Ukraine Redux

[Elerond]

Every action in UN has its impact and so does China's abstain in this matter, as does Israel's decision not to vote. Even though whole vote was for show, as Russia had veto power that it used to turn over the vote results, which was what every one excepted from them.

 

China's vote of abstain was probably China's way to notify that it don't have any desire to take part of this conflict on either side. Because that was one reason why vote in questions was held as EU and USA wanted to know if China had any interests in this crisis.

 

Israel's decision not to vote probably was to tell that they aren't very pleased how peace talks have advanced with Palestine and USA's role in said negotiations. 

 

It is just political game where countries indication of what their short term plans are or/and their dis/pleasure towards some previous issue without giving ammunition their political enemies at home.

[BruceVC]

 

 

But once again you are missing  the obvious symbolic significance to what the vote means. Are you suggesting China abstained to stay in the good books of the West? This vote is actually an important litmus test of what Russia did and is it acceptable to the main and influential global players . Russia has been desperate to get China to support it based on there justification for annexing Crimea, despite how you try to spin it the fact that China abstained shows Russia doesn't have the real support they wanted from one of there traditional allies in UN votes

 

China doesn't care Bruce. Neither does Russia. And this vote does not indicate much of anything of the Chinese - Russian relationship, which has been lukewarm standoffish for the better part of a hundred years now. Just like Israel not voting at all to support it's #1 ally's wishes doesn't mean all that much.

 

Really, about the only people who do care are the people buying into all the propaganda, or who live in Ukraine and are somehow butthurt Crimea left, or who live in Crimea and would prefer to live in Ukraine vs. Russia. Of course, the former far out numbers the latter, and the latter actually has a legitimate reason to care, unlike the former.

 

Russia has Crimea no matter what anyone votes, end of story. If you were at all even partially well versed in history you'd realize they probably never should have lost Crimea to Ukraine to begin with.

 

 

Okay my friend, lets see the economic reality for Russia in 12 months. Then we can comment on how prudent the decision to illegally annex Crimea was

[obyknven]

lol, word divide to US subslaves and independent countries.

[obyknven]

 

Okay my friend, lets see the economic reality for Russia in 12 months. Then we can comment on how prudent the decision to illegally annex Crimea was

 

 

http://usawatchdog.com/putin-has-nuclear-economic-bomb-jim-sinclair/

 

 

World renowned gold expert Jim Sinclair is worried about the crisis in Ukraine.  

I honestly believe sanctioning Russia is the same as shooting yourself in the foot

We hear constantly Russia is only a regional power. We hear lies. We hear untruths. We don’t have a clear picture to what is taking place

. Russia has the upper hand. They have it in their ability to turn the U.S. economy upside down and into collapse. There is no question whatsoever. Putin doesn’t need a nuclear bomb. He has a nuclear economic bomb that he can set off at any time.

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

Resolutions like this mean little to nothing and I'm sure Russia doesn't care that China or the other 57 that abstained, did so, as they were effectively 'no' votes. There were also 24 nations that didn't bother to vote at all.

 

https://twitter.com/UN_PGA/status/449216773460463617/photo/1/large

 

By the way, lol @Israel for not bothering to give their "ally" the US their support on this matter.

 

 

I don't buy this theory that Jews control America and everything that Israel does American supports, the situation is much more nuanced. The Jewish lobbyists have influence in America as do all lobby groups but I would argue the influence that Israel has is exaggerated.

[Zoraptor]

And in other news, in a move that surprises no one Yulia Tymoshenko wants to stand for President again. Should be a good opportunity for her gas company to siphon off some of those IMF dollars given they're jacking up gas prices 50% and halving pensions. But how very fortunate that they've scheduled the election for late spring, rather than winter so the electors won't have to avoid all those frozen pensioners on their way to the ballot box.

 

By the way, lol @Israel for not bothering to give their "ally" the US their support on this matter.

 

Well, Israel could hardly vote against annexations being legal. That'd be a bit too much on the nose even for politicians.

 

But an abstention is definitively- ie by literal definition- not a yes vote. Adding in the undecideds or DNVs to the yes makes the whole idea of abstaining or not voting irrelevant.

 

Hardly matters anyway, there's few entities as irrelevant and pointless as the UN General Assembly. It's meaningless when they condemn Russia, it's meaningless when they condemn Israel (several million times, it feels like), it's meaningless when they condemn talking in cinemas and onion flavoured ice cream.

[Mor]

 

you might have some nice sticks and stones, but I think that you grossly over estimate Finland strength and ability to push back the Russian bear with it. Overall you country peace time standing force is little larger then the one in Georgia, but with five time the territory and just as unfortunate large front.

 

So if Russia decide to "liberate" some of your territory I have no doubt how it would end.

 

There is little doubt that if there is war between Russia and Finland that winner wouldn't be Russia, but we spoke about military consequences and those would be heavy for Russia and to "liberate" as you put Finland they would actually need put quite lot effort behind their attack which would be expensive in monetary and loss of life wise that end result of such victory isn't  worth of such investment. Making offense too expensive is the main idea behind Finnish defense strategy, not actually win wars against over 20 times larger countries.

 

And one thing should be remembered when we speak about size of Finland's territory is that most of it is uninhabited forests (71,6%), lakes (about 10%, and there are 188 788 lakes around country), fjelds and tundra. which means that area that need to be defended is actually quite small, although it's fragmented all around country that effective defense is actually question of mobility and deployment instead of man power, albeit that Finland has deep reserve of over million soldier addition of its active soldiers and readiness reserve. And Finland's arsenal is much more modern than what Georgia has and Finland don't have territories that identify themselves more Russian than Finnish, which mean that there aren't such inner conflicts that Russia could exploit for its advantage, like it did in Georgia and Ukraine for example.

 

Its important to understand that soft power plays much larger role in geopolitical struggle than direct military action, in our case it took Russia several years to prepare the ground for their little ponzi scheme of liberation, with military action playing a minor part in sealing a already done deal.

 

As for Finland military strength I don't want to argue this tangent topic, so here is a quick Google for you: The Development of Russian Military Policy and Finland Series take special note of the last few paragraphs in the executive summary.

[Nepenthe]

 

 

Only Finnish peacekeepers, rapid deployment forces, navy and air forces are fully NATO compatible, and they are ones that have practiced in NATO-led practices, main Finnish Defense Force still needs equipment changes to be fully NATO compatible, although Finland has plans to make its whole arsenal STANAG compatible within next decade as it makes working in international environment easier even for non-NATO countries.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying.  Do you have any specifics on which types of equipment are currently not compatible?  I'm curious as I did read something about the artillery being predominantly Russian and a preponderance of the Russian BUK-M1 air defense systems (which were being replaced by a Norwegian designed system iirc).   

 

 

BUKs have been phased out and replaced with the NASAMS variant of SL-AMRAAMs. There's debate whether this was done simply to advance STANAG compatibility or because Russians have an effective way of jamming their own tech - apparently some Russians were downed with a Georgian BUK during that conflict, but the fact of the matter is the BUK is out. On paper, NASAMS is inferior to BUK, but certainly prettier and less loud. And I'm out of wartime a job.

 

And moving from "know" to "think", probably the biggest issue is the Finnish use of 7,62x39mm sov block weaponry, apparently it's better in a heavily forested environment than the NATO rounds, also the mainstay ARs of the Finnish Army accept standard russian mags (but not vice versa), which is... convenient.

 

Edited March 28, 2014 by Nepenthe

[Mor]

 

The UN General Assembly has approved a resolution describing the Moscow-backed referendum that led to Russia's annexation of Crimea as illegal.

 

One hundred countries voted in favour of approving a UN General Assembly resolution declaring the Crimean referendum on 16 March illegal and affirming Ukraine's territorial integrity.

 

Eleven nations voted against, with 58 abstentions.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26776416

 

Here is the list of countries that voted "no", this list is relevant because it shows the type of governments that think that the Crimea annexation was acceptable. You'll notice most of them are dictatorships and some of the most corrupt and inefficient governments in the world. Shame poor Russia and the company it keeps . Russia must be frustrated that China didn't vote "no" but instead chose to abstain

 

"The 11 that opposed the resolution were Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe"

 

I presume you are going for the "show me who your friends are and i will tell you who you are"

 

By the way, lol @Israel for not bothering to give their "ally" the US their support on this matter.

considering your previous post:

 

 

Exactly, an "abstain" vote is not in practice a "no" vote, it's (in this case) a "yes" vote. If it looks like the "yes" side is winning and you vote "abstain" instead of "no", it means you're OK with the outcome anyway, certainly in the case of a "yes" win, maybe also in the case of a "no" win.

 

If they wanted to, they could have voted "no" to protest.

 

My only conclusion is that either you ignore or unaware of the geopolitical situation of Israel and its relation with Russia. Which tend to show its displeasure by advanced arm sales and support for local unstable regimes.

[Elerond]

 

 

you might have some nice sticks and stones, but I think that you grossly over estimate Finland strength and ability to push back the Russian bear with it. Overall you country peace time standing force is little larger then the one in Georgia, but with five time the territory and just as unfortunate large front.

 

So if Russia decide to "liberate" some of your territory I have no doubt how it would end.

 

There is little doubt that if there is war between Russia and Finland that winner wouldn't be Russia, but we spoke about military consequences and those would be heavy for Russia and to "liberate" as you put Finland they would actually need put quite lot effort behind their attack which would be expensive in monetary and loss of life wise that end result of such victory isn't  worth of such investment. Making offense too expensive is the main idea behind Finnish defense strategy, not actually win wars against over 20 times larger countries.

 

And one thing should be remembered when we speak about size of Finland's territory is that most of it is uninhabited forests (71,6%), lakes (about 10%, and there are 188 788 lakes around country), fjelds and tundra. which means that area that need to be defended is actually quite small, although it's fragmented all around country that effective defense is actually question of mobility and deployment instead of man power, albeit that Finland has deep reserve of over million soldier addition of its active soldiers and readiness reserve. And Finland's arsenal is much more modern than what Georgia has and Finland don't have territories that identify themselves more Russian than Finnish, which mean that there aren't such inner conflicts that Russia could exploit for its advantage, like it did in Georgia and Ukraine for example.

 

As for Finland military strength I don't want to argue this tangent topic, so here is a quick Google for you: The Development of Russian Military Policy and Finland Series take special note of the last few paragraphs in the executive summary.

 

 

I don't understand what you want me to find from that?

 

It only tells what I told, that areas that need defending are fragmented all around country, which mean that deployment and mobility of troops is vital, and it also tells how much Finland have active (professional) soldiers (about 30.000) and Finland's readiness reserve's strength is about 230.000 men. But addition to that Finland has deed reserve which strength is over million men. Deep reserve is those men and women that have military training and are under 55 years old and which military can provide some sort equipment to go in fight, but their knowledge about armaments and tactics aren't kept on date by using military refresher courses, which mean that they should have at least short one before they are sent on battlefront.  

 

and last sentence "Its preventive value is

great." that executive summary agrees with my statement that that Finland makes it defensive strategy around idea that it don't have to win war, but make it too expensive when compared to gains. 

[HoonDing]

lol, word divide to US subslaves and independent countries.

Russia is in good company as usual.

 

Et tu, Nicaragua?

[Agiel]

 

 

 

Only Finnish peacekeepers, rapid deployment forces, navy and air forces are fully NATO compatible, and they are ones that have practiced in NATO-led practices, main Finnish Defense Force still needs equipment changes to be fully NATO compatible, although Finland has plans to make its whole arsenal STANAG compatible within next decade as it makes working in international environment easier even for non-NATO countries.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying.  Do you have any specifics on which types of equipment are currently not compatible?  I'm curious as I did read something about the artillery being predominantly Russian and a preponderance of the Russian BUK-M1 air defense systems (which were being replaced by a Norwegian designed system iirc).   

 

 

BUKs have been phased out and replaced with the NASAMS variant of SL-AMRAAMs. There's debate whether this was done simply to advance STANAG compatibility or because Russians have an effective way of jamming their own tech - apparently some Russians were downed with a Georgian BUK during that conflict, but the fact of the matter is the BUK is out. On paper, NASAMS is inferior to BUK, but certainly prettier and less loud. And I'm out of wartime a job.

 

And moving from "know" to "think", probably the biggest issue is the Finnish use of 7,62x39mm sov block weaponry, apparently it's better in a heavily forested environment than the NATO rounds, also the mainstay ARs of the Finnish Army accept standard russian mags (but not vice versa), which is... convenient.

 

 

 

True that because it no longer has the benefit of being launched from a high-flying, high speed aircraft the SL-AMRAAM has less range than the far larger SA-11, it is better suited for a hasty defense scenario than the SA-11. As the AMRAAM and its variations are active radar homing as opposed to the SA-11's semi-active radar homing, it is far less susceptible to DEAD weapons and tactics, as once the missile Pitbulls, the launching vehicle and accompanying search and track radar are free to shut down their radars and reposition. In contrast, either the TAR or the TELAR of the SA-11 must track and illuminate the target throughout the missile's flight, so if for instance when these systems are emitting and are damaged or destroyed by a HARM or cluster bomb, the missile is rendered useless. 

[Sarex]

lol, word divide to US subslaves and independent countries.

 

Didn't Bosnia vote no too?

[obyknven]

 

Didn't Bosnia vote no too?

 

They can't  ,  their masters punish their for it. But actually abstain, or no vote is ok for Russia. I think days of UN are  numbered, UN is killed yet long ago by US wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia, today Russia just make  coup de grace  to this undead creature, all these resolutions means nothing

[Nepenthe]

 

 

 

 

Only Finnish peacekeepers, rapid deployment forces, navy and air forces are fully NATO compatible, and they are ones that have practiced in NATO-led practices, main Finnish Defense Force still needs equipment changes to be fully NATO compatible, although Finland has plans to make its whole arsenal STANAG compatible within next decade as it makes working in international environment easier even for non-NATO countries.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying.  Do you have any specifics on which types of equipment are currently not compatible?  I'm curious as I did read something about the artillery being predominantly Russian and a preponderance of the Russian BUK-M1 air defense systems (which were being replaced by a Norwegian designed system iirc).   

 

 

BUKs have been phased out and replaced with the NASAMS variant of SL-AMRAAMs. There's debate whether this was done simply to advance STANAG compatibility or because Russians have an effective way of jamming their own tech - apparently some Russians were downed with a Georgian BUK during that conflict, but the fact of the matter is the BUK is out. On paper, NASAMS is inferior to BUK, but certainly prettier and less loud. And I'm out of wartime a job.

 

And moving from "know" to "think", probably the biggest issue is the Finnish use of 7,62x39mm sov block weaponry, apparently it's better in a heavily forested environment than the NATO rounds, also the mainstay ARs of the Finnish Army accept standard russian mags (but not vice versa), which is... convenient.

 

 

 

True that because it no longer has the benefit of being launched from a high-flying, high speed aircraft the SL-AMRAAM has less range than the far larger SA-11, it is better suited for a hasty defense scenario than the SA-11. As the AMRAAM and its variations are active radar homing as opposed to the SA-11's semi-active radar homing, it is far less susceptible to DEAD weapons and tactics, as once the missile Pitbulls, the launching vehicle and accompanying search and track radar are free to shut down their radars and reposition. In contrast, either the TAR or the TELAR of the SA-11 must track and illuminate the target throughout the missile's flight, so if for instance when these systems are emitting and are damaged or destroyed by a HARM or cluster bomb, the missile is rendered useless. 

 

 

Thanks for the clarification. Guess there was a reason why they just let me stand next to them.

[Mor]

 

lol, word divide to US subslaves and independent countries.

Russia is in good company as usual.

 

Et tu, Nicaragua?

 

You don't understand all your "westerners" are slaves, biased crazy hypocrites, unlike the free minded humane people of Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe ...     

 

I suppose that Oby definition "independent" is a variant of teenage rebellion phase, with extra clueless.

 

 

 

I don't understand what you want me to find from that?

What I wanted you take from that post is the that soft power plays a much more significant role than direct military action i.e. the full scale war you keep referring to is extremely unlikely scenario (Even in Georgia\Ukraine where they had a much more favorable conditions they limited themselves easy grabs, and obviously the situation is very different), but if it was a full scale war I disagree that "that winner wouldn't be Russia". The second thing is that "Finland’s territory is large, and reserves are needed to protect a high number of vital industrial and societal infrastructure objects in all of Finland" reservist force is nice as long as you can bring to full readiness and deploy in time and be able to defend all critical infrastructure/production facilities. Edited March 28, 2014 by Mor

[obyknven]

 

 

You don't understand all your "westerners" are slaves, biased crazy hypocrites, unlike the free minded humane people of Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe ...     

 

I suppose that Oby definition "independent" is a variant of teenage rebellion phase, with extra clueless.

 

 

You pretty naive.

 

For Example look at "independent" Germany. This country live in "Golden Cage", their money stored in US and German government can't even manage own funds, territory of Germany yet occupied by US military forces ( 40 304 ) and British military forces (21 500), while own low-skilled toy army of Germany have only 180 000 manpower (IRL ~ 58 279 soldiers + 11 000 Airforce personel, while all others is just a military clercs). For German national interests is vital be frendly with Russia and support  our actions in Crimea( "The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia" ...by Bismark , also common business, interests etc ), but because of Germany  IRL is puppet state of US they do what US say do for them.

Even if such powerful country (4-th economics in world) is not independent , what about all these poor European countries dominated by... Germany! 

Other example is Finland. We give independence to them during Revolution. Ok, but what they do later?  They play role cannon fodder for Brits, but betrayed by them during Winter war. After this they change Britts to German masters, and again play role of cannon fodder. Later they become smarter - make separate peace treaty with USSR at last, and stay after this neutral country half of century. But today they again reject own independence and join to EU and planned join to NATO. How they can be independent if they forced pay money to NATO and perform decisions of foreighn rulers from EU?

North Korea? They have balls for do what they want, and even causing permanent butthurt to world hegemon, obviously they have more independence than any EU member.

[Tale]

I see that we're well past the 500 mark. And we seem to have moved quite a bit from discussing the Ukraine, so I won't be starting up a sequel.