Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear

Because of the ill will we harbored towards leaders of nations allying themselves with Russia, Putin knew the day would come when they would be fighting for their survival. Russia modernized its armed forces about five years ago, and in the past two years it established a formidable fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean with ports of call for repairs in Egypt, Greece and Cyprus in order to protect its pipe lines.

This fleet is controlled by Russia's base in Sevastopol, so the U.S. support of the Western anti Russian protesters in Kiev was a direct threat to them, and left Russia with no choice but to accept Crimea's independence and allow it to become part of Russia. If the Russians in Eastern and Southern Ukraine feel their lives are being threatened by the racist and ethnic supremacists from around the Lviv area, and they ask Russia for help, then they will have no choice but to go to their support.

 

So you're saying that if California by some stroke of fate ended up a part of Mexico, and the Americans were being threatened, that we would have no right to protect them? Interesting!

 

Reality Check​

5 - 10 years from now Russia is going to be larger via absorbing geography that is Russian speaking.
Without going over board on Chamberlain/Hitler Peace in Our Time comparisons, the reality is the West
Is NOT going to bleed, loose bone or lives over this consolidation of Russian speaking areas with mother Russia.
Even if Putin sends in the tanks, the West with as the cat's paw, is not going to send in the A-10 tank busters.
True?

Okay. Why NOT just get it over with instead of extending the tension that hurts common folks the most?
Such as the Cuban embargo. What a joke. And "we" get locked in when there is no resolution.
And what would any former USSR pseudo Republic have to say? Nothing, like Czechoslovakia and their German areas. That is just the way of it. The reality. I do NOT believe Putin seeks lebensraum.
Therefore it is about united a nation split by the idiocy of recognizing Soviet Republics as independent nations.



Moi
I know Let The Euro's manage it with assistance.
Of course, they don't wanna spend their tax payer money on it. Do they?
How else could they afford National Health Care.

View attachment 26746 ​

 

There was no U.N. resolution against Serbia, it was vetoed by Russia and China. Also we bombed Belgrade for seventy two days on trumped up charges of genocide when there was no genocide. The only dead Albanians were the ones killed after we had bombed Belgrade and had killed thousands of Serbs. Oh but that's right I forgot, the Serbs are untermenschen like the Russians, Jews and Roma.

Excuse me, are you talking about Nuland and the billions that was spent training and supporting protesters from the suprematist Lviv area in order to overthrow the legitimate government in Ukraine? Well in that case you're right, the U.S. had no right to interfere.

As for the Russians living in a former state known as New Russia, they had every right to ask Russia for help when they were threatened by the same racist and ethnic suprematists that had killed many of their compatriots in WWII.

 

Um.... yeah.... There was definitely genocide happening there.

I'm not saying our foreign policy is truly about humanitarian causes, but you're starting to sound like a revisionist.

So far, there is no genocide happening in Ukraine. If this actually did happen, then obviously, direct international intervention would be much more likely to happen.

The main thing we got wrong with Kosovo wasn't the war but rather our support for Kosovo's independence.

 

If we sold California to Mexico and the Americans living there became Mexican citizens, then yes, it would be a matter for the Mexican government to handle.

The Russians living in Ukraine are not Russian citizens. They are Ukrainian citizens, which means that, legally, they are not the responsibility of Russia.

The only way your analogy would work is if the Americans living in this new part of Mexico were still American citizens.

 

Jeannette, please, first of all they were not threatened, certainly not in Crimea where ethnic Russians and Tatars constitute 80% of the population. Who threatened Crimeans, when, with what kind of threats? Moreover they certainly had every right to ask anyone for anything, that does not mean that Russia had any right to interfere, invade, annex. Sorry but this "threat", "russian peacekeeping" cr*p is not fooling anyone, it was a land grab, pure and obvious, carried out under the most ridiculous and patently false pretext possible.

 

They were not threatened, but they were certainly displeased. This is enough. They perceived Stephan Bandera on banners of the Maidan self appointed government as a threat. Why they should wait? They hate Bandera, who killed thousands of Poles, Jews, Ukrainians and Russians.

- - - Updated - - -

This is good, but major equipment, strategically, is nukes. Russians should keep them ready and they should sharpen their delivery methods to keep NATO cautious.

 

thanks for admitting that all this whining about threats to Russian-Ukrainians is nothing more than Russian lies and propaganda and that it's the Russians in Ukraine who hate the opposition, not the other way around.

 

The U.S. administration had no right to dump $5 billion dollars to destabilize a nation and undermine a due democratic process. If a minority overrides choices made by the majority then you have an invitation for either a civil war or secession. And Crimea was not powerful enough to defend independence on its own.

 

And then there are the facts which somehow never make it into our corporate media:



So why did the West go to such lengths to selectively demonise Serbia above the other nations involved in the conflicts?

The core justification for the 78 day NATO bombardment of Serbia in 1999 was the accusation of Serbian conducted 'genocide' against Albanians in the Serbian province of Kosovo. Yet those 'casus belli' allegations were not subsequently pursued at the war crimes tribunal at the Hague due to lack of evidence. Indeed, in September 2001 a UN court in Kosovo ultimately ruled that the allegations were untrue.

However, most people still remain unaware of the earlier fraud conducted against Serbia by NATO , thanks in large part to Milosevic's untimely death at the Hague, a sudden development which prevented his trial reaching a conclusion. Yet, the whole Kosovo episode faced the prospect of being reborn as a new major media story once the judgement had been issued, had Milosevic lived to the end of the trial.

The re-ignition of the story would have been an eventuality loaded with embarrassment for the western powers. For at that point of 'denouement' it would have been impossible to prevent the broader general public from realising that the original claims of genocide used to justify the war against Serbia had been dropped.

Just days before his death at the Hague Milosevic himself had asserted in a letter to the Russian government (the text of which was released by Associated Press) his concern that he was being wilfully poisoned through the administration to him of an inappropriate drug for his health problems. Whether true or not, one thing is clear. Milosevic's premature demise before the conclusion of his trial was a great piece of luck...

.

 

Here's is something on Stephan Bandera, who is lauded as a hero by the people we support in Kiev and who is flaunted in the face of the Russians. ..Something similar to our government flaunting Hitler as an affront to the Jews:


The Banderas, or Banderites, are activists in the Ukrainian Ultra Nationalist movement that is now in control of the government in Ukraine. Under the militant leadership of Stepan Bandera in World War II, the ultra-nationalists organized the Ukrainian Waffen SS Galician, Nichtengall, and Roland Divisions that collaborated with the Nazis and were responsible for the genocide of over 500,000 people.

Following the war, however, Ukrainian Nazis were the only group to escape trial at Nuremburg for crimes against humanity. Moreover, neither the Banderas, the Ukrainian Waffen SS, nor any other Ukrainian collaborators have ever apologized for their participation in genocide.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukrain...andera-and-the-legacy-of-world-war-ii/5373773

 

They don't want it. This "weapons expert" in the article is also uninformed. Russians 5.45X39 isn't much different from the NATO 5.56x41. Actually it's 100 ft/s slower and carries about 700 joules less energy then the NATO round. Russia basically switched to the near NATO clone for all the advantages it had. It may also have been banned for import but there are still US manufactures who make and sell these commercially. NATO's round has a steel penetrator that can go through 1/8" thick steel plate at 600 meters, and our 2nd widely used round the 7.62 X51 would leave no doubt.

I've seen nothing here that would leave a NATO special forces member salivating. not in the 5.45, the body armor, or the AKs

 

Well 5.45 was made as a response for NATO 5.56. So the idea was to make it better. The main usage is against human flesh. If 7.62 bullet is easily passing through not only armor but 'Bradley' 5.45 and 5.56 are made to come into human and after the impact these long bullets start to move inside, which leads to extremely difficult wounds that would require a lot of time. If you have a choice to be shot with either 7.62 or 5.41 -choose 7.62. It would go through your body and if by chance it doesn't go through something vital you might need 15 minutes to stop the blood and then you can use your body for fight again. After the impact with 5.45 or 5.56 you will have to spend years in the hospital for a small soldier's pension and for sure you will not be able to take part in battle.
The main advantage of 5.45 is a longer aimed distance and less length of the gun required for an aimed shot. The difference is not very dramatic, so I am not going to tell that this super weapon will cause an overwhelming advantage of russian caliber. Let's say that if the distance of an aimed shot for 5.56 is 300 m then for 5.45 it will be 350m. Can these 50 m be decisive? They can.
Another advantage is the length of the gun. 5.56 was initially planned for 510 mm. If the length is less then it is already a "cut-off", which means that a bullet is losing not the speed but the ability to make terrible wounds (decisive quality). The bullet will strike and hit the target. But the target might shoot back soon after the impact. With 5.45 you can choose a small copact guns like AKSU being sure that your aim will eally suffer if you hit it. That also can result in being spotted by the enemy. Longer rifles are more difficult to conceal.
So the advantage is not really deadly. There is no point in panicking and overthrowing Obama as ukrainians Maidowns did. But these small advantages might outweigh some lives in a battle.

 

That has to be one of the most uninformed posts ever written. Erase everything you think you've ever learned and read about hydrostatic shock.

 

Taxcutter says:
Just the first of many "provocations"Putin will use to restore the 1914 Imperial Russian boundaries by 2017.

 

Jannette, please, don't insult our intelligence, there is far more support and admiration in Russia for genocidal maniac Stalin, responsible for the death of tens of millions of people, than there is support in Ukraine for Bandera. Lest we forget that Bandera spent most of WWII in German jails/concentration camps.

 

A lot of your points of the 5.56 and 5.45 are baseless.

current 5.56 NATO rounds are designed for 20inch barrels (508mm). anything longer experiences a huge drop in muzzle velocity.


the distance of an aimed shot? very arbitrary number and term you've used. Since the 5.56 carries a higher velocity and more energy in the bullet the 5.56 has a higher effective range as it carries more penetrating power further.


The silhouette of a person aiming at you is the same no matter what the barrel length. 4 inches is not going to give Russians a stealth advantage.

the article is wrong, and now you are too

 

I agree with your self-esteem, but I cannot erase your post. Hydrostatic shock is a debatable theory which has nothing to do with the length of the bullet and its energy.

 

The weight of the gun at 3 kg cf with the weight of 4 kg... The force of the weapon that moves it to the side of the shooter (don't know the english term for that) provided by the energy of 5.56 (you told youself that it is more) and the less for 5.45.
I agree that it is debatable. Lots of the guys like 7.62 just for being big. But I compared 5.45 with 5.56 And in this case less weight and less of tiredness CAN give the edge... 4 inches is maybe a fraction of a second. But it is enough for a 5.45 to be fired first.

 

That would solve many of our problems. Period. Tax legal dope, Tax the Churches and Tax legal prostitution; we could pay off the National Debt and probably eliminate Income Taxes besides. We now return you to your thread.

 

I can see why you didn't include the source....

This site is pretty loony...

http://www.nlpwessex.org/

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with legalizing and taxing all these things, although I don't believe it would solve our debt issues.