Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

acmilano

Military Crisis in Ukraine

Recommended Posts

Sunrise Driver

1. How was West interfering in Ukraine?

2. Russia had plans for Crimea long before EuroMaidan 2013-2014. Annexation was inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

It was no more morally justifiable than Iraq in 2003.

Moral justification or not, UN mandate. That basically nullifies the validity of any bitching or whining on the subject.

 

The proposed intervention in Syria

Never took place. So doesn't really warrant any discussion.

 

My point is just that it's a double standard for people to be fine with the West doing these sorts of things, but to then call Russia out on it.

Do you really not see the difference between a UN mandated military campaign based on the principles of R2P (Libya) and the covert invasion of the territory of another sovereign state without and legal basis (Crimea)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

Sorry for the late replies.

 

1. How was West interfering in Ukraine?

2. Russia had plans for Crimea long before EuroMaidan 2013-2014. Annexation was inevitable.

 

1. The U.S. pretty much handpicked the new administration after heavily encouraging the ousting of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, there was the infamous leaked conversation where they were discussing it. They praised the masked militants who attacked the government buildings and were killing security forces. Then condemn the militants in the east who basically did the same thing. Why? Because the latter group was pro-Russian and the former wasn't.

 

2. It's no secret Russia wanted the return of Crimea, but actually facilitating it's transferal was still a tough prospect for them and it wasn't guaranteed to happen. The West carrying out it's own questionable actions and being so brazenly hostile to Russian interests arguably pushed Russia to undertake it sooner and in a more overt manner.

 

 

It was no more morally justifiable than Iraq in 2003.

Moral justification or not, UN mandate. That basically nullifies the validity of any bitching or whining on the subject.

The proposed intervention in Syria

Never took place. So doesn't really warrant any discussion.

My point is just that it's a double standard for people to be fine with the West doing these sorts of things, but to then call Russia out on it.

Do you really not see the difference between a UN mandated military campaign based on the principles of R2P (Libya) and the covert invasion of the territory of another sovereign state without and legal basis (Crimea)?

 

 

1. So just because it has a UN mandate, we can't question the validity, morality and integrity behind a war, conflict or operation?

 

2. Don't understand that logic at all. Just because the plan to remove Assad didn't materialise, doesn't mean the intention and will to do so is not relevant.

 

3. I think the difference is far less than people make it out to be. Again you're overstating the importance of a U.N. mandate since the UN is not anywhere near being neutral and unbiased, and it is not an absolute and unquestionable arbiter. There is plenty of argument for example in saying that the Iraq War was more morally questionable than the annexation of Crimea.

 

Crimea let's not forget, was only a part of Ukraine because it was given to it by Kruschev. At it's last census it had a population of 1.5 million Russians (about 60% of the population), 600,000 Ukrainians and 250,000 tartars, and about 50,000 other minorities largely Belarusians. The referendum was clearly flawed, but it's not unreasonable to assume that a yes vote would have occured with the wave of increased Russian nationalism in ethinc Russian populations both inside and outside Russia, and the fact that the Tartars and many Ukrainians refused to participate. Even if there had been a perfectly legitimate referendum in the vein of the Scottish independence one, the West would not have recognised it.

 

The annexation is certainly wrong, but I don't think it's as bad as people are making out. It is being used as an excuse. I doubt there will be sanctions or anything like the condemnation against China for example, for it's annexation of islands in the South China Sea. And again, it is purely Western countries who are enacting sanctions against Russia. It's behaviour is only being singled out so extraordinarily by 1 bloc who are acting in their own self-interest, not by the international community. Russian actions in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are really not that particular or special compared to Western actions.

Edited by GTA_stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunrise Driver
They praised the masked militants who attacked the government buildings and were killing security forces.

1. What buildings?

2. They killed militia in self-defense.

Then condemn the militants in the east who basically did the same thing. Why? Because the latter group was pro-Russian and the former wasn't.

The latter group was fighting under russian flags for seceding from Ukraine.

The former group - under Ukrainian flags for a better changes for Ukraine.

The West carrying out it's own questionable actions and being so brazenly hostile to Russian interests arguably pushed Russia to undertake it sooner and in a more overt manner.

What questionable actions? What extreme action has done West in "russian interest zone" so russia had to annex 3 pieces of neigbouring countries?

Even if there had been a perfectly legitimate referendum in the vein of the Scottish independence one, the West would not have recognised it.

You really just compared??? Really?????

Legitimate referendum would be in case Ukraine giving a green light to it and recognizing results. So the West would recognize too.

Edited by Street Mix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

1. The U.S. pretty much handpicked the new administration

Er, no they didn't. The US contributed pretty much nothing to the European-led efforts to make nice with the Maidan types.

 

after heavily encouraging the ousting of the democratically elected president of Ukraine

...who was ousted pretty much solely on the backs of his own electorate, given the popular resentment towards him and his aggressive mishandling of the crisis.

 

there was the infamous leaked conversation where they were discussing it.

Right, and nation state leaders aren't allowed to discuss their preferences for outcomes of events in other countries without being directly complicit in those events, are they?

 

They praised the masked militants who attacked the government buildings and were killing security forces.

When?

 

The West carrying out it's own questionable actions and being so brazenly hostile to Russian interests

Sorry, that's just absurd apologism. The West never carried out any "questionable actions" and the hostility toward Russian interests is predominantly a product of their posturing and their pretty gross violations of the sovereignty of basically any nation inside their perceived sphere of influence with a Russian speaking minority and a preference for Western ideals. There's a good reason there's so much interest in NATO amongst countries like Georgia...

 

1. So just because it has a UN mandate, we can't question the validity, morality and integrity behind a war, conflict or operation?

You can question all you like, but the fact is that it was UN sanctioned. You can't use it as any kind of justification for Russian aggression because they didn't veto it. It's really not relevant.

 

2. Don't understand that logic at all. Just because the plan to remove Assad didn't materialise, doesn't mean the intention and will to do so is not relevant.

Was there a will and intention? Sanctioning of military action doesn't necessarily mean that such action would take place, and the results of the vote were pretty clear before before it even took place. There was no intervention, and nor was there ever likely to be given the prevailing attitudes in the UK. It really was a case of going through the motions to appease the Americans.

 

Again you're overstating the importance of a U.N. mandate since the UN is not anywhere near being neutral and unbiased

I never claimed it was. The only people the UNSC consistently benefits are permanent members with veto. That includes Russia.

 

it is not an absolute and unquestionable arbiter.

It is, however, the closest thing we have in the international community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moth

 

Again you're overstating the importance of a U.N. mandate since the UN is not anywhere near being neutral and unbiased

I never claimed it was. The only people the UNSC consistently benefits are permanent members with veto. That includes Russia.

 

 

 

Which Russia has used to discourage a tribunal regarding the the downing of MH17. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-30/why-russia-vetoed-the-mh17-tribunal

Edited by Moth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

That's kind of what started the whole argument, them scuppering an international investigation and implicitly saying 'yes, it's out fault but we don't know how to hide that" to the entire international community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

The purpose of the proposed UN investigation was almost exclusively political. There have already been investigations which show the cause of the crash and where the AA piece came from etc. It had nothing to do with determining facts, it was literally just an attempt to heap more political pressure on Moscow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

...no it wasn't. Russia, both as a state and via the rebels as a proxy, has attempted to disrupt every single investigation, multilateral or otherwise. They refused to be involved with the Dutch investigation from the off, claiming it was a political whitewash. They've harassed investigators on the ground and had their lackeys destroy evidence and disrupt the crime scene. They've used their state run media and various subnational Kremlin aligned activist groups to disseminate propaganda, release conspiracy theories, attack the websites or organisations and nations involved in the investigation and generally be as disruptive to attempts to investigate as possible.

 

And now they're given the opportunity to be involved in a multilateral environment, they refuse. Despite this being quite literally the only opportunity the international community will have to hear their side of the story. Their refusal to abide by the processes of international law is directly at odds to the narrative they're presenting.

 

If you want to know the real reason Russia vetoed the UN tribunal (not an investigation, a tribunal), you need look no further than the powers given to tribunal bodies to sanction and censure states found to have violated the laws that governs international relations. They scuppered it because the public criticism they've come under from the international community us bad enough without them having a tribunal judgement against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

I haven't been following this as much as I should lately. Last I remember there was a cease-fire between the two sides, but also there has been some sporadic fighting.

 

Would someone like to give the tl;dr version of the past couple of months? What's the situation on the ground? Are the eu/usa giving arms to Ukraine or just blankets still? What's going on in Crimea?

 

Thx in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Same as the few months before. You're welcome.

 

We've thrown a bit of money their way, we're still supplying them. The rebels are still rebelling. The front lines are basically as they were. The Russians are still being twats about everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

1 ...no it wasn't. Russia, both as a state and via the rebels as a proxy, has attempted to disrupt every single investigation, multilateral or otherwise. They refused to be involved with the Dutch investigation from the off, claiming it was a political whitewash. They've harassed investigators on the ground and had their lackeys destroy evidence and disrupt the crime scene. They've used their state run media and various subnational Kremlin aligned activist groups to disseminate propaganda, release conspiracy theories, attack the websites or organisations and nations involved in the investigation and generally be as disruptive to attempts to investigate as possible.

 

2 And now they're given the opportunity to be involved in a multilateral environment, they refuse. Despite this being quite literally the only opportunity the international community will have to hear their side of the story. Their refusal to abide by the processes of international law is directly at odds to the narrative they're presenting.

 

3 If you want to know the real reason Russia vetoed the UN tribunal (not an investigation, a tribunal), you need look no further than the powers given to tribunal bodies to sanction and censure states found to have violated the laws that governs international relations. They scuppered it because the public criticism they've come under from the international community us bad enough without them having a tribunal judgement against them.

 

1 Russian military doctrine has always featured a generous portion of maskirovka, they're experts at it. Of course they're trying to cover it up and denying everything and spreading misinformation, it's embarrassing for them and they know they messed up. It's not in their interest to be open and candid. The West wouldn't just accept that they made a mistake and leave it at that. The more they can distance themselves, the better, from their point of view.

 

Is it ugly? Yes, but, and this is going back to my previous point from a few days ago, they're not doing anything the West doesn't do. When the West makes a mistake it too generally tries to cover it up or deflect it if it can. We also spread plenty of misinformation ourselves and generally lie about a lot of stuff just as serious as the shooting down of this airliner. And I'm not talking about during the Cold War, the Iraq War is full of these and even recent conflicts like Libya.

 

2. It wouldn't be multilateral though. I mean it would in the sense that Russia would be involved, but it wouldn't be undertaken with a desire to cooperate with Russia or have a partnership. Russia would just be handing itself over in handcuffs and sticking a noose around it's neck. Nobody is interested in Russia's side of the story, we already know what their side is and what transpired. This has nothing to do with "catching the culprit" i.e. getting whoever gave the order to shoot down MH17 and bring them to justice or finding out more details. That would be a goal don't get me wrong, but it's ultimately about sticking the knife into Russia and that comes before anything else.

 

3. So in other words Russia vetoed to avoid giving the West more political leverage, because the goals of the tribunal/investigation are inherently political in nature. Again you're acting like Russia is somehow unique or special, just because it is using it's veto to effectively circumvent international law. The U.S. has used it's veto to do exactly the same thing to protect itself and it's allies, and far more often than Russia has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

1 Russian military doctrine has always featured a generous portion of maskirovka, they're experts at it. Of course they're trying to cover it up and denying everything and spreading misinformation, it's embarrassing for them and they know they messed up.

You're sort of missing the point, though. Which is why such theory still forms a central part of Russian strategic doctrine. It looks laughable to us in the West and that's because it is; they simply attempt what they do domestically to keep the population unaware and indoctrinated except on a global scale. It's a symptom of the cancerous disease which is their leadership.

 

 

And I'm not talking about during the Cold War, the Iraq War is full of these and even recent conflicts like Libya.

So, I'm sure you'll readily furnish this point with some actual examples rather than just talking in vague terms about things and stuff.

 

 

This has nothing to do with "catching the culprit" i.e. getting whoever gave the order to shoot down MH17 and bring them to justice or finding out more details. That would be a goal don't get me wrong, but it's ultimately about sticking the knife into Russia and that comes before anything else.

Really? You genuinely think that the entire UN as an institution is so closely aligned with Western interest that not a single other nation, including the numerous ones with much closer ties to Russia than the Western world, is interested in hearing and examining events? The whole thing is just a Western-run bullring?

 

 

The U.S. has used it's veto to do exactly the same thing to protect itself and it's allies, and far more often than Russia has.

Well, actually, no it hasn't. The US has vetoed 79 UNSC resolutions, Russia 103.

 

Since 1972 the US has used the veto more than any other member, but Russia has still vetoed the most by far. Interestingly, Russia have used their veto more times since 9/11 than the US have, at 11 to 10 respectively. And part of the reason that the US figure is so high is that draft UNSC resolutions on the situation in the Middle East, occupied Arab territories and the Palestinian question were put to the security council on average every 3-5 months for nearly five years during the 80s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

 

1 Russian military doctrine has always featured a generous portion of maskirovka, they're experts at it. Of course they're trying to cover it up and denying everything and spreading misinformation, it's embarrassing for them and they know they messed up.

1. You're sort of missing the point, though. Which is why such theory still forms a central part of Russian strategic doctrine. It looks laughable to us in the West and that's because it is; they simply attempt what they do domestically to keep the population unaware and indoctrinated except on a global scale. It's a symptom of the cancerous disease which is their leadership.

 

And I'm not talking about during the Cold War, the Iraq War is full of these and even recent conflicts like Libya.

2. So, I'm sure you'll readily furnish this point with some actual examples rather than just talking in vague terms about things and stuff.

 

This has nothing to do with "catching the culprit" i.e. getting whoever gave the order to shoot down MH17 and bring them to justice or finding out more details. That would be a goal don't get me wrong, but it's ultimately about sticking the knife into Russia and that comes before anything else.

3. Really? You genuinely think that the entire UN as an institution is so closely aligned with Western interest that not a single other nation, including the numerous ones with much closer ties to Russia than the Western world, is interested in hearing and examining events? The whole thing is just a Western-run bullring?

 

The U.S. has used it's veto to do exactly the same thing to protect itself and it's allies, and far more often than Russia has.

4. Well, actually, no it hasn't. The US has vetoed 79 UNSC resolutions, Russia 103.

 

Since 1972 the US has used the veto more than any other member, but Russia has still vetoed the most by far. Interestingly, Russia have used their veto more times since 9/11 than the US have, at 11 to 10 respectively. And part of the reason that the US figure is so high is that draft UNSC resolutions on the situation in the Middle East, occupied Arab territories and the Palestinian question were put to the security council on average every 3-5 months for nearly five years during the 80s.

 

 

1. I think their doctrine is a lot more useful than you're making out, hence why they were able to catch everyone off guard in Crimea in the first place. But anyways this isn't relevant to the overall discussion.

 

2. In terms of the West using propaganda and spreading misinformation, I was talking about things like the babies being killed in their incubators BS from the first Gulf war, which was a complete fabrication, the willful lying and deliberate misleading with regards to WMD's in Iraq in the Iraq War, the linking of 9/11 with Iraq even though Iraq had literally nothing to do with it, and the supposed massacre that was to come in Libya if we didn't intervene. You even had a similar thing with Syria, heavily pushing the chemical weapons angle and the idea that Assad was going to deliberately kill thousands and thousands. The West and the U.S. in particular utilise atrocity propaganda very effectively.

 

3. There were a lot of different nationalities on board and it was a Malaysian Airlines plane, so yes obviously there are other stakeholders and countries with their own independent agendas, I never denied that or stated otherwise. But that still doesn't change the fact that imo, it would have been Western led and the tone would have been dictated by the west, which considering most of the victims were Western, the plane was U.S. built, and the enormous influence the West has, it's hardly unlikely. It would have been used to attack Russia, the West is doing all it can to try isolate Russia, to damage it and pressure it, why wouldn't they have used this great opportunity to further that end? It'd be stupid not to. That's a lot more valuable to the West than just prosecuting the commander who gave the order.

 

4. Since Russia has existed as Russia and not the U.S.S.R, the U.S. has vetoed more. That's what I meant. Anyways, the point still stands. Both countries use the veto, and continue to use it when it suits their interests. Russia is not special in this regard, and that's precisely what the veto is for, because without it you would get much more tension and it'd lead to dangerous situations.

 

-

 

I still don't understand why you think Russia is particularly special or different from the West in the way it behaves with regards to international relations and geopolitics. I think they are actually far closer than you are making out. Generally speaking I think the international community tends to think so too. They don't buy into the Russia hate in the same way Western countries do, and see the Russians as bad. They just see 2 competitors, and maybe gravitate more to the West because of it's larger influence and power, but ultimately make much less distinction between the 2 of us than people in the West think there is, and how much you're suggesting there is.

Edited by GTA_stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

1. I think their doctrine is a lot more useful than you're making out, hence why they were able to catch everyone off guard in Crimea in the first place.

They didn't really catch anyone "off-guard". It was pretty brazen but the moment armed insurgents started appearing it was abundantly clear the Russians had mobilised forces from the naval Spetsnaz regardless of how many times Putin denied it.

 

2. In terms of the West using propaganda and spreading misinformation, I was talking about things like the babies being killed in their incubators BS from the first Gulf war, which was a complete fabrication

The question is, a fabrication by whom? It was backed by Amnesty International, the Red Crescent and other international rights groups as well as by testimony from people coming out of Kuwait. It's logically far more likely that it was a wilful fabrication in behalf of the Kuwaiti government to pile pressure on the US to justify an intervention.

 

the willful lying and deliberate misleading with regards to WMD's in Iraq in the Iraq War

I don't think you can really make the argument that the US actively misled the wider international community on the issue given that there was a good degree if scepticism from the YN institutions which had been involved in getting and auditing Iraq's WND capability.

 

The WMD thing is incredibly complex and multifaceted and neither "side", if you wish to call it that, even comes close to doing it justice. It really isn't as simple as "the Americans lied"; they were lied to as well by intelligence sources in the wider Middle East, and similarly Saddam was lied to by his own generals regarding capabilities.

 

You even had a similar thing with Syria, heavily pushing the chemical weapons angle and the idea that Assad was going to deliberately kill thousands and thousands.

 

Which he still is, let's not forget. What's the net result of the international community following the Russian led effort to just let the whole thing take its course naturally? Islamic State.

 

But that still doesn't change the fact that imo, it would have been Western led and the tone would have been dictated by the west, which considering most of the victims were Western, the plane was U.S. built, and the enormous influence the West has, it's hardly unlikely.

That's sort of how the laws of these things go, though. The primary stakeholders are the nations of a) aircraft registration, b) aircraft construction, c) victim nationality and d) location of incident. The fact Russia vetoed the resolution has less to do with avoiding ab apparent Western whitewash and more to do with the fact they are guilty as sin. The Russians don't care about getting stuck from NATO powers, in fact they thrive on it. It's the rest of the international community they're trying to hide the truth from.

 

4. Since Russia has existed as Russia and not the U.S.S.R, the U.S. has vetoed more.

Not that a change of country name makes that at all relevant, but the resolutions being vetoed are of far more interest. The overwhelming majority of those vetoed by the US are regarding Israel. In fact, I think there has only been one US veto on any issue other than "events in the Middle East including Palestine/the Occupied Territories" since 1990. So I suppose you could sum up US use of the veto in the post-Cold-War environment as "protecting Israeli interests".

 

The same cannot be said of Russia. MH17- clear self interest move during a military incursion into another sovereign country. Syria x4- the only regional military base where Russia can excerpt their influence. Bosnia twice, including once where they delayed foreign peacekeeping missions designed to counteract genocide committed by Russian supported Serb paramilitary groups. Crimean intervention. Russian incursion into Georgia. Zimbabwe, funded heavily by Russia. Myanmar, funded heavily by Russia. Cyprus twice, a safe haven for Russian capital. Are you starting to sense a pattern?

 

I still don't understand why you think Russia is particularly special or different from the West in the way it behaves with regards to international relations and geopolitics.

I don't think their goals or attributes are markedly different. The way they go about them certainly is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

So first you censor me and remove many of my posts 'for being off topic', and remove my posts to get the last word in a completely childish way, and then go on to discuss exactly the same thing (Western hypocrisy) with gta_stu for an entire page. wtf

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Erm, in case you didn't notice he was actually talking about the Russian intervention in Ukraine directly. F*ck's sake, I know you're pissed off that your off-topic posts disappeared but that's utterly pathetic. The solution would be actually referring to the topic at hand. Come on, that's basic reading comprehension and debate 101; if you want to make a point that isn't explicitly to do with the subject, refer it to the subject matter instead of just making off-topic flippant comements which, as I pointed out previously, would have been better served in another thread.

 

Your childish petulance is starting to grate and continuing to argue the toss after what, three weeks isn't doing you any favours. Go throw your a hissy fit somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

It's in The Express, therefore likely to be utter bilge. The European Leadership Network, the Think Tank that made the claims, is very closely aligned with the nuclear disarmament movement and looks to have a recent history of sensationalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uzi 9mm

Just needed some reassurance on the matter, bilge sounds good enough to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GKS Sahara

(http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/09/05/going-green-new-paint-job-army-tanks-europe/71697352/)

635769682522793800-size0.jpg

 

 

 

A new but familiar paint job for thousands of pieces of U.S. Army equipment in Europe — heavy on the green, light on the tan — symbolizes the service's renewed focus on the region, the head of U.S. Army Europe said.

Lt. Gen. Frederick "Ben" Hodges discussed the return to the woodland camouflage pattern for tanks and other armored vehicles during a Tuesday visit to Coleman Barracks in Manheim, Germany.

The new paint will cover more than 2,000 items from armored vehicles to generators, according to information provided Friday by USAREUR public affairs personnel via email. News of Hodges' remarks in Manheim was first reported by Stars and Stripes.

Hodges made the decision to repaint the inventory in early 2015, saying that "returning to the traditional European pattern clearly conveys to our NATO allies, our partners in the region, and to the Russians that U.S. Army forces ... are committed to the European Theater and our obligations of assurance and deterrence for the long term," the USAREUR email said.

Coleman Barracks itself also symbolizes the state of U.S. Army forces in theater: Originally slated for return to the Germans, it was retained by the U.S. in February as a vehicle storage and maintenance center. Shortly before that move, Hodges and other leaders in the region outlined the expansion of the U.S. Army's presence in Europe in the face of an aggressive Russian threat. The green, tan, black and brown design began disappearing from Europe-based armor around 2004, as units began rotations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Thirteen vehicles recently have been painted by 405th Army Field Support Brigade Base Operations Maintenance Division at Germany's Grafenwoehr Training Area, according to USAREUR, and another 580 items destined for the European Activity Set were painted before leaving the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
universetwisters

Return of woodland camo, what was it before? That ugly universal grey camo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GKS Sahara

Return of woodland camo, what was it before? That ugly universal grey camo?

Desert Tan, and before that it was the same Woodland Camo that we're using again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
universetwisters

 

Return of woodland camo, what was it before? That ugly universal grey camo?

Desert Tan, and before that it was the same Woodland Camo that we're using again.

 

 

But we didn't use Desert Tan in Europe, did we? It'd be pretty hard to work with, seeing as Europe doesn't really have any deserts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Iraq? Afghanistan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
universetwisters

Iraq? Afghanistan?

But they aren't in Europe, unless I stupidly misunderstood your question.

 

I always thought that we had one set of uniform for folks stationed in Europe, Japan, etc. and another for those in the middle east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

They circulate vehicles AFAIK, the same way they do personnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

Iraq? Afghanistan?

But they aren't in Europe, unless I stupidly misunderstood your question.

 

I always thought that we had one set of uniform for folks stationed in Europe, Japan, etc. and another for those in the middle east.

it's moreso the vehicles. Over the past 10 years troops have been wearing tan like all the time due to the wars. That article is about the repaintinh of the vehicles from tan moreso as a show of force against Russia that we are ready to operate outside of a desert environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Dutch MH17 report issued today

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34511973

 

Report doesn't apportion blame but confirms that the aircraft was downed by a Buk missile fired from an area of Eastern Ukraine. Also criticises the failure to close airspace over the war zone.

 

According to reports we should be expecting more comments from Dutch prosecutors later this afternoon.

 

Of course, after refusing to engage with Dutch authorities on the investigation, Russia have released a counter-report of sorts that repeats their narrative that rebels could not be responsible, albeit without much in the way of evidence aside from a video from the makers of the Buk which appears to show a non-blast-fragmentation warhead being detonated by a mocked up aircraft cockpit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acmilano

Its sad how quickly this was forgotten. I hear that Malaysia will continue investigation for responsible peoples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.