after all.
They went today to Germany the very country RAPED THEM LIKE HELL to speak and then Markel came out to speak for more sanctions!! I wonder whether we need to nuke Belgrade to get some respect because this is the only language they speak of.

[quote="Vann7"]

Petro007 wrote:
....Napoleon .... WW2

Man reading this makes every historian either hurt inside or grin ....

Like you can't simply come up with "Russia defeated Napoleon - who wiped whole of Europe" just like that .... as if Russians weren't buttkicked from the European battlefield straight back to where they came from. Up until Borodino, most engagements between French and Russian Empire ended up with Russian army defeated or retreating. Borodino was a retreat too. What defeated Napoleon in the end, wasn't Russian army, but his overambitious plans, at that point he was already delusional enough to not care about his men anymore - related to Russian winter and supply shortage. Just a quarter of his original army he gathered for the invasion was present at Borodino. Half his troops defected or died by sickness. Yeah, there was some partisan action like Davydov, Kudashev etc that were constantly stinging Napoleon's army, but really that wasn't so decicive + it was mostly during their retreat. Russians would have been better off if they had someone like Suvorov leading their army ....

About WWII. It were not 8 friggin million German troops LOL, it were something around 3.4 - 4.5 ( latter one in mid-war period ) million, including Romanian, Italian, Finnish, Hungarian etc. More or less ~ 3 million were actual Germans. If it were 8 million troops, they would have won. Soviets had less troops, but 5 times as many tanks, aircraft and artillery. If Germans really had twice as much like you claim, the war would have been over in no time.

Hannibal Barca wrote:Next week I go to Moscow and then I will go to Crimea for a few hours.
I considered of going to Mariupol to see first hand the liberation of the town but I assessed it as too dangerous although when we'll march towards Vilnius I swear I will be there!!

Be sure to post pictures!

this message needs to be deleted garryB

TheGeorgian wrote:

Petro007 wrote:
....Napoleon .... WW2

Man reading this makes every historian either hurt inside or grin ....

Like you can't simply come up with "Russia defeated Napoleon - who wiped whole of Europe" just like that .... as if Russians weren't buttkicked from the European battlefield straight back to where they came from. Up until Borodino, most engagements between French and Russian Empire ended up with Russian army defeated or retreating. Borodino was a retreat too. What defeated Napoleon in the end, wasn't Russian army, but his overambitious plans, at that point he was already delusional enough to not care about his men anymore - related to Russian winter and supply shortage. Just a quarter of his original army he gathered for the invasion was present at Borodino. Half his troops defected or died by sickness. Yeah, there was some partisan action like Davydov, Kudashev etc that were constantly stinging Napoleon's army, but really that wasn't so decicive + it was mostly during their retreat. Russians would have been better off if they had someone like Suvorov leading their army ....

About WWII. It were not 8 friggin million German troops LOL, it were something around 3.4 - 4.5 ( latter one in mid-war period ) million, including Romanian, Italian, Finnish, Hungarian etc. More or less ~ 3 million were actual Germans. If it were 8 million troops, they would have won. Soviets had less troops, but 5 times as many tanks, aircraft and artillery. If Germans really had twice as much like you claim, the war would have been over in no time.

[/quote]

agreed.

Flyingdutchman wrote:

TheGeorgian wrote:

Petro007 wrote:
....Napoleon .... WW2

Man reading this makes every historian either hurt inside or grin ....

Like you can't simply come up with "Russia defeated Napoleon - who wiped whole of Europe" just like that .... as if Russians weren't buttkicked from the European battlefield straight back to where they came from. Up until Borodino, most engagements between French and Russian Empire ended up with Russian army defeated or retreating. Borodino was a retreat too. What defeated Napoleon in the end, wasn't Russian army, but his overambitious plans, at that point he was already delusional enough to not care about his men anymore - related to Russian winter and supply shortage. Just a quarter of his original army he gathered for the invasion was present at Borodino. Half his troops defected or died by sickness. Yeah, there was some partisan action like Davydov, Kudashev etc that were constantly stinging Napoleon's army, but really that wasn't so decicive + it was mostly during their retreat. Russians would have been better off if they had someone like Suvorov leading their army ....

About WWII. It were not 8 friggin million German troops LOL, it were something around 3.4 - 4.5 ( latter one in mid-war period ) million, including Romanian, Italian, Finnish, Hungarian etc. More or less ~ 3 million were actual Germans. If it were 8 million troops, they would have won. Soviets had less troops, but 5 times as many tanks, aircraft and artillery. If Germans really had twice as much like you claim, the war would have been over in no time.

agreed.

Might as well add this.

Hi all,
2 months ago I was in Donetsk, Crimea, Kiev, Pervomaisk missile silo, and Chernobyl(spent 5 days in the exclusion zone). pics can be found here.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t3372-my-pics-and-vids

I will keep uploading pics on this thread so check regular. also if anyone is interested in seeing pics of anything ask me as i might have taken a picture of it, as i wont upload every pic. Ive taken around 800 pictures.

My next trip is to Uzbekistan (including the Aral sea) and Tajikistan including a visit to the GBAO area and staying over for a few days in  Khorog border town which borders with Afghanistan. Heading out there on the 8th of October 2014

Werewolf wrote:I would say estonia is on top of the baltic hemorrhoid states. Estonia and Poland were the one training the fascists that were prepared there to infiltrate maidan. Estonia and lithunia are the biggest nazi supporter and symphatisants today, annually have some SS-division tribute parades.

Hey don't be so harsh Lithuania is a nazi supporter? Really? Germans were welcomed at first because they gave us fake hope of getting independence. Check early Nazi propaganda. Nazis were so good at sweet talking, their propaganda was very attractive, they even targeted Russians, telling them that they are attacking Soviet Union to free all Russians from tyrant. No wonder there were plenty of misled collaborators.
Nazis tried to form Waffen SS division in Lithuania, but it was boycotted and only few people showed up. So we ended up without SS but Stutthof concentration camp was full of our inteligensia, teachers, activists. We all know if germans would've won WW2 we would be pushed away as Nazis claimed some our best lands as German ones, plus we weren't pure aryans, so flying through the chimney was real possibility too


Estonia is other thing all together. I don't know much about them tbh, but the fact that they were conscripted to SS. I still find it tasteless to have SS monument, but it's moved to remote location. Ex conscripts fighting for Waffen SS weren't prosecuted in Nuremberg trials and the ones who ended in Soviet union weren't persecuted too. There are only few hundred of them alive and i've checked that parade, meh, nothing offensive. Estonians were more loved by Nazis because of their ekhem, "nordic" origin.

You have to understand that people in Baltics are scared to shit of Russia. From our POV Russia can roll us over when they want and NATO wouldn't have balls to protect us. But in general we are not so keen about Americans too. I noticed that Russophobic people don't have illusions towards US and always bring Soros while lashing at them Big countries tend to grind small ones to dust. Only thing is US is far away from US and Russia is close, we have more ties to Russian politics who control some important assets in our country. US doesn't have such interest over us, they already have our gov dancing along.

Our politics help to spread panic. It takes pressure away from internal problems.

Bad relationship with Russia is against our interest and it's painful self inflicting harm.
Foreign influence over us is so strong that sometimes we act as a mouthpiece of Washington to say stupid things they wouldn't dare in public. Before Ukrainian crisis, people had more positive look towards Russia.

flamming_python wrote:In all seriousness though; it's probably one of the down-syndrome sufferers from mp.net that decided to make his way here and rebrand himself.

Thats unfair to DS sufferers. Petro and his mp.net buddies are the inevitable examples of what happens when cousins marry...

AlfaT8 wrote:Expiration date: None; inspections ceased on June 1, 2001, but the Treaty remains in force and is unlimited in duration

OK, thanks for the info AlfaT8. I stand corrected!

It doesn't change the substance of what I said however. Russia should adopt an overt "attack us and we nuke you on the first day" policy, and be clear that Russia reserves the right to defend the interests of the Russian diaspora and various ethnic Russian populations around her periphery. Boost the numbers of battlefield nuclear weapons, and invest in heavy lifters (incl helicopters) to make them more mobile and quickly deployable to concealed locations on the periphery to enhance their effective coverage of Russias' extended landmass. Any decision to breakout of the INF should be based on how well the enhanced deterrence capability is understood (and respected) in the temples of HATO.

TheGeorgian wrote:

About WWII. It were not 8 friggin million German troops LOL, it were something around 3.4 - 4.5 ( latter one in mid-war period ) million, including Romanian, Italian, Finnish, Hungarian etc. More or less ~ 3 million were actual Germans. If it were 8 million troops, they would have won. Soviets had less troops, but 5 times as many tanks, aircraft and artillery. If Germans really had twice as much like you claim, the war would have been over in no time.

I have seen several sources that estimate Germans troops 8 millions in the eastern Front.. yeas there were in german army europeans too.. Wikipedia that is not accurate ... have the forces fighting for Germany on the eastern Front.. (July 1943 3,933,000 (63% in the East))   -> thats 4 million.. then you have the forces that Russia have to fight  in Berlin. Point is that the best army in the world ,who wiped all europe resistance and almost without a fight.. including UK.. could not defeat the Russians . So the most modern army in that time in the world could not defeat Russia ,who had airforce and thousands of tanks..and yet you have the ukie kid saying that NATO will relocated ISIS 100,000 fighters and that there will be no moscow.  Had Russia quit fighting.. all europe official language will be German.. and not english.. because the Americans who love to make movies of they winning the world war 2.. did not invaded germany until the Germans were defeated in eastern front and were in full retreat to Berlin. this is a fact. Russians were fighting for 3 years before americans invade.. STALIN for nothing told the americans will fight the Germans to the last blood of Russian man. and it was because they were waiting for the conditions to be IDEAL.. to join the european front.  As i told you cannot beat Russia in a Land invasion.. since they do have memories and history of fighting to the last man and defeated simply the best world Empires or armies  of its time in a land invasion that is.. yes they lost many battles ,but won the war in the end ,regardless of the tactic used.. and this is why they are the biggest nation in the world. Russia is the oldest empire in the world and is called for nothing the second Rome. And you cannot achieve that.. if for example you had an entire generation of dummies as society. ie.. if for example Russia was populated by muslins from middle east..with sunnis and shias it will be like a thousand of countries with civil wars every month in different places and not one nation. it will have been Russia like africa.. who also have a population of dummies that cannot get alone and unite to solve their problems.

You could see Russia trait for survival in hard times ,even in economy when Soviet Union collapse in 90s and they were bankrupt and in just 12-15 years they restore totally their economy and become a new economic power and a super power. Russia is an empire  but is a non destructive one.. since they promote Nations freedom and independence. and promoting peace.. of course if you attack them they will fight back. When Ukraine, Georgia ,Belarus and many other republics ,wanted their independence did what Novorosiya is doing in Ukraine (ask for independence) Did you saw Russian army used to kill thousands of civilians women and children and indiscriminately bomb cities to terrorize civilians so they do not resist? Russia even in general had relative peaceful separations from former soviet republics... Yet when people in any of those soviet former republics wants to separate too from the separatist and join Russia.. then they send Tanks and an army to kill them. In other worlds it was legal and democratic to separate from Russia ,according to the international western community, but anyone who dare to do the same. and seek their freedom and independence and freedom and move in the other direction towards Russia was called a "TERRORIST" and their army sent to kill civilians separatist ,as they are doing now in Ukraine.

in the case of Chechenia is a totally different thing.. It was infested with muslin from a dangerous faction religion that was a menace to all RUSSIA ,and who wanted to take control of chechenia to create a Jihadist muslin state..again it was very dangerous faction ,that threatened Russia nation and who rigged themselves with explosives to kill civilians ,and they were being funded by Saudi Arabia a terrorist state.. So the chechenia
separatist were real terrorist.. So it was not the same.. This is why Russia cannot welcome a Nazi state at their borders.. because is controlled by NATO and it will be a matter of time they will be used to attack Russia.

Army of Novorossije now has ballistic missiles

Army Novorossia captured first rocket launcher "Tochka-U"

Hannibal Barca wrote:Can you explain to me why?
When USA or UK destroys a country (Japan, Serbia, Germany) this country loves them. Russia left all this countries live alone and this dogs come back to bite.
I really don't get this. Probably is because Russians have no idea how to demand respect. By beating the crap out of this low lives.

Demand respect for what?
US attitude is more softer towards them. Russia acts like aggressive pimp Their foreign policy is crude like an axe. It can be done better at most times.

Serbia still hates NATO and US.

Japan hated USA for long long time. I've read plenty of books about post war Japan and their early political movements. Fascinating stuff. But americanisation and US cultural exports, rising trade curbed anti US sentiments.

Germany... I have no idea. There is not much love towards US policy, people are not anti american, but You know, they are not stupid to love it.
Western Germany was better place to live than Eastern. Democracy, western values, culture play it's part.

Russian cultural and ideological exports are rubbish. Their culture at the moment is so low now that not only it has no value, but it copies worse of what west has. I can't fricking watch Russian TV or movies anymore, I can't listen to their music. Best era of Russian culture was infact early 90 when economy was reduced to nothing.

Putin literally tells rebels to open humanitarian corridors to Ukrainian troops.
http://kremlin.ru/news/46506

So what's the point of surrounding them in the first place, Vova?
I would only let the wounded out. My bet  there would be stream of soldiers with self inflicted wounds

Regular wrote:Putin literally tells rebels to open humanitarian corridors to Ukrainian troops.
http://kremlin.ru/news/46506

So what's the point of surrounding them in the first place, Vova?
I would only let the wounded out. My bet  there would be stream of soldiers with self inflicted wounds

But they will need to leave their weapons and tanks to the Rebels..
If you look carefully at the strategy of the Novorossiya forces is to encircle the enemy in cauldrons and force them
to surrender by starving them.. This is done to avoid as many casualties as possible and have a chance for a peaceful solution to end the conflict. This also allows them to capture a lot of military hardware..something they will not have if they simply crush them and takes no prisoners.The fight is against banderas and ultra radicals that hates them.. not against normal friendly Ukrainians.

Viktor wrote:Army of Novorossije now has ballistic missiles

Two questions now come to mind...

1) Do the anti-Nazi Resistance have accurate co-ords of Kolomoiskis' Governors Residence in Dnepropetrovsk?
2) Given the 120km range of an SS-21/Tochka-U, where is the optimal firing location given the current disposition of Resistance and Nazi forces?

I'll bet a 480kg HE warhead detonating in his kitchen will give the Butcher of Odessa something to think about.  CEP might only give a a small chance of a hit, but even a near miss would be something

(Petropavlivka looks to be a nice spot to set up and light the blue touch paper....)

Vann7 wrote: But they will need to leave their weapons and tanks to the Rebels..
If you look carefully at the strategy of the Novorossiya forces is to encircle the enemy in cauldrons and force them
to surrender by starving them.. This is done to avoid as many casualties as possible and have a chance for a peaceful solution to end the conflict. This also allows them to capture a lot of military hardware..something they will not have if they simply crush them and takes no prisoners.The fight is against banderas and ultra radicals that hates them.. not against normal friendly Ukrainians.

Hopefully they do not adopt that practice when it comes to Nazi filth like Donbass, Azov and Dnepr volunteer battalions? I could not care any less about these hateful scum. They deserve to be wiped out to the very last blood-soaked rat...

Big_Gazza wrote:

Viktor wrote:Army of Novorossije now has ballistic missiles

Two questions now come to mind...

1) Do the anti-Nazi Resistance have accurate co-ords of Kolomoiskis' Governors Residence in Dnepropetrovsk?
2) Given the 120km range of an SS-21/Tochka-U, where is the optimal firing location given the current disposition of Resistance and Nazi forces?

I'll bet a 480kg HE warhead detonating in his kitchen will give the Butcher of Odessa something to think about.  CEP might only give a a small chance of a hit, but even a near miss would be something

(Petropavlivka looks to be a nice spot to set up and light the blue touch paper....)

Forget about Toscka.. Rebels should simply arrest the missiles and not use them... Give a press conference
and reveal to the media how many they captured  but also say they have no plans to use them.. because they are not very accurate and can harm civilians.  The Toscka missile could be a trap.. so that the rebels capture it and later kiev stage a false flag attack by Ukies launching a Toscha near a Rebels zone against civilians areas they control killing thousands of civilians and later blamed on rebels.. if the ukies start another false flag attack with Toscka ,the rebels can show that they have not used any of their missiles to the media. aside that Without GLonass navigation control that upgraded versions have.. they are not very useful unless fired in the many hundreds as if was Grad artillery.

Well, i came to IRC chat.. One participants told that Russia finally invaded Ukraine... Is this guy talking for real

The western propaganda industry is out in full force... Go to a single MSM site, and you will want to kill yourself! Half of the articles are "RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE" or "RUSSIAN ARMORED DIVISIONS SPOTTED IN UKRAINE" etc, it is absolutely terrible! They don't have a single piece of good evidence, but they just go ahead and spew crappy propaganda... Also, I've noticed that it has gotten a lot worse now that the "Gazprom wants Ruble and Yuan" articles have been out. - Deja vu to when Saddam jumped on the Euro, and Gaddafi the gold Dinar, except for the fact that Russia is many times more powerful than those countries combined.

Mike E wrote:The western propaganda industry is out in full force... Go to a single MSM site, and you will want to kill yourself! Half of the articles are "RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE" or "RUSSIAN ARMORED DIVISIONS SPOTTED IN UKRAINE" etc, it is absolutely terrible! They don't have a single piece of good evidence, but they just go ahead and spew crappy propaganda... Also, I've noticed that it has gotten a lot worse now that the "Gazprom wants Ruble and Yuan" articles have been out. - Deja vu to when Saddam jumped on the Euro, and Gaddafi the gold Dinar, except for the fact that Russia is many times more powerful than those countries combined.

Now for real, there are thousands of troops in Ukraine, RUSSIAN troops, the separatist leader even says he is supported by 3 to 4 thousand Russian troops!!

I believe someone mentioned this already. Yesterday the European financial markets for the first time in a while took a pretty hefty dive. Obviously someone thought it a good idea to blame everything on the Russians, so they did it by inventing an invasion. By the way, I wonder how many times do the ukies get to "cry Wolf" before the west stops taking them seriously...

As a sidenote this also demonstrates why the west is so desparate not to go into conflict with Russia. During war, the financial system always gets rattled. Now this might not be a problem for Russia, which has resource extraction at its base, or China, which focuses on production and industry, but in the west, where all the money is imaginary and has no equivalent in the real world, this causes problems. There is no gold in the banks, so the paper in our wallets is just that. I think it's a mental disability for a billion people to aggree that a disconnected piece of paper with neatly arranged ink on it has more value than toilet paper. So, when a war erupts, everyone starts shitting themselves. Unless it's a war agaisnt Iraq or Lybia, when the enemy can't hit from across the ocean.

Now for real, there are thousands of troops in Ukraine, RUSSIAN troops, the separatist leader even says he is supported by 3 to 4 thousand Russian troops!!

There are some Frenchmen too, from what I've heared. Does that mean France declared war on the Ukraine? The only difference I see is that Russia is a lot closer than France.

Feldmarszal wrote:There are some Frenchmen too, from what I've heared. Does that mean France declared war on the Ukraine? The only difference I see is that Russia is a lot closer than France.

No, but i did i say Russia declared war?
No one can deny that there are Russians in ukraine, ALOT.

TheGeorgian wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

Petro007 wrote:
....Napoleon .... WW2

Man reading this makes every historian either hurt inside or grin ....

Like you can't simply come up with "Russia defeated Napoleon - who wiped whole of Europe" just like that .... as if Russians weren't buttkicked from the European battlefield straight back to where they came from. Up until Borodino, most engagements between French and Russian Empire ended up with Russian army defeated or retreating. Borodino was a retreat too. What defeated Napoleon in the end, wasn't Russian army, but his overambitious plans, at that point he was already delusional enough to not care about his men anymore - related to Russian winter and supply shortage. Just a quarter of his original army he gathered for the invasion was present at Borodino. Half his troops defected or died by sickness. Yeah, there was some partisan action like Davydov, Kudashev etc that were constantly stinging Napoleon's army, but really that wasn't so decicive + it was mostly during their retreat. Russians would have been better off if they had someone like Suvorov leading their army ....

About WWII. It were not 8 friggin million German troops LOL, it were something around 3.4 - 4.5 ( latter one in mid-war period ) million, including Romanian, Italian, Finnish, Hungarian etc. More or less ~ 3 million were actual Germans. If it were 8 million troops, they would have won. Soviets had less troops, but 5 times as many tanks, aircraft and artillery. If Germans really had twice as much like you claim, the war would have been over in no time.

THINK...BEFORE...POST... - That should become a rule or something.

I'm not going to talk about Napoleon because that was so far in the past... Mentioning him is a joke (to all sides, not only you). Russia now cannot be compared with Russia then, plain and simple. It would be like comparing the US militia during the Revolutionary Way to their current forces, they are completely different.

Let me mention that I historically love WW2, and that I've always been fascinated with Nazi Germany (by no means a neo-Nazi). Troops had nothing to do with why Germany lost, at all. They were so focused on building "big offense" that they completely blanked out when it came to what they needed most, defense. Just look at what an idiot Hitler really was... He wanted tanks the size of small buildings, cannons the height of hills, and numbers that only the Allies could muster. In my honest opinion, German could've won the war with more preparation, smarter generals and leaders, better defense, and by not waking up the Soviet bear. Another thing to keep in mind is their bad favoritism towards weapons they didn't need. Hitler and top officials mothballed the Me 262 for ~1 year due to the success of the 109 in Poland. That one year was crucial, and would've meant a faster development, and another 700-1000 jets in the air by the end of the war. Even the now legendary Tiger tanks were a mistake, as Panthers were not only superior in most aspects, but easier to make, cheaper, and much, much more reliable (even then they were maintenance hogs compared with the Sherman's and T-34's). What could be their worst mistake when it came to their weapons, was, believe it or not, Hitlers doubts about U-boats. Earlier in the war, he wanted large and heavy surface ships, but in reality they needed more U-boats. Admiral Dörnitz eventually got top Nazi officials on board, but it was still too late. That time would've meant less money wasted, more time murdering Allied ships with their subs, and more subs in the waters. I know it may seem like the Nazis were all for the boats, but trust me when I say that wasn't true in the beginning! Anyway, back to the topic of troops. The Nationality of the troops doesn't mean thing, as long as they fit the requirements and got the same training, they would be just as good. Don't forget that the Soviets also had a mix of nationalities in the Red Army, so if it really means all that much to you..... Besides, Germany didn't have the money or resources to support many more troops, never-mind more armored divisions to back them up... The Soviets did have a larger amount of troops (I don't know how you think otherwise) and many more amor divisions, artillery divisions, and even more access to oil. Germany, for the most part, had superior weapon technology. However, their tech was often unreliable, was incapable of getting through Russian land, and was very expensive. Many people said that they should've built more numbers of smaller vehicles, but they didn't have the resources to do so. Even if they had "eight million troops", they still wouldn't of won.... WW2 showed that vehicles were the new king of the battlefield, and the Eastern Front was no exception.

To sum it up, Nazi Germany was to small a country to maintain a large empire! Troops aren't going to change that.