Military Crisis in Ukraine

[Kampioen]

^

They performed the exact same ceremony as yesterday. We will be seeing this again. I hope the process of identification happens quickly.

[K^2]

I found the keyhole and what I think is the start switch. I would be scared to death trying to take off in one though.

You'd be perfectly safe in that plane, because you just failed to get the engine running. You can watch this video for an outline of what it takes to get A-10 up into the air. It's pretty close overall. He does a lot of stuff you don't strictly speaking need to get the plane in the air, but in a nutshell, you need to turn on the battery, turn on the pump for the APU, trip the APU starter, turn on APU generator, turn on the pump for engine 1, hit starter for engine 1, wait until engine 1 picks up required RPM, turn on the engine 1 generator, repeat for engine 2, shut down APU fuel (killing APU), shut down battery. Wait until everything is up to speed, and you can start taxiing.

 

 

Have you ever flown a plane?

Yeah, I have about an hour of flight time on Cessna 172, with one landing. And about 20 minutes of flight on a 1944 T-6 Texan fighter trainer. That one I did not do takeoff or landing on. I did get to taxi it, though, which is a really tricky proposition, when your entire view is obstructed by the engine. It's absolutely fantastic once in the air, though. With lightest nudge on the stick it does things that C-172 probably wouldn't survive.

 

But this is getting way off topic, and we might make sivis angry. If you have any questions about anything to do with flight, feel free to PM me.

[DarrinPA]

I doubt a modern fighter aircraft court be flown at all by an untrained pilot. Have you seen the inside of the cockpit for even a single-seat Gen 4/4.5 fighter?

 

Cockpit

I doubt I could even turn the radio on, not to mention get it set to K-DST.

 

So as for Putin's part in all of this this; has his position become more clear by his actions lately? I ask this because we had discussed his 'goals' before Crimea was taken over and some thought he'd stop there but he hasn't. Is a drawn out conflict beneficial to his vision, or whatever he had planned? Are other boarder countries at risk if he is successful? Would a failure in Ukraine just provoke him further? Are the reports true that the Russia million and billionaires are becoming fearful that his actions will harm their wealth? Ect...

 

What is everybody's thoughts on this.

Edited July 25, 2014 by DarrinPA

[ddyoung]

 

I doubt a modern fighter aircraft court be flown at all by an untrained pilot. Have you seen the inside of the cockpit for even a single-seat Gen 4/4.5 fighter?

 

Cockpit

I doubt I could even turn the radio on, not to mention get it set to K-DST.

 

So as for Putin's part in all of this this; has his position become more clear by his actions lately? I ask this because we had discussed his 'goals' before Crimea was taken over and some thought he'd stop there but he hasn't. Is a drawn out conflict beneficial to his vision, or whatever he had planned? Are other boarder countries at risk if he is successful? Would a failure in Ukraine just provoke him further? Are the reports true that the Russia million and billionaires are becoming fearful that his actions will harm their wealth? Ect...

 

What is everybody's thoughts on this.

 

I know a big fear in the USA is that Putin is trying to turn Russia back into the USSR or at least get as close as he can. He has re-militarized the country, used his power to support pro-Russian forces, and issued laws that are reminiscent of Soviet times (anti-gay laws).

[K^2]

I know a big fear in the USA is that Putin is trying to turn Russia back into the USSR or at least get as close as he can. He has re-militarized the country, used his power to support pro-Russian forces, and issued laws that are reminiscent of Soviet times (anti-gay laws).

I wouldn't call it a "big fear". Not among rational people. It'd be an inconvenience, but hardly the biggest one in the East. Russia is heading for fairly serious collapse. They will be able to slow it down with more dictatorial regime and isolation, and probably do some collateral damage in the region in the process, but Russia isn't going to turn into a powerful empire that USSR was. Problems in Mexico are a bigger concern to US than Russia.

 

There was fear of nukes falling into the wrong hands in the 90s. And some people echo these concerns now, but it's not the same situation. We aren't expecting a quick collapse. Russia will deteriorate gradually, along with what's left of its nuclear arsenal. By the time gov't there collapses, with or without external help, it won't be a nuclear threat anymore.

 

It basically just sucks for Russians and neighboring states. Some of which are US partners, so like I said above, it's an inconvenience. But it's a problem twice removed.

 

 

Edit: US: Russian military is firing artillery into Ukraine.

[sivispacem]

Lebron- last warning. Back on topic.

[Kampioen]

 

I know a big fear in the USA is that Putin is trying to turn Russia back into the USSR or at least get as close as he can. He has re-militarized the country, used his power to support pro-Russian forces, and issued laws that are reminiscent of Soviet times (anti-gay laws).

I wouldn't call it a "big fear". Not among rational people. It'd be an inconvenience, but hardly the biggest one in the East. Russia is heading for fairly serious collapse. They will be able to slow it down with more dictatorial regime and isolation, and probably do some collateral damage in the region in the process, but Russia isn't going to turn into a powerful empire that USSR was. Problems in Mexico are a bigger concern to US than Russia.

 

There was fear of nukes falling into the wrong hands in the 90s. And some people echo these concerns now, but it's not the same situation. We aren't expecting a quick collapse. Russia will deteriorate gradually, along with what's left of its nuclear arsenal. By the time gov't there collapses, with or without external help, it won't be a nuclear threat anymore.

 

It basically just sucks for Russians and neighboring states. Some of which are US partners, so like I said above, it's an inconvenience. But it's a problem twice removed.

 

 

Edit: US: Russian military is firing artillery into Ukraine.

 

 

I don't think Russia is as guaranteed to "collapse" as you put it. Remember Russia still more or less has China on its side, that's a powerful and emerging ally and trading partner to have. But it's certainly not going to turn into another USSR. I don't think Putin even wants that. He might want similar government structures internally (I think he does, being an ex-KGB spy) but I don't think he's interested in countries like Poland or the Czech Republic, only in countries or even parts of countries with a large ethnic Russian population.

 

What I think is going to happen is that Russia will annex a few more territories and what happened in Crimea will repeat itself a few more times. The west won't like it, and will hit Russia with sanctions, but they won't forcefully intervene. I think Russia will become a little larger, then stop expanding, and after a while business will return to normal.

[vanillestorms]

Do you think that a large scale war will lead to a general mobilisation of civilians? I'm wondering because most of the today's teenagers/young adults do not have any knowledge of handling a weapon, nor the courage of facing the enemy on the frontline.

[RoadRunner71]

Do you think that a large scale war will lead to a general mobilisation of civilians? I'm wondering because most of the today's teenagers/young adults do not have any knowledge of handling a weapon, nor the courage of facing the enemy on the frontline.

The thousands of young soldiers that fight in wars around the world differ with you.

[Kampioen]

Do you think that a large scale war will lead to a general mobilisation of civilians? I'm wondering because most of the today's teenagers/young adults do not have any knowledge of handling a weapon, nor the courage of facing the enemy on the frontline.

 

What do you mean by a "general mobilisation of civilians"? A draft?

[sivispacem]

He's all but come out as saying that he does want to reassume the land lost during the collapse of the Soviet Union and create a "greater Russia" by absorbing the rest of the Russian speaking world. That's as near as makes no difference recreating the Soviet Union in my view.

[Kampioen]

He's all but come out as saying that he does want to reassumed the land lost during the collapse of the Soviet Union and create a "greater Russia" by absorbing the rest of the Russian speaking world. That's as near as makes no difference recreating the Soviet Union in my view.

He's all but come out as saying that he does want to reassume the land lost during the collapse of the Soviet Union and create a "greater Russia" by absorbing the rest of the Russian speaking world. That's as near as makes no difference recreating the Soviet Union in my view.

 

You're right. I was confusing the Soviet Union for the eastern bloc. What Putin has said is that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a big mistake and that it shouldn't have happened. But I think he knows that fully restoring the territory of the Soviet Union isn't really viable, and I doubt he really wants all of it. After the huge protests against his buddy Yanukovic, I don't think Putin is very eager to rule over western Ukraine.

[Eutyphro]

Where has Putin said that he wants to restore the territory of the Soviet union? I can't seem to find quotes of him saying any such thing.

Edited July 25, 2014 by gtaxpert

[sivispacem]

Where has Putin said that he wants to restore the territory of the Soviet union? I can't seem to find quotes of him saying any such thing.

Numerous tines dating back as far as 2008? Most notably and recently during his "victory" speech in Crimea. I think the literal translation is "Greater Russia" (in size as opposed to "stronger" but K^2 can confirm as a Russian speaker).

 

http://www.refworld.org/docid/5332b7134.html

 

http://m.ft.com/cms/s/0/128428e4-7517-11dd-ab30-0000779fd18c.html

 

http://neweasterneurope.eu/articles-and-commentary/1153-the-precedent-of-kosovo-crimea-and-greater-russia

 

A worthwhile read:

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B001QKSWG2?pc_redir=1404042062&robot_redir=1

[vanillestorms]

 

Do you think that a large scale war will lead to a general mobilisation of civilians? I'm wondering because most of the today's teenagers/young adults do not have any knowledge of handling a weapon, nor the courage of facing the enemy on the frontline.

 

What do you mean by a "general mobilisation of civilians"? A draft?

 

I mean civilians having to serve the Army, then sent on the frontline.

Edited July 25, 2014 by vanillestorms

[Kampioen]

 

 

Do you think that a large scale war will lead to a general mobilisation of civilians? I'm wondering because most of the today's teenagers/young adults do not have any knowledge of handling a weapon, nor the courage of facing the enemy on the frontline.

 

What do you mean by a "general mobilisation of civilians"? A draft?

 

I mean civilians having to serve the Army, then sent on the frontline.

 

 

Yeah that's a draft. I think a large scale war could lead to that, but I don't think there will be a large scale war.

[Eutyphro]

That article at refworld was interesting, but much of it was extremely speculative and unfounded based on creative reading. An example: "Moldova is also vulnerable to an application of Putin's doctrine, on two counts. First, if Russia's right of conquest goes back to 1783 in Crimea, it similarly goes back to 1791 in Transnistria." Only because Putin said "The graves of Russian soldiers whose bravery brought Crimea into the Russian empire are also in Crimea." Soldiers that brought Crimea into Russia in 1783. So Putin stating Russian soldiers from 1783 are in crimea is interpreted as him saying 'Russia has a right of conquest going back to 1783'. That is a pretty ridiculous interpretation. It seems they are overinterpreting things to match their own narrative.

In the speech they are citing, Putin also said "We want to be friends with Ukraine and we want Ukraine to be a strong, sovereign and self-sufficient country." I agree this quote is laughable in the context of the Crimean annexation, but it is not really fair to overinterpret certain things Putin said to portray his intentions as you like, and then to leave out anything he said that goes against it.

Nothing points to the fact that he wants to reassume any lost land from the former Soviet Union. Though I do think it is fair to expect Russia to annex any land which holds a majority of ethnic Russians, whenever it comes close to being part of NATO due to regime change that occurred without election.

Edited July 25, 2014 by gtaxpert

[Svip]

 

 

Do you think that a large scale war will lead to a general mobilisation of civilians? I'm wondering because most of the today's teenagers/young adults do not have any knowledge of handling a weapon, nor the courage of facing the enemy on the frontline.

 

What do you mean by a "general mobilisation of civilians"? A draft?

 

I mean civilians having to serve the Army, then sent on the frontline.

 

 

I think the term you are looking for is 'total war'. But I have my sincere doubt it. Fortunately, during total war, you don't just have to fight on the front lines, you can sent to the factories to produce the weapons!

[sivispacem]

Though I do think it is fair to expect Russia to annex any land which holds a majority of ethnic Russians, whenever it comes close to being part of NATO due regime change that occured without election.

So you think it's fair to invade other sovereign lands when their political direction displeases you and potentially harms your strategic interests?

 

Why do you complain so much about US foreign policy then?

 

More in Putin's "Greater Russia":

 

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/06/how-putins-desire-to-restore-russia-to-great-power-status-matters/

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/04/21/putin_s_empire_of_the_mind_russia_geopolitics

 

http://m.foreignaffairs.com/author/john-mccain

 

http://m.csmonitor.com/2007/1210/p01s02-woeu.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/3561923/Putin-wants-a-new-Russian-empire.html

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-wants-to-regain-finland-for-russia-adviser-says-9224273.html

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/agnia-grigas/who%E2%80%99s-next-on-putin%E2%80%99s-list-Ukraine-Putin

 

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/expansionist+behind+Putin/9801689/story.html

 

http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/putins-playbook-the-strategy-behind-russias-takeover-of-crimea/284154/

 

I'm sure K^2 can provide you with some of the direct quotes but it's hardly disputed- not by Putin himself, not by the Russian administration.

 

Note in the above specific mention to reacquiring Finland.

[Eutyphro]

 

Though I do think it is fair to expect Russia to annex any land which holds a majority of ethnic Russians, whenever it comes close to being part of NATO due regime change that occured without election.

So you think it's fair to invade other sovereign lands when their political direction displeases you and potentially harms your strategic interests?

No no no, that's not what I meant. It is criminal to acquire land in such a way. I worded it awkwardly. I just meant that it is likely that Russia will annex "any land which holds a majority of ethnic Russians, whenever it comes close to being part of NATO due to regime change that occurred without election." It is likely to happen, though criminal and illegal.

 

I guess I made a slight mistake in my English

Edited July 25, 2014 by gtaxpert

[Eutyphro]

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-wants-to-regain-finland-for-russia-adviser-says-9224273.html

 

I'm sure K^2 can provide you with some of the direct quotes but it's hardly disputed- not by Putin himself, not by the Russian administration.

 

Note in the above specific mention to reacquiring Finland.

 

I think the title is slightly misleading, should've said 'former advisor'. That former advisor 'currently works as a senior fellow in the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC...

 

I found this http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/2014/06/putin-envoy-warns-finland-against-joining-nato-09-06 which has quotes by a current Russian official, who says, “Anti-Semitism started World War II, Russophobia could start the third. Finland is one of the most russiphobian countries in Europe, together with Sweden and the Baltic states,”

 

The baltic states already joined NATO without Russia doing much against it, so it is unlikely they will do much against Finland would they join, but this sure is big talk..

 

Oh sh*t double post -_-

 

Belarus doesn't really seem like a case of annexation, but simply a country being so dependant on Russia that it might join them.

Edited July 25, 2014 by gtaxpert

[sivispacem]

In all fairness Sweden, Finland and the Baltic states have good reason to be Rusophobic given their histories. And the fact Russia hasn't moved militarily against them yet doesn't mean they don't haven't the desire to absorb them, even if doing so is entirely impractical.

[Svip]

No wonder Russia is very aggressive when Finland talked about joining NATO. So much, Finland is now putting those plans aside.

 

Come to think of it, if Russia continues this aggressive strategy, eventually the EU will become a military alliance as well. Which would certainly prevent Russia's plans Westward.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Svip

[K^2]

I don't think Russia is as guaranteed to "collapse" as you put it. Remember Russia still more or less has China on its side, that's a powerful and emerging ally and trading partner to have. But it's certainly not going to turn into another USSR. I don't think Putin even wants that. He might want similar government structures internally (I think he does, being an ex-KGB spy) but I don't think he's interested in countries like Poland or the Czech Republic, only in countries or even parts of countries with a large ethnic Russian population.

 

What I think is going to happen is that Russia will annex a few more territories and what happened in Crimea will repeat itself a few more times. The west won't like it, and will hit Russia with sanctions, but they won't forcefully intervene. I think Russia will become a little larger, then stop expanding, and after a while business will return to normal.

You aren't seem to be very aware of Russia's internal politics and financial situation. When McCain called it a gas station that pretends to be a country, that was incredibly accurate. Other than gas/oil export, Russia has no sources of income. And it has no infrastructure to survive on anything but imports. North Korea is better equipped for dealing with isolation than Russia is. Yet, isolation is exactly where Russia is heading right now, and it won't work out well for them. It will end in government collapse one way or another.

 

 

Do you think that a large scale war will lead to a general mobilisation of civilians?

Where, in the West? No. There isn't going to be a major war with the West.

 

In Russia and Ukraine? It's already going on. Well, in Russia, draft never stopped. All men must serve at least a year in Russian military, unless they are able to pay the necessary bribes. In Ukraine, they had to reinstate the draft this year to deal with the Russia problem. Donetsk and Luhansk regions are also drafting. In fact, reports just came out that men refusing to be drafted into militia in Luhansk are being executed on the spot. Situation isn't that different in Donetsk.

[Der_Don]

So Ukrainian troops have apparently attacked and captured the first suburbs of Donetsk. If they were able to capture the whole city, would that be the end for the separatists? I know they're still in control of Luhansk but surely once Donetsk falls, Luhansk will follow soon? Without a Russian intervention, they're done, or am I wrong?

[ddyoung]

So Ukrainian troops have apparently attacked and captured the first suburbs of Donetsk. If they were able to capture the whole city, would that be the end for the separatists? I know they're still in control of Luhansk but surely once Donetsk falls, Luhansk will follow soon? Without a Russian intervention, they're done, or am I wrong?

They would still fight in Luhansk, but Donetsk is their "capital" so if that falls, they would be dealt a very major blow. But, unfortunately, Russia doesn't appear to be stopping arms flowing to the separatist. I heard that the Russians are remising troops on the border again, so an intervention looks possible as it has for months. If Russia were to invade, I think NATO would intervene as well.

[Creed Bratton]

I have a question about these Buk rockets. Do they explode on actual impact with the target or when they get close enough?

[sivispacem]

I have a question about these Buk rockets. Do they explode on actual impact with the target or when they get close enough?

They're proximity detonated, so nearby. The warheads are filled with either Tungsten Carbide or Depleted Uranium pellets which are basically projected in a ~60° cone at extremely high velocity in the direction of the target that triggers the proximity sensor. Against agile, small, fast-flying military aircraft with armoured cockpits that's designed to guarantee some catastrophic damage to airframe, engines or control surfaced but against a big, slow airliner that you could punch through the skin of with an .22LR pistol, they usually get torn to shreds.

[Acehilm]

Do you think some of the people were conscious just after the initial impact?

[Creed Bratton]

 

I have a question about these Buk rockets. Do they explode on actual impact with the target or when they get close enough?

They're proximity detonated, so nearby. The warheads are filled with either Tungsten Carbide or Depleted Uranium pellets which are basically projected in a ~60° cone at extremely high velocity in the direction of the target that triggers the proximity sensor. Against agile, small, fast-flying military aircraft with armoured cockpits that's designed to guarantee some catastrophic damage to airframe, engines or control surfaced but against a big, slow airliner that you could punch through the skin of with an .22LR pistol, they usually get torn to shreds.

 

Figured as much, just needed a confirmation. Thanks.