BBC Says Russia has invaded the Ukraine (10th time)

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: victor7

Syria just asked for more "advanced" weapons, only one problem with that, Russia can`t send in too much of their latest weapons because the information regrading them might fall into Western hands leaving Russia vulnerable when being attacked itself later on.

Dont think the west is worried about Russian tech there at least two decades behind the west in military tech. Now if you made the argument China i might agree the Chinese need anything they can get from the Russians and trust me they will be dying to get a chance to pilfer and re manufacture Russian tech. This is why they keep buying stuff from Ukraine for example.

The Russians are behind in certain aspects but not in all.

Especially looking at missile technology (Iskander, R-77 missile, Bulava, Topol-M, etc.)

They have top notch anti-air systems, S-400 and S-500, and anti-ship missiles.

And the other things to look out for is radar and jamming systems.

And here some more...

Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear

Source

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Every time the Dutch MH17 investigators want to search the crash site Kiev starts with this BS.

And yet the separatists are the ones who control that area so why haven't they allowed the investigators the ability to do their jobs?

They have from the beginning, but every time the Dutch investigators were ready to go out Kiev started to attack or shell the crash site and we (the Dutch) could read it was to dangerous at the moment. That has been ongoing from right after the disaster. But the Separatist have every time been given full corporation and gave as much protection as they could.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Only problem is well its only stealthy from head on and second problem is even than still has a 3 foot cross section. Granted 20 years ago that would have been good. But by todays standards its a sitting duck. F-22 will be able to spot T-50 from 56 nautical miles away while T-50 has to get close to within 15 nm to find F-22 for example. provided they went to narrow band and actually knew where it was coming from unlikely scenario since im sure US pilots arent going to make it that easy so most likely there first indication will be missile launch. within say 6 nm at that point the Russian pilot has 2 seconds to respond mid course correction will have occurred 1 second after launch results Russian pilot down. Biggest problem is they wont come on line for another 6 years are already at a disadvantage. Than of course there was the tests by India they failed miserably to the point India backed out . Meaning the claims of reduced cross section and engine performance were way over rated.

Chalk this up as even worse waist of money than the f35 because despite all the money wasted on f35s they will eventually meet or exceed their stats on the other hand the T50 is really a fourth generation fighter with a better avionics package but sill behind western standards.

a reply to: dragonridr

YEP and if not for the german technology stolen in 1945, we would still be throwing rocks...

NATO would still win conventional (but it won`t stay that, it will go nuclear for sure), but even conventional Russia can`t be defeated quickly.

I`m sure Russia can take out satellites and EMP weapons will also be used.

There`s a good change Russia will use Iskander Missiles and target NATO Bases in Eastern Europe, and also could resort to tactical nukes to take out ships and NATO bases right from the get go in a massive first attack if attacked. And the change it could explode nuclear even further after that is of course huge.

For anyone interested in why it would be a different ball game for NATO to take on Russia as to the technical inferior opponents which they have been taken on conventional for decades, here`s some more :

Bad News for U.S. Warplane Pilots: Russia’s New Dogfighting Missile Can’t Miss

Link

Here`s some more about the Iskander and some other things :

Five Russian Weapons of War NATO Should Fear

Link

So with possible forward NATO bases being wrecked and ships not being able to get close to Russia, a quick victory won`t happen. Take in Russia has ICBM`s which just as the Iskander can change direction in flight and direct war with Russia is simply not such a good idea, even apart from it going nuclear.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
NATO would still win conventional (but it won`t stay that, it will go nuclear for sure), but even conventional Russia can`t be defeated quickly.

I`m sure Russia can take out satellites and EMP weapons will also be used.

There`s a good change Russia will use Iskander Missiles and target NATO Bases in Eastern Europe, and also could resort to tactical nukes to take out ships and NATO bases right from the get go in a massive first attack if attacked. And the change it could explode nuclear even further after that is of course huge.

For anyone interested in why it would be a different ball game for NATO to take on Russia as to the technical inferior opponents which they have been taken on conventional for decades, here`s some more :

Bad News for U.S. Warplane Pilots: Russia’s New Dogfighting Missile Can’t Miss

Link

Here`s some more about the Iskander and some other things :

Five Russian Weapons of War NATO Should Fear

Link

So with possible forward NATO bases being wrecked and ships not being able to get close to Russia, a quick victory won`t happen. Take in Russia has ICBM`s which just as the Iskander can change direction in flight and direct war with Russia is simply not such a good idea, even apart from it going nuclear.

Yes they could as long as they took first strike problem is even tactical nukes is still going to set off a nuclear war. They would have to keep it conventional to avoid nukes. If it did come to blows it would be a game of risk NATO wouldnt go into conventional warfare they would have to strike at Russia's nuclear capabilities immediately. Bring as its unlikely they could destroy them all i cant fathom a scenario where nukes wouldnt fly.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
NATO would still win conventional (but it won`t stay that, it will go nuclear for sure), but even conventional Russia can`t be defeated quickly.

I`m sure Russia can take out satellites and EMP weapons will also be used.

There`s a good change Russia will use Iskander Missiles and target NATO Bases in Eastern Europe, and also could resort to tactical nukes to take out ships and NATO bases right from the get go in a massive first attack if attacked. And the change it could explode nuclear even further after that is of course huge.

For anyone interested in why it would be a different ball game for NATO to take on Russia as to the technical inferior opponents which they have been taken on conventional for decades, here`s some more :

Bad News for U.S. Warplane Pilots: Russia’s New Dogfighting Missile Can’t Miss

Link

Here`s some more about the Iskander and some other things :

Five Russian Weapons of War NATO Should Fear

Link

So with possible forward NATO bases being wrecked and ships not being able to get close to Russia, a quick victory won`t happen. Take in Russia has ICBM`s which just as the Iskander can change direction in flight and direct war with Russia is simply not such a good idea, even apart from it going nuclear.

Yes they could as long as they took first strike problem is even tactical nukes is still going to set off a nuclear war. They would have to keep it conventional to avoid nukes. If it did come to blows it would be a game of risk NATO wouldnt go into conventional warfare they would have to strike at Russia's nuclear capabilities immediately. Bring as its unlikely they could destroy them all i cant fathom a scenario where nukes wouldnt fly.

a reply to: dragonridr

Exactly, so it`s ridiculous to not try and work things out political, but I`m afraid that ship has passed with Russia not trusting anything anymore coming from the West.

Russia, China and Iran are now dead set into destroying the Petrodollar because of Western policies, with the West possibly only leaving the solution into going into full scale war in the not so near future.

If the Petrodollar dies, US won`t be able to pay for their soldiers at the almost 600 military base it has, and the moment that happens all hell will also break lose.

So one way or another, it will come.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
Russia, China and Iran are now dead set into destroying the Petrodollar because of Western policies, with the West possibly only leaving the solution into going into full scale war in the not so near future.

The petrodollar is just the sale of oil, so there is confusion in your use of the term. Besides, there is no endemic evidence that China, Russia and Iran are trying to stop the use of dollars when trading in oil, even if they come to local arrangements. Even if there was a concerted policy, I fail to see how that would logically lead to war.

War between US and Russia won't happen, no matter how many people try to predict it. It's a ridiculous proposition that comes unstuck when you consider the difficulty in actually persuading NATO members to join in. No on is going to expend military energy fighting for Ukraine. This particular tiff will is fought at an economic level and Russia is (with a GDP the size of Italy) totally outclassed.

Regards

a reply to: paraphi

Here`s some more about the Petrodollar and the attack on it, and see the vid I posted about how the Petrodollar works:

Link

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I know what the petrodollar is. Talk of the dollars collapse and the imminent demise of all civilisation etc., has been going on by some politicians for the last few years. The dollar is still there.

However, in your own words... How does Russia, China and Iran trading in their own currencies for oil and gas (which they do anyway) lead to a war with Russia. You made the statement, you explain. In your own words, mind.

Regards

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Given the state of Russia's economy and the free fall collapse of the Ruble I don't think Russia is in any condition to attack the dollar, especially when Russians are converting their rubles into US dollars and Euros.

Iran is still under sanctions from the nuclear issues and is in no position to mount an economic war on the US.

China is currently seeing some severe economic issues popping up in their economy, with a decline in industrial fabrication. The Chinese banking system is trying to unload debt in a manner that will cause businesses to collapse and lose access to funding.

While all 3 nations have discussed wanting a new reserve currency / petro currency the fact they ignore is the US dollar is not the only currency used. The Euro an the Canadian dollar have been used in a similar manner.

So I am not quite sure why people want to single out the US dollar and try to argue its the only currency in use because its clear it is not.

a reply to: paraphi

If you have you seen the vid about what it means if the (Petro)dollar loses its status as the World currency, you also know what happens.

And regarding to your earlier post about Russia needing to sell its gas to Europe badly, they just lay the groundwork for another pipeline to China.

Source

OSCE Detects Unidentified Heavy Weaponry Convoys, Tanks in DPR

MOSCOW, November 9 (RIA Novosti) - The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine has observed unidentified convoys of heavy weapons and tanks on the territory controlled by the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DPR), a report published on the mission's official website stated.

"The SMM observed convoys of heavy weapons and tanks. At the time of reporting, the SMM could hear heavy, outgoing shelling to the north and northwest of the city's outskirts," the mission's report read Saturday.

Source

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: VirusGuard

It does not take a year to workout if a plane was shoot down by 30mm cannon from a SU-25 or hit by a missile

Please support this statement with a specific case, then explain how the operators of the missile or aircraft can be determined from the wreckage alone.

its very easy because 30mm cannon leaves little round holes about 30.5mm in size as they enter the plane and a bigger mess on the other side as they exit.

Does not take years to know if someone was shoot or stabbed and its the same with flight MH17 without a long post-mortem because it did not fall out the sky due to an internal heart attack and if it was a missile then the residue of the missile would be all over the wreckage and a simple swab would show this.

Maybe you are having trouble understanding this because some paid puppet on the CNN/BBC says otherwise but I think lots of 30mm holes would indicate cannon fire and that's with or without ten phd's helping you.

You mean this is going to be a major detour off tpic.

I don't mind going off topic to correct your mistakes

Germany was the first country to put a man made object (V2 rocket) in space. The man who created that rocket eventually went to work for NASA. The United States technically put men in space first, thanks to the X-15 rocket plane. The Soviet Union's early successes were due to their disrtegard for human life.

No he went to work for the USA and joined NASA Later after using mass slave labour from death camps to build the V2 Rockets, a total "disrtegard for human life" from a war criminal.

So according to you Russia was not the first man to put a man in space because they have a "disrtegard for human life" so this put the USA in pole position for using a war criminal to put a man in space ? You would use any excuse and to be frank they are not washing.

I think that if you do your sums then you will find that the USA has lost many times more people in space then the Russians but I guess with you that must be down to secret KGB black ops.

China was the first to shoot one of its own satellites down using rockets after it stopped working but low and behold uncle sam felt so threatened that it had to shoot down a perfectly good satellite a few weeks later.

The reason that Russia is ahead of the USA when it comes to rockets was because they could not develop lightweight nukes, hence the need for big rockets to deliver them to the USA about 55 years ago but today with Russia being a more peace loving nation (Not attacking everyone like the USA) these rockets will be used to feed the US crew aboard the ISS after a US rocket blew up the other week because the NASA contractors had made modifications to some old 1960's Russian rocket engines and got it wrong.

a reply to: victor7

field medicals etc. are not very popular in Russian army. As seen "several times" by Ukrainian army experience in Donbass, soldiers have been left to fend for themselves without food, water or medical care.

Kiev does not care even about its own men let alone the Nazi party fools fighting along side them in the east of the Ukraine but that's not to say that Russia treats it own men in the same way.

The Rebels/freedom fighters/Home defenders in the east might be using old Russian equipment they seized from loyal units in the area but they won't have any field hospitals or anything like that and yet they are still able to put up quite a fight against a country that is receiving support from NATO/USA

I think the jury is out about needing well trained forces to win a fight judging by the advances of ISIS against American trained troupes in Iraq that cost a fortune in American tax payers money to train and when it comes down to man on man fighting with guns then a major factor is not the weapon but more a question of who will put their neck on the line.

In this respect I would put the Russians ahead of the USA because 80% of the population are behind Putin and VETs in the USA are being treated as dog dirty even with the massive amount of money that the USA spends on its war machine.

Trouble is how are you going to fight them tank stealth units that Kiev keep seeing and even if you mange to "Blow up a division of tanks" as reported by CNN/BBC when these tanks have the abilities to vaporize into thin air after being blown to bits, never to be seen again.

Yes someone is putting out a lot of propaganda and it's not Russia Today

9 May , dude on the scene youtu.be... said the militia squeezed off Nazis in Slovyansk 2 installation hail ( grad ) look at the reaction of the people . Russian government did nothing for military assistance to Novorossia only private donations including I made a modest contribution. And what did you do against fascism ate a hamburger?

a reply to: VirusGuard

its very easy because 30mm cannon leaves little round holes about 30.5mm in size as they enter the plane and a bigger mess on the other side as they exit.

Does not take years to know if someone was shoot or stabbed and its the same with flight MH17 without a long post-mortem because it did not fall out the sky due to an internal heart attack and if it was a missile then the residue of the missile would be all over the wreckage and a simple swab would show this.

You don't seem to understand what I asked. I didn't want your opinion of what might be possible, I want you to provide a case study drawn from real life wherein aviation investigators were able to distinguish between missile shrapnel and machine gun fire. Also, provide a table from a textbook indicating how long it takes "residue" from a missile exposed to the elements to decay, and what sort of "swab" would be used. If you can provide this information, we can settle the question based on facts. If you can't....

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well I must say well done, your post is not quite as one sides and bias as usual

Russia is in any condition to attack the dollar, especially when Russians are converting their rubles into US dollars and Euros.

Yes this is true and I would do the same but you seem to forget that most of the time they are dumping the fiat $USD and buying rubbles or gold plus converting $$$ into property gambles abroad so you are only showing one side of the coin.

The drop in the ruble along with the drop in oil prices still mean that they get about the same number of rubbles per barrel of oil which might explain this drop.

Now if we turn our attentions to debt then its a different game and the USA is up to its neck in debt and Russia has little debt so given a war then some of the American debt will be called in so the balance would soon be restored.

Being poor has some advantages in war if what you say is true and Russia is on its last legs like do you want to play chicken with your nice new top of the range car against my old beat up lemon ? Didn't think so.

This Ukraine crisis is a result of the BRICKS creating a $100bn fund and corrupt international criminal bankers can only do so much before it shoots itself in the foot like Exxon, Bp, Shell getting a kicking as oil prices drop and they are all drilling in Russia might I also add.

China has already knocked the USA into second place when it comes to GDP and that's without taking into account that $1.20 would buy you a meal in China so the USA needs to accept its fall from grace or be ready to use its nukes and trade Washington for St Petersburg

Gorbachoff made a speech yesterday about tearing down the berlin wall (Yes it did take two sides to agree) 25 years ago and you would do well to listen to his speech on the current state of play.

a reply to: DJW001

I want you to provide a case study drawn from real life wherein aviation investigators were able to distinguish between missile shrapnel and machine gun fire.

That's easy just watch any old discovery channel film from the second world war !

OK if I must



The first one (looks odd) with its nose glued to the ground and tail sticking out in the air was not shoot down by a Russian made S-300, take it from me, I have a way of knowing these things without the need for an investigation.

Turn the volume up people, the music is good on this one.

They knew what got shot down by AA or Air to Air combat or a missile within days all them years ago and residue from chemical based explosives are as easy to test in hour, not years as is measuring the calibre of cannon fire that leaves a row of holes in the metal skin of the planes like MH17.

if my TV does not switch on because someone throws a brick through it then I don't need an electronics engineer from LG taking six weeks to tell me why my TV does not work but might except this if the TV stopped working due to an internal component going wrong. Flight MH17 was not brought down by an internal fault !

I didn't want your opinion of what might be possible

Wot like 30mm cannon fire leaves 30.5mm little rows of holes ?

No mate what you don't want is to be made to face the truth.