Merkel Apparently Fears Devastating Defeat of the Ukrainian Army

Thinking on this a bit more.

Are they? Care to point out how?

And your point is? PLS note that Gen Breedloves assessement is his and is not a statement of the official US position.

And in the mean time we have things like discussed here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32526595?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AMorning%20Brief&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign

I certainly don't see them distancing themselves that much from the US position.

 

I know right! An entire Russian invasion and it can't advance passed Donbas region. Man these Russians better get their act together!

So a Western backed coupe overthrew a corrupt but democratically elected pro Russian govt (recognized by the international community) resulting in the division a nation is Putins fault?

As for Crimea... It was fine before the coupe and even after the "Orange Revolution"......

Ahhh, I do enjoy a good debate old friend. The "Ukrainian patriots" exist only in the west? Are the Ukrainians in the East NOT patriots?
Do they not have the right to defend their rights? What seems to be the disconnect is that the newly elected govt whom the East had nothing to do with; instead of nagotiating essentially threw every pro Yanukovich supporter/pro Russian diplomat out off parliament and then sent in the military. After the tragedy in Odessa the East armed themselves. Believe it or not, Ukrainian military hardware is not only in the Western part of the country and not every soldier in the former Ukrainian military sided with the new govt. the weapons obtained by the so called rebels was actually easily. In many cases by simply raiding supply depots which were now guarded by former soldiers who now became rebels. The "rebels" didn't march on Kiev, Kiev marched on them.

As for the Neo Nazis (radicals) they do exist and possess large numbers, hold positions in very high places and supported by powerful individuals. This must not be ignored nor brushed off.

http://rt.com/news/250905-polish-general-rejects-ukrane/

Now I am quite aware with your skepticism of RT but I assure you, this conversation occurred and RT provides a link. Yes it's in Polish (Polish newspaper) but one can you google translate to decode

The irony is two fold... First, the majority of Western Ukrainian nationalist come from what used to be Galicia (Poland) prior to 1939. The second is the fact that the biggest supporter and "bank" of these radicals is a man named Kalamoisky, who's Jewish....

I never said Russians weren't in Ukraine. I said Russia did not invade Ukraine.

Never said that either lwd. The sanctions did in fact hurt Russian economy but not indefinitely. What I did say was that Russia is going to be just fine.

I'm not the only one who thinks so.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/russian-financial-rally

 

Gen Breelove is (I believe) the highest ranking U.S. officer in NATO. For someone of his stature to make such a provocative statement at a press conference without the full knowledge and support of his govt is simply in conceivable.

Here is the German stance....
http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-1022193.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=https://www.google.com/

Here is just one of many OSCE reports

http://www.osce.org/om/153171

Here is a question? How can US and her allies have such a rift in intelligence without the other knowing on such a matter?

I can not comment on the IRC as I have not read up on it but I do find it bizarre that "help" would be refused...

As for NATO members boycotting May 9th parade is no surprise. What IS surprising is that not only is China attending but actually sending female military personnel to march along with Russian troops!!!!

 

While I agree with the latter it has obviously been Putin's intent to keep the invasion limited enough that there was at least some plausibility to his denials, even if it was only to those who are limited to his propaganda based "news" services or wished to support his position even though it was questionable at best.

First of all there was no "coupe". And yes events leading up to the loss of support and confidence in their previous leader were to a large extent Putin's fault.

Ah so that's why Russia chose to invade it.

*** have to combine some quotes and responses here due to the quoting limits ***

There are indeed Ukrainian patriots in the eastern part of the Ukraine although many have been pushed out of rebel controlled territories. As for the rebels some may indeed be patriots but they are clearly not Ukrainian patriots and indeed my be best described as Russian wannabe patriots.





Things could have been solved peacefully without the Russian provocations. Russian and the separatist forces it supported forced the violence that doesn't count as "defending their rights". Had all or even most of the peaceful avenues been explored then it might have been justified but that clearly wasn't going to lead to the result Putin wanted.
Russian diplomat out off parliament and then sent in the military. After the tragedy in Odessa the East armed themselves.

I'm sure that's how some of the weapons were procured. Not sure how relevant it is though.



That is a very twisted view of what happened. The separatist may have been concentrated in the east but there were still many non separatist in that region (indeed from what I've read the separatist were a distinct minority). It was the duty of the national government (which is responsible for the nation not just Kiev) to support them and oppose the separatist.

I've never doubted that there were Neo Nazis in the Ukraine. How many of them there are and what positions they hold is an interesting question. Right now though they are less of a problem than the Russians are.



Actually nothing there looked unreasonable at all. Not quite sure what your point is though.

But it is pretty clear from the evidence to hand that you are wrong. At least if you consider an invasion to be the troops of one country entering the another and takeing part in combat operations against that country at the behest of their own.

That was in reference to some of Bund's comments earlier on.

Perhaps or perhaps not. A lot depends on what Russia does. I've seen prognostications both ways. If however oil remains low and Putin keeps doing things that provoke more sanctions I don't think the picture is all that rosy for Russia.

 

Perhaps to you. It's pretty clear though that he doesn't have the full support of the US government or there would have been action to suit his words. US military officers have been very outspoken in the past and will be so in the future.

So they don't like what the general is saying. Washington hasn't exactly been thrilled with Merkel either. Are the positions really diverging though and if so who is diverging from who?

And your point is? Of course the Russians aren't going to flaunt their troop movements into the Ukraine and making sure there are reports like this are an important part of maintaining the illusion such as it is.

I'd be surprised if there weren't some significant differences in a case like this. Not all sources are shared and not all analysts think alike. Especially when an effort has been made to confuse the issue and especially when politicians want to put their own spin on things. It may even be that the estimates are not all that far apart. Some of the US ones I've seen were worded such that they sounded like high end estimates (words like "as many as" and "up to") where the other estimates may have been most likely or minimum estimates. At this point it's really hard to tell as lintel stuff is kept pretty close hold.

Didn't suggest it would be a surprise but it also indicates a distinct antipathy towards Putin's actions.

Why do you find that surprising? I certainly don't.

 

There may be more to that than I thought. See:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htworld/articles/20150505.aspx

 

It's not just that, at all. There are many other considerations.

1) You want people to gain experience.

2) You want to share the experience around amongst quite a variety of different units, using unit specific equipment and/or tactics.

3) The purpose isn't to crush and occupy the Ukraine, but to destabilize the region enough. A Russian Full Spectrum Conflict with a distinct goal.

"...the important point is that Russia, unlike other actors, can subordinate everything from media broadcasts and oil extortion, to intelligence operations and conventional means to the same political goal."


it goes on further:

"...the intrinsic link between Russian foreign policy and regime security. The current regime is dependent on restrictions of democratic procedure and free speech. The Western claim to legitimacy, with democracy promotion and human rights at the core, are thus at odds with the Russian political system and perceived as little less than subversive realpolitik couched in moral terms.This is Russia’s interpretation of the color revolutions: Western psychological manipulation of individuals, societal institutions, and states. This is why Gerasimov’s statement that non-military means are four times as important than military means is relevant. This is also why he believes that the boundary between war and peace is disappearing. The perception in Russia is that the West has become so effective at this ‘new’ warfare that non-military means and new technologies are the weapon of choice rather than traditional means. The oft-repeated phrase in Russian military theory, echoed by President Putin himself, is these methods will be as effective as nuclear weapons, but more morally acceptable.

 

Did y'all see all the new weaponry they have now? A lot of money being spent. The Russians are doing a Reagan.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3067609/Putin-unveils-new-Russian-tank-1993-powerful-gun-huge-arsenal-sophisticated-military-hardware.html

Gordon started a thread on Russia's new tank. Same link

 

Wonder how much of that fits in the same boat as the T-50:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20150421.aspx
Or the S-1000
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20150107.aspx

 

And no-one's gone apeshit yet.
God, I miss the Good Old Days....

 

Please tell me Historian did not just go and jinx it

 

Ha!

 

What's latin for "Be careful what you wish for"? Might adopt it as me new motto.

 

I like the Urq.

If oil was 100$/ barrel, wonder if Russia would be acting the way it is.
Imma blame KSA, just for conversations sake.
Why is oil at 55ish a barrel?
Canada secretly hopes Iran does something stupid in the Straight of Hormuz, so oil goes up to where it should be.

People complain about MMGlobal warming...But 55bucks for a barrel of oil is ok...Tax the hell out of it.
Look at Norway and how much they pay per litre of gas. It is mostly tax.

 

Hell no keep oil prices down, They historically have been around $25-$30 a barrel when accounting for inflation.

Oil is actually meant top be at it's current price of not lower, The only thing that is keeping the prices up is the internal strife in Libya, Conflict in Yemen, embargo on Iran and the conflict in the Ukraine.

 

Norway has rediculous prices on everything, from McDonalds, to Oil, to bananas and cheese. And it's not just due to tax. It's the glut of oil money.

 

Here ya go....http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3071828/Not-quite-terrifying-weapon-Putin-hoping-Russia-s-new-state-art-tank-BREAKS-unveiled-time-military-chiefs-t-manage-tow-away.html

 

The T-14 is just a lot of hype. Nothing about the tank is all the new or ground breaking but rather a lot of tech that is already existing that can be just as easily fitted to other MBT's.

As to the range of the gun, Well what I'd like to know is is this proven, how accurate and what sort of muzzle velocity does it have? If the accuracy is crap then the range is pointless and if the muzzle velocity is too low then it is only really effective against stationary targets.

The only thing it has going for it is the single platform concept that would be quite effective logistically if they can have them not breaking down