The Situation in the Ukraine. #10

etaepsilonk wrote:Old but gold:

Actually, I'm a bit jealous now, since those MPs are actually doing something to earn their paycheck

If you look at those videos.. the violence and the hate.. in the ukraine parliament was there long .. long before 2014 when Russia took crimea. So it should have been predictable , that there was a lot of hate in Ukraine between people in Power and that it was a reflection of the state of mind of its population and that USA will sooner or later find a way to provoke a major civil war as they did.

Regular wrote:
So wait weren't You all saying that sanctions are useless and wont do a thing against Russia?

i don't think that anyone was claiming that Sabotage to the Russian economy was impossible..Only that RUssia is far from defeated and far from a collapse and they can replace the west with the business of major emerging economies. this is the way USA gov always operate whenever a nation refuse to submit to their authority and power. If Europe had the balls to be Independent they also could start sanctions against USA and stop buying their cars ,their technology and products.. and that will have a major impact in US economy.. that said no nation in the world is immune to sanctions because economies are dependent of each other... USA advantage is that Europe is full of cowards who prefer to not oppose USA ,than to face their retaliation. Had Europe was united and a full of real mens ,with balls.. it will have been impossible for USA to do what they do in the world.. of Supporting ALqaeda and ISIS and killing millions in invasions based on fabricated reports by them. IT is the cowardice of Europe ,to face United States international crimes and the low morals of its leaders ,what have the planet on the brink of a major world war.. because Europe prefers to look to the sides ,whenever USA provoke violence civil wars  and wars ..and support terrorism.  IF europe was a land with leaders and society with morals .. they will have aligned with RUssia and Latin America and Condemn world wide USA and ISrael war crimes and illegal proxy war in Syria and Ukraine. IF Europe had morals..NATO will not exist and no US military bases anywhere in Europe..  Without Europe support ,Americans are NOTHING.. just another regional power and nothing else. Because their Navy will not even be able to travel anywhere in Europe if no nation allows them to refuel their warships. Neither their submarines will be able to move to europe without re-supply of food.  Simply without Europe support NATO cannot exist and US could lead nothing in the world and instead will have to obey international laws and become a responsible nation.  neither without Europe support ,they will have the fraudulent financial system they have created and no longer they will be able to finance any revolution anywhere since their economy will be not hyperinflated as it is thanks to the dollar world currency status.


IF europe was an independent nations with morals ..it will have been IMPOSSIBLE for Ukraine to get their fascist government and support. the right sector will have been declared a terrorist organization by United nations.. and the one under sanctions will be not Russia but Ukraine.. and best of all.. IF Europe was independent , there will be no NATO and Russia will have no need to take Crimea.. because simply Ukraine will have not been able to continue operating as a nation with a total world isolation on its economy.. USA alone will have not been able to sustain Ukraine.. So as you see the entire crap ,the world is it.. is because Europe cowardice in face tyranny and their lack of values.

Regular wrote:So wait weren't You all saying that sanctions are useless and wont do a thing against Russia?

The problem is that there is NO real sanction against Russia at all.

What the West has been doing is something like forbidding Putin and his allies to go to the West or some sanction agaisnt military cooperation. In short, all are bullshit

There is no way the West can seriously put a sanction against Russia. Because EU have to import oil and gas from Russia. Rocket engine for satellite and spaceship are still exporting to the West. Much of EU's farm products have to be sold to Russia. And so on and so forth.

In very short description, trading between the West and Russia is damn considerable that no one in the West dares to put a serious sanction on Russia. Will Russia be damaged ? Sure. But the West will also suffered 10 times more.

We have already seen that EU countries one by one are protesting against the "sanctions" although these are even not serious sanctions... So basically you cannot defeat Russia by economical war.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Kyo wrote:

Vann7 wrote:
Those are old videos..from a day or two..of how they took the airport.. already the Rebels got the control of all the airport.

Right-o! Next stop: Mariupol!

Then Kherson, after that Mykolaiv, and finally Odessa.

I don't think Russia is interested to annex those territories.. and have to deal with Banderas unrest every week.
Ukraine needs to be won either through peace negotiations and that they recognize Donetsk and Lugansk as fully autonomous regions..   Or that Ukraine economy collapse on its own..and they split in many autonomous republics..
the army will stop fighting to control easter ukraine if they are not paid and their government collapse.

Instead the new fight will be for the creation of more republics.. the Odessa Republic will be one.. the Kharkiv  republic Another and mariupol will join Donetsk. and western Ukraine will create their own republic. etc

The new Russia.. ideally will happen once there is peace and through a referendum . using politics and not guns.

This is why USA is on a crusade to sabotage Russia economy more than ever.. because it will be very dangerous for US global empire [b] if Russia becomes very prosperous nation ,after they took Crimea it will influence Ukrainians in all parts of Ukraine significantly into the Russian orbit.. if they notice for example that Crimeans salaries are 3x times or 4x times higher than theirs.. and that there are jobs and that there is progress and way more benefits.  IF Russia becomes wealthy nation.. they will conquer Ukraine without firing a shot.. the crimean way.. Crimea did it not for money.. because they feel more closer to Russia.. but the rest of all Ukraine for money and a better future will ally with anyone.. in the end a dinner plate everyday for your family ,weights more than any flag or nationalism.

That said.. more than ever.. Russia have a HUGE opportunity more than ever.. to conquer Ukraine without firing a single shot.  And that is with their economical progress and better quality of life with technology progress.  Even something like landing on the moon ,really landing on the moon..  and creating a moon base.. will have Ukrainians in awe.. and they will want to join Russia and be part of a leading nation in technology and space exploration. This will also make all Ukrainians scientist to want to move to Russia. IF Ukraine Joins Russia it will trigger a chain reaction and Belarussians will say me too and maybe kazakistan too.  

In short Russia needs to conquer Ukraine and all others important former soviet republics , through its own nation economic progress and nation development. People likes always to be on the winning team with the leading economies.

Massive bomb blast in Odessa, looks like the party has just begun. Like I said instability is coming towards Odessa:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Massive bomb blast in Odessa, looks like the party has just begun. Like I said instability is coming towards Odessa:

What is being claimed?

Probably this was the cause if that explosion
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/26025869/booby-trapped-honey-jar-kills-ukrainian-soldier/
Talking about honey traps:D

Now we know how seps captured airport so quickly

Putin + M4 = WIN
I puts and end to those AK74 VS M4 discussions.

Regular wrote:Putin + M4 = WIN
I puts and end to those AK74 VS M4 discussions.

Who knows, maybe he was infiltrating the terminal disguised as UA soldier?

etaepsilonk wrote:Now we know how seps captured airport so quickly

Naw! It's just resemblance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3jxzhWwF1k

Again Zakharchenko

Can anyone translate what are they saying?
1:12 interesting weapon could be seen.

Holy shit.

What am I looking at right now? Ammo rack sent that turret flying?

Mike E wrote:What am I looking at right now? Ammo rack sent that turret flying?

The penetration must have been strong enough to set that ammo exploding at same time, forcing that turret onto a support beams pretty high up.

Yes to both.

Damn. T-64 crews should be issued with parachutes.

How much more old junk are the Ukies going to chuck into the fray?

They're trying to beat Russians with Russian weapons. And old Russian/Soviet weapons at that. Somebody ought to tell these clowns that with such a plan - they already lost.

If they had T-90s in that situation, the result would not have been much different honesty.

T-64 is outdated, but then again so is the workhorse of the Russian army, the T-72B.

The T-72 also has vulnerable ammunition from the side. Yes, it is smaller, no, it is not a giant difference.

In combat we have seen T-72s torn apart and blowing up left and right as well.
The difference in survivability is not nearly as great as you make it out to be. Do I really need to post photos from something as recent as Georgia, when T-72 turret flew dozens of yards away upon ammo detonation?

If the T-64 is a deathtrap, then so is the T-72, only slightly less so.

TR1 wrote:The T-72 also has vulnerable ammunition from the side. Yes, it is smaller, no, it is not a giant difference.

In combat we have seen T-72s torn apart and blowing up left and right as well.
The difference in survivability is not nearly as great as you make it out to be. Do I really need to post photos from something as recent as Georgia, when T-72 turret flew dozens of yards away upon ammo detonation?

If the T-64 is a deathtrap, then so is the T-72, only slightly less so.

Of course TR1 why not tell us about the powerful American Tanks how they are "so safe". and not a deathtrap. and much better than Russian tanks in security.. there are tons of photos how a single Rpg-7 can wipe the tank and its crew inside..when hit from the rear or the sides..

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUvoaD6Vnkg



meanwhile more news..
Apparently TR1 lovely kiev junta that USA sponsor and is now is giving permission to commanders to shoot
their own soldiers if they refuse to fight..   When was the last time i heard it was legal to do something
like that? Stalin? Hitler?  

http://en.voicesevas.ru/news/yugo-vostok/3371-roundup-of-novorossia-for-january-16-17.html

albeit this is not new that was happening already since the first weeks the war began.. just that now is an official
USA/Kiev policy.

Roundup of Novorossia for January 16-17.
1. Last night northern part of the city Gorlovka suffered another shelling.
2. During a visit to the airport of Donetsk DPR head Alexander Zakharchenko urged President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko come and pick the banner of Ukraine.
3. The Ministry of Defence of Donetsk People's Republic declared full control over the airport in Donetsk and the surrounding area.
4. The Ukrainian side wrecked the contact group talks on the crisis in Donbass.
5. Ukrainian MPs propose to provide the buy-off of military service by the country's legislation.
6. The AFU Unit commanders may get the right to shoot their soldiers in case of disobedience.
7. Weapons and drugs were imported to Kiev's Independence Square in fall and winter of last year from abroad.
8. A series of explosions echoed throughout Kiev-controlled territories.
9. During the session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Radical Party leader Oleg Lyashko scattered chairman of NBU with dollar bills.

I was just talking about the T-64 vs the T-72, you are the one bringing in the US like an idiot.

And yes, the M1 has a safer ammo arrangement than either T-72 or T-64, as far as crew survival is concerned. Deal with it.

Can anyone translate what are they saying?
1:12 interesting weapon could be seen.

Looks like an AKS-74U with a modified foregrip that has mounts on top for that scope.

The T-64/T-80 and T-72 are very similar in terms of crew safety if both have ammo in the crew compartment.

If both only have ammo in the autoloader there is a world of difference and they are not even comparable.

If you want to bring up the Abrams it actually has 8 rounds stored in the crew compartment too so if you want to be picky it is no safer than either the T-64 and T-72 in terms of safety... there would be little difference between the turret flying 30m with 40 rounds exploding in a T series tank and the turret not flying very far at all but 8 rounds going off at one time... the turret flight distance is irrelevant as in either case the entire crew would be dead.

Removing the ammo from the crew compartment doesn't really make the T-64 or T-80 safer, it makes the T-72 much safer because to get the ammo to explode you actually have to hit it and in real combat despite modern fire control systems the ability to hit a specific point on a tank simply does not exist... otherwise all tanks would be vulnerable simply shoot them through the apature where their main gun is positioned.

If the T-72 is still vulnerable because the ammo in the autoloader could be specifically targeted then the exposed bustle of the Abrams is rather more exposed yet does not seem to be the most hit part of the vehicle.

The reality of the situation is that T-72s and T-64s and T-80s are terribly vulnerable to enemy fire if they have ammo in the crew compartment. Sensible crews in T-72s will only carry 22 rounds in the autoloader and enjoy much better safety in the combat area... the tank is not invulnerable, but the crew will be much safer... the same way despite being much more exposed the turret bustle on the Abrams makes the Abrams much safer for the crew too.

TR1 wrote:The T-72 also has vulnerable ammunition from the side. Yes, it is smaller, no, it is not a giant difference.

In combat we have seen T-72s torn apart and blowing up left and right as well.
The difference in survivability is not nearly as great as you make it out to be. Do I really need to post photos from something as recent as Georgia, when T-72 turret flew dozens of yards away upon ammo detonation?

If the T-64 is a deathtrap, then so is the T-72, only slightly less so.

From the second Chechen war it was clear, that T-72 is quite safe tank, if it have ammo only in autoloader and no spare rounds in the turret, which blow the turret away.