Putin reminds West of nuclear power, while asserting Russia's position on Ukraine

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Iraqi proficiency with Russian weapon, tanks mainly, really wasn't a factor against our anti tank weapons and tanks. It wouldn't have mattered if they had been Russian troops with top tanks, some of which were used by the Iraqis on behalf of the Russians for a live fire test. Our anti tank air platforms can see and fire on Russian tanks so far out that the Russians, after their radar has been destroyed by same, cant even see them. Hard to overcome those sort of tactical advantages.

And the Russians really haven't upgraded enough to counter this factor.

Does anyone who debate these issues have any military experience?

First, proficiency and training does play a large factor. There are denial and deception tactics and strategies (camouflage and decoys for example) which has fooled the U.S. in the past (in the Gulf War as well), there are formations and movement patterns, techniques, tactics, and strategies...all designed to limit casualties in that manner.

Yes I have plenty of military experience. You don't sound like you do nor do you sound like much of a student of modern warfare.

"In the Gulf War as well"? We destroyed quite an impressive array of hardware and mechanized unites, the 5th largest such army in the world at that time. They were simply obliterated. The whole of our primary armor unit, the Big Red 1 didn't suffer a single fatal casualty in the entire 1 week, LOL, campaign.

I never once said we didn't obliterate Iraqi forces, I said comparing Iraq to Russia is downright foolish. Denial and deception has successfully been used against the U.S. in the Gulf War, in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq by the way.

I would like to have this understanding of warfare that you do to be so confident that the U.S. would beat Russia hands down when our own military leadership doesn't. Please, enlighten me on modern warfare. Should I brush up on full spectrum dominance, information superiority, weapons systems (some of which I monitored as they were tested), or space based systems? Should I have an understanding how modern warfare depends so entirely on systems that it matters none if the correct nodes are taken out (say satellites, relay bases, etc)?

originally posted by: GargIndia
a reply to: Logarock

Bluster is not a replacement of results. The military victory in Iraq and Afghanistan were impressive but what happened thereafter was not.

However problem is that your adversaries have learnt from your war performance. They have built weapons since to fight effectively with your armies.

You cannot count on your past victories anymore.

Soon time will come when your aircraft carriers will no more look formidable as several go down in a single day. The smart people avoid such eventualities and not resort to bluster.

It is time to realize the limits of your military power. There is no benefit of causing pain to your own population and to others just for ego of some elite.

LOL. This sounds like something from a Gold Finger type James Bound movie.

What I'd like to know and haven't answered satisfactorily yet is which came first, the Ukrainian pro-russian rebels, or the Russian support for the pro-russian rebels? Anyone know?

I've made several posts in the past showing my disagreement over Russia's actions in Ukraine, including its invasion of Crimea and now its aide and assistance to the eastern Ukrainian pro-russian rebels. I believe it's breaching the sovereignty of Ukraine, and any actions by Russian in Ukraine should have followed clear oppression of the pro-russian Ukrainians, NOT preceded it. Having followed it, this could have coincided with Un support if it was shown human rights had been grossly violated.

However, I do believe if the roles were reversed and the US was Russia and had a neighbor wherein there were US supporters being held down by an aggressive nationalist government, the US would likely give aide and support to them. BUT that assumes the rebels were not created by the US and as well they were truly oppressed and their rights trampled on.

The posts I've made previous to this all were made with the knowledge that there's a very real west/east divide in Ukraine between a western-supporting citizenship and a russian-supporing opposition. It's not exactly east/west, but there were definite signs in Ukraine before the SHTF of this divide. The question is how much Russian secretly was giving information and support to the pro-russian citizens turned rebels and whether this support or aide PRECEDED the support of Russia and eventual armed opposition to Kiev. If it preceded then Russia created this mess.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
Mr. Putin better like glass, because regardless of what he does, we (and our allies) would turn his entire country into it.

He keeps referring to "the West"... but forgets that it includes allies all around him.

~Namaste

Although I like your enthusiasm.....

Its my opinion is that we dont have the leadership to really retaliate or have any meaningful response to anything russia does.....and Putin knows it....

You have a guy (Putin) who will do whatever it takes at a moments notice and another guy (Obama) who will do whatever it takes (as long as its convenient), Vladimir isnt concerned

I'm sure if Putin want Kiev, he take it in two day. The little governement will see what's a real T-90 manoeuvred by true soldier I think, he will crap his pants and yield as fast he could sign the papper. (I think I wont do better) But, don't get me wrong, I don't tink it will be whitout consequences. Today, ennemies, small of big are all pettry dangerous. Putin know he's people are in safety as long he playing by the "proxy game" rules. I don't think as a state leader he will accept to put his people in danger. It's for the same reason that he cannot let the NATO lay hands on Ukraine. Right now, he's losing, and that the only move he can do. He had the choice between losing and losing alot.

What surprise me about this conflict, is the bad strategies used by Ukraine generals... T-90 are great, but M-1A2 are better. And for all wars monger, economie take back his true form in war. Plain ressource managin and control, not the number of gold bars you hold. United state and his ally... are not strong as you think...

We are lucky, our generals know that. They are really wise! (and better than Ukrainiens conterpart.) I just hope that will be enought to hold the foul we have as leader.

If there’s intelligent life elsewhere in the universe (I don’t mean like humans, I mean actually intelligent), I wonder how prevalent the characteristics of greed, lust for power, competition vs cooperation, sociopathic/psychotic/schitzophrenic tendencies, etc are? Are we a fair representation of intelligence in the big picture? Is intelligence everywhere in this universe a sure-fire prerequisite to the development of violent mental disorders? I have to wonder, since we seem to be the “poster animal” on this planet for the use of senseless violence as a valid solution for everything.

Christ, humanity will be lucky if we make it to the 22nd century. What a waste...

a reply to: daaskapital

The Truth Is

Putin knows the Western Banking Cabal in control of Western Governments and NATO are psychotic killers.

Russia doesn't have some of the fancy toys US has, so they have to show nuclear teeth

just in case someone gets ideas

Putin's not doing anything the US didn't do.
Ukraine was sovereign, Putin decided he wanted it. so he took it.
Have we all forgotten Iraq?

How about Bush's threat to use nuclear weapons if Saddam defended his nation with chemicals and gasses.

Putins doing the same thing Bush did 11years ago.. and your all pretending like its new!

See now....
Putin was addressing a youth conference.
the statements was directed at them, garnering support from Russian youth.
This was not really a message to the west.

just internal posturing.

I also think one of the reasons Obama is indecisive on committing to heavy military action on ISIS
is due partly to the conflict in Russia. He cant fight two wars at once.
So he's waiting to see how things play out.

unless he's just a flop? that's another possibility!

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Reminds me of the movie "The Rock"

- Uh, glass or plastic?

- What?

- Glass or plastic? Glass or plastic?

- Shut the f*** up!

-Because if the winds change after you launch those rockets...we're all gonna die.

- Shut up!

-And you're gonna end up in either a glass jar or a plastic bag.

The always enlightening wisdom of Nic Cage and Michael Bay.

originally posted by: daaskapital

NATO has taken the threats seriously, and have begun constructing a rapid response force as a result.

Really? anopther NATO fart team ...

I wonder, what is that "rapid" responce team going to do ... train themselves how to get incinerated by an atomic bomb?

I've heard of stupidity, but rapid responce team as an answer to a nuclear threat? yeah ... wow. There is no such threat, they're just building an excuse to go to war over Ukraine. And Europeans are to stupid to see the reality behind the scenes.

a reply to: bjarneorn

Americans have used tactical nukes in Iraq and Israel has used tactical nuke in Syria already in recent conflicts.

Russia did not use tactical nukes in any of its conflicts so far. So it is obvious who's finger is on the nuclear button.

a reply to: GargIndia

Americans have used tactical nukes in Iraq and Israel has used tactical nuke in Syria already in recent conflicts.

Care to show some evidence that either of those have ever happened, because now your just making things up?

a reply to: Josephus

I can assure you that Americans cannot destroy humanity on this planet, however hard they try.

Every weapon of war is undesirable. It is not only nukes. Any weapon of violence can cause an injustice. It is the accumulation of injustices that cause the downfall of a civilization.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

What kind of evidence you want? Please specify in detail the kind that will satisfy your curiosity.

Otherwise you can just search on Internet and surely you will find.

From the op link if people can be bothered to read it , instead of just making idiotic claims ....

At a youth forum on Friday ........

“I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations. This is a reality, not just words.”

“We must always be ready to repel any aggression against Russia and (opponents) should be aware … it is better not to come against Russia as regards a possible armed conflict.”

Mr Putin said he did not want to engage in any large-scale conflicts. “We do not want it and aren’t going to do it,” Putin reportedly said


Now to me and I would say most posters on this site would agree , nowhere does it claim he would use Nuclear Weapons against the Ukraine

As for “If I want, I take Kiev in two weeks.” which he allegedly said. In my opinion they probably could as I don't see Europe Nato or the Un going to war with Russia over ANY part of the Ukraine

But again all reports from Moscow are that they don't Want a war and to be Honest There is no legitimate Evidence that this is the case

Deny Ignorance and leave West, East personnel preferences out

Riouz

a reply to: Riouz

I'm not aware of anyone saying that Russia claimed it would use nuclear weapons on Ukraine. I could be wrong, though.

This complete dick wad is just having a massive wank fest about how awesome he thinks his crap hole of a country is.

Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something - Plato

a reply to: GargIndia

What kind of evidence you want? Please specify in detail the kind that will satisfy your curiosity.

Any evidence, because I know you can't supply it.

The US didn't use nukes of any sort in Iraq, nor did any other country since the US used them in WWII, but feel free to provide the evidence that shows otherwise.

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

I'm not aware of anyone saying that Russia claimed it would use nuclear weapons on Ukraine. I could be wrong, though.

Well it is interesting that this was said by Mr. LAvrov...

"If it comes to aggression against Russian territory, which Crimea and Sevastopol are parts of, I would not advise anyone to do this," Lavrov said during a press briefing. "We have the doctrine of national security, and it very clearly regulates the actions, which will be taken in this case."

The minister was responding to recent statements made by senior Ukrainian officials promising to retake Crimea. Russia's current military doctrine authorizes the use of nuclear force against a large-scale conventional attack by regional foes.

The doctrine, revised in 2010, states: "The Russian Federation reserves the right to utilize nuclear weapons ... in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat."

www.nti.org...

So take it for what you will.