Blog powered by Typepad

« Don't worry, you're not drunk! | Main | Someone normally sensible speaks up for 'The Donald' »

Thursday, 25 February 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

In that particular case the West should be at the side of the reason. Turks are just like a little ugly dog, which is barking from behind the fence. In the case of our bomber that dog bit Putin's ankle and immedeatley rushed inside the house in order not to be mashed down on the spot.
Is the West up to unleash a nuclear winter because of that little asshole? (tell me if there is any way "to protect Turkey" which won't lead to the global disaster)I don't think so. IMHO to improve our poor relations the West should not support counter-Russian actings whatever they are, as it does now. Actually, it reminds me the Disraeli's policy towards the Ottoman empire.
One may not like Putin, one may not like Russia, etc, but one cannot support those who either in direct or in indirect way (such as buying oil) support terrorists.

Yep, Alexey, you got it, Bubba.

What Alexey and Michael said. Besides, there is no NATO worth mentioning now as that 'O' stands for 'O'bama. If Putin wants to further risk his broke economy over shooting matches with even more Muslims...let him. NATO members would be better served by disposing of newly arrived Muslims in their own countries.

I'm reading in The Times where Rotherham police conspired to cover up the child rapes by Muslim men. The Muslim rapists, cops and any elected officials who are involved need to be publicly hanged. Since Britain is an island, it comes down to one of two things: either British citizens are stuck there with radical Muslims or, radical Muslims are stuck there with British citizens. Which side has the greater will?

"In the case of our bomber that dog bit Putin's ankle and immedeatley rushed inside the house in order not to be mashed down on the spot."

The Turkish armed forces alone without NATO are more than a match for whatever's left of the Russian army that could assault Turkey, while still facing off all the enemies Russia has made at her borders since Putin has been in power.

Take a look at the orbats: -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_of_the_Turkish_Land_Forces

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Russian_Ground_Forces

And your T-72's, T-90's, and air force can't even knock out a few Hairies equipped with TOW missiles ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFtsKtMw-KM

... and the Armata didn't even make it across Red Square without breaking down ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgS9GA3nBco

Remember what happened in Grozny? You've got a hundred Grozny's before you get from one side of Turkey to the other. Your armed forces will be toast and Russia will be bankrupt before you get half way.

Putin may have persuaded you that Russia can take on the world; I only hope for the sake of Russia he hasn't persuaded himself.

"One may not like Putin, one may not like Russia, etc, but one cannot support those who either in direct or in indirect way (such as buying oil) support terrorists."

I know, that Assad is a right little terrorist, isn't he, I mean, who in their right mind would support him?

SoD

On a lighter note, meet the 16 year old Rooskie lad who just won the Moscow lotto!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12172724/Russian-teen-wins-month-in-hotel-with-pornstar-in-online-competition.html

Talk about a Cheshire cat grin.

SoD

SoD, that boy will likely leave that room much older and wiser.

Lawrence, I don't really know what to reply. It looks like you instigate either Erdogan or Putin to unleash the real war. Well... I don't think it's worth any time to discuss probable war between a non-nuclear and a nuclear state (especially when the lattest has not only nuclear but an ordinary winged rockets as well).
Regarding to Asad - what has he done to be considered terrorist? I think any Asad is MUCH better than these headcutters.
By the way, would you spend a weekend with so-called "moderate opposition"?

NATO is not a pick and mix organisation - unless you are French.

Alexey,

The headcutters, Assad, and the "moderate opposition" are all as bad as each other.

I would happily spend a weekend with anyone from California to the Urals, outside of that, forget it.

The real Game of Thrones here, Alexey, I've only found mentioned in one place, by the Israelis: -

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.704437

"Official spokespeople do not say this publicly – there are things one cannot say when 470,000 people (according to recent accepted figures) are being massacred across the border – but Israel has been quietly wishing success to both sides and would not have been against the bloodletting continuing for a few more years without a clear victor."

If Putin wants to provide air support to Assad, and we provide air support to the "moderates", and we both bomb ISIS, and keep that going for another 100 years, no-one should have any problem with that.

But if Putin takes on Turkey he'll lose. I've rapped by knuckles on a Leopard II (in fact my fire team took aim at one with a Carl Gustav in Germany while on the most effing awesome exercise I ever went on, and the exercise officials said we'd knocked it out! Silly buggers, there's no way that peashooter would've so much as grazed it. I distinctly remember the raised middle finger from one of the crew when the message came over the radio!). And they've got hundreds of them.

I mean, how are you going to resupply Latakia and your navy hovering off the coast of Syria if the Turks close the Turkish Straits? And then Britain, Spain, and Morocco close the Gibraltar Straits, and the Saudis close the Suez canal? All of those states are not Russia's friends on account of Putin.

And the rest of NATO will find diplomatic ways of not getting involved directly, and using Turkey as a fighting proxy.

At every stage, Russia will be the "bad boy", forced to up the ante, until we get to the red button. Waste of time.

Putin probably knows this. I hope he does.

SoD

Alexey,
If you read any history of the First World War, you will get a very good perspective of the problems Turkey can cause. Historically, their armed forces (and those of the Ottoman Empire before them) have always been extremely capable. By the way, we still have an English proverb, "To fight like a Turk."

I think Russia would prevail against Turkey, but the military and diplomatic cost would be absolutely prohibitive. It would also risk starting the Third World War.

Pretty obvious things, Lawrence. And by the way, closing the Turkish straits will mean war.
No argument about the non-military results. But what are the West's aims in that gamble? We don't really get'em. No-no-no, I don't watch Russian media, but the things I learn from the western ones don't make me any clear.
Agree, at least one beneficiar of all that stuff is Israel.

Richard, namely because of that I reckon it's a bad idea to support Erdogan in such a way. The shutdown was impossible to be done in such a short period of time and without US's preliminary approval.
I don't argue on turks' combat skills but it would be a type of war we saw in Yugoslavia. However, I really hope it won't.

Amen to that!

"And by the way, closing the Turkish straits will mean war."

Not so. The Turks are entitled to close the straits in times when they are threatened only. Search this page for the second occurrence of the word "threatened" (the first occurrence is quite interesting too): -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits

So right now an armoured Brigade sized formation (around 90 main battle tanks, roughly 1/3 of the size of the British army's MBT fleet) of Assad's T-72's and the brand new T-90's equipped with Shtora supplied by you Rooskies in Q4 2015 are heading straight for the Turkish border.

Turkey would be absolutely justified in claiming that as a threat, and a reasonable action to close the straits, particularly to deny the state supplying the equipment the ability to continue supplying. The UN would vote yes.

So Russia would have to up the ante from legally evoked defence against threat, to a declaration of war, thereby putting itself in the "bad boys" section of the history books.

SoD

I am no fan of Johnny Turk and his filthy ways, but we have often found ourselves bailing him out in the past because the alternatives were worse. This is surely one of those times. That said, I would have no objection to Russia's sorting out Syria on whatever terms it chooses. Assad was and is the internationally recognised ruler of that country and what happens within his borders should (ideally) have nothing to do with us.

According to this blogger ...

http://www.infowars.com/turkey-blockades-russian-shipping-black-sea-fleet-completely-cut-off/

... the Turks have de facto closed the Straits to Rooskie shipping anyway.

And we're not at war with Russia - unless I've missed something?

But it might explain why Putin is keen to get a ceasefire result PDFQ: Before the ammo, parts, and scoff runs out!

SoD

Looks like that Shtora's not all it's cracked up to be; first of Assad's brand spanking new T-90's bites the dust: -

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=871_1456476988

The only state that has the armoured vehicles capable of charging from one end of an enemy state to the other without getting themselves massacred in the process is Israel. They proved that their combination of Active Defence System, Passive Defence System, Reactive Armour, and rolled steel is impervious to TOW type missiles in Operation Protective Edge - they even named the campaign after the objective of the exercise - to prove they were the only nation with armour that can pass through the open, built up areas, and everything in between, without a scratch.

This is important. Our donkey generals need to get palsy with the Israelis and upgrade Challenger and Warrior for the occasion we might have to do an Operation Protective Edge. With that kit we might have won the battle of Basra, instead of being ignominiously bounced out.

But Alexey, one things for certain now: You can't charge through open and built up terrain in the latest and greatest T-90's without getting shot to shit.

So Turkey's off the cards, mate.

SoD

SoD, I bow to your superior knowledge on 'tankie' pros and cons but I am not sure that we should urge 'Vlad' to be sensible and stay out. If he really wants to strip off to the waist and go fishing in the Euphrates, well, I'm quite happy to hold his shirt!

Whilst I'm at it, I will also offer some reluctant congratulations to 'Ol' Big Ears' who, for whatever reason, has refused to commit American boots to the Middle East. One dreads to think what 'The Trump' will do should the unthinkable occur!

Spot on, Popsy.

Apparently the Israelis are open to exporting their Trophy Active Defence System these days: -

SoD

Trophy is the Active Defence System that actually works - here it is in action in Operation Protective Edge on an Israeli AFV taking out an RPG in mid-attack. The crew didn't even know they'd been attacked. -

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/watch-an-active-protection-system-destroy-an-rpg-fired-1609196170

- so unlike the Rooskie Shtora Passive Defence System that doesn't seem to work, and the Rooskie Arena Active Defence System that's unproven.

With Trophy atop our Challengers and Warriors we could drive to Moscow and meet Richard and Alexey in time for tea. And with Trophy atop their Leopard II's, so could the Turks.

Mr Putin should be mindful of that, let alone contemplating an offensive on the Turks.

SoD

Good grief, Lawrence, it's getting to the stage where modern warfare will become impossible and we will have to return to bows and arrows!

The comments to this entry are closed.