Post: #2401

Post: #2402

http://rt.com/news/258805-french-mistral...ion-offer/ ... didn't know the French could be so funny. Also, the value of the euro (compared to dollar) has dramatically dropped since Russia paid them so Russia would get paid back in cheaper, and non-inflation adjusted euros.

Quote:France offers Mistral contract termination, hopes to get off cheap – report

France has proposed to terminate the Mistral ships contract, offering €100mn less than Moscow paid upfront, not to mention other costs, and only after Russia allows selling the helicopter carriers to a third party, sources told Kommersant newspaper.

The sum which has been offered to Moscow, the paper has learned, is €784.6 million ($895 million), which is substantially less than €1.163 billion ($1.33 billion) Russia has reportedly spent on the military project – including the advance payment, training and new infrastructure.

France hopes to get off cheap paying back only the money specified in the work completion certificates, according to the source. Russia understandably disagrees with such an offer, insisting that all expenses and losses should be compensated for by the side which terminates the contract. Russia intends to recover the loses associated with training the 400-sailor crew and constructing docks for the vessels in addition to the €892.9 million ($1,017 million) advance payment.

The French side is now preparing arguments to back their proposal, after talking to Russian Deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin, a source in the military-technical cooperation sphere told Kommersant. Moscow will in the meantime review the draft proposal – all as Paris continues wasting an estimated €5 million monthly to maintain the ships.

One of the clauses of the proposal allegedly requires Moscow to first issue its permission to sell the ships to a third party “without any reservations” before it gets any money back. This point, according to sources will “definitely be reviewed.”

As long as Russia has an end-user certificate for the stern parts of the vessels, “without our permission they can’t sell anything,” Rogozin said earlier, adding that he had already explained the situation to the French.

The Kremlin doesn't see the Mistral issue as a problem, the Russian president’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov said.

“The issue of Mistral ships is not on the president’s meeting agenda this week,” he said.

“The principle applied here is ‘goods or money’,” Peskov said, noting it had already been raised during the recent meeting of the Russian and French presidents in Yerevan.

Moscow would welcome either ships or money, Peskov said, yet refused to comment on the issue of compensation for infrastructure and other investments made by Russia as required by the Mistral project.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also believes the Mistral issue has now become purely legal.

"Foreign policy aspects of the Mistral issue including the degree of reliability of our partners have been made clear long ago. I am not interested in this issue any longer because it has become purely legal and commercial. As our president once said ... Give the money back as stated in the contract."

The French have also allegedly suggested that the costs associated with the possibly of dismantling the Russian-tailored equipment aboard the vessels must be divided equally between parties. Moscow, however, believes that the cost should be paid for by the French side – since it is the one failing to comply with the contract.

France apparently wants to use force majeure as an excuse to terminate the contract and relieve itself from obligations, but sources hinted that Moscow is leaning towards a “buy-back” option, stipulated under the French civil code enacted in 1804 , the so-called Napoleonic Code. Under such arrangement France will buy-back the Russian Mistral ships, while Russia reserves the right to put a final price offer, without any explanation.

The Mistral helicopter carriers have been the single-most point of contention between Russia and France since President Francois Hollande postponed the delivery of the vessels indefinitely, following the accession of Crimea and Russia’s alleged involvement in the Ukrainian conflict.

On Thursday, an article in the Le Point weekly estimated that two Mistral helicopter carriers could end up costing France as much as €5 billion if it fails to deliver them to Russia. Some reports even indicated that unless France gets Russian approval to resell the ships, it may eventually be forced to sink the helicopter carriers.

Post: #2403

Lol I can't believe we missed that:
http://rt.com/news/258837-ukraine-fence-russian-border/
Apparently Kiev is building the great wall of Ukraine.

Quote:Kiev authorities have approved a major new program to isolate the country from Russia by constructing an enormous barrier, equipped with anti-tank ditches and remote controlled weapons stations. They intend to spend $200 million on the grand plan.

Post: #2404

(05-15-2015 01:56 PM)turkishcandy Wrote:  Lol I can't believe we missed that:
http://rt.com/news/258837-ukraine-fence-russian-border/
Apparently Kiev is building the great wall of Ukraine.

Quote:Kiev authorities have approved a major new program to isolate the country from Russia by constructing an enormous barrier, equipped with anti-tank ditches and remote controlled weapons stations. They intend to spend $200 million on the grand plan.

Cute of them to waste money and resources on building a maginot line that Russia would bypass through the Ardennes Donbass and Crimea, that is, if they intended on pursuing military action beyond airstrikes and cross-border artillery in support of Novorossiya.

Post: #2405

As we've seen in Starcraft, barricading in your base never works...

Post: #2406

(05-15-2015 02:38 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  As we've seen in Starcraft, barricading in your base never works...

Let's not forget Pacific Rim.

Post: #2407

Post: #2408

Porky bluffing again?
http://rt.com/news/262849-ukraine-martia...oroshenko/

Quote:Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko says he can declare martial law in his country within hours, in case there is an advance on the Ukrainian army's positions.

Post: #2409

Is the Armata tank good or a white elephant project?

Post: #2410

(05-28-2015 01:45 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  Is the Armata tank good or a white elephant project?

I watched on the news that the tank had issues during that 70th anniversary parade.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/russ...d=30872959

Being towed.

Post: #2411

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschlan...35063.html

The Krauts started designing a replacement for the Leopard tank (already considered one of the worlds best) in response to the Armata. More symbolic than anything; it's unlikely they'll field more than a few dozen given the political climate in Germany and budget of the Bundeswehr.

They've also increased the size of their tank force from 225 to 328 Leopards.

Post: #2412

(05-28-2015 01:49 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 01:45 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  Is the Armata tank good or a white elephant project?

I watched on the news that the tank had issues during that 70th anniversary parade.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/russ...d=30872959

Being towed.

One thing Russians make better than the others is weapons, they do not play with this. For sure it is an amazing machine.

Post: #2413

Fugitive Georgian ex-president (Saakashvili) nominated as governor of Ukraine’s Odessa region

Can someone who knows the sheeple of Odessa tell me how they don't explode in riots and overthrow the junta the moment this news reaches them?

Just by the fact that it's a done deal, tells me the junta know they can get away with it, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

Post: #2414

(05-30-2015 02:23 AM)Caveman Wrote:  Fugitive Georgian ex-president (Saakashvili) nominated as governor of Ukraine’s Odessa region

Can someone who knows the sheeple of Odessa tell me how they don't explode in riots and overthrow the junta the moment this news reaches them?

Just by the fact that it's a done deal, tells me the junta know they can get away with it, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

Porky just crossed the fucking line.

Post: #2415

On the subject of tanks, neither the Armata nor the Leopard would be able to stand against the British Challenger II.

"During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to enemy fire, although one was penetrated by an IED. This was, at the time, unprotected by Dorchester armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within an urban area, a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and, while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by 14 rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[16] The crew survived, remaining safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later, after repairs had been done. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[17]"

In contrast to 16 or so M1A2 Abrams which were knocked out in the Gulf war. The only Challenger II to have been lost was by friendly fire, knocked out by mistake by another Challenger II. This is why the UK needs to re arm, RAF, navy and Army ( especially armoured forces). With an increasingly aggressive Russia we need to be strong.

Post: #2416

(05-30-2015 06:55 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  This is why the UK needs to re arm, RAF, navy and Army ( especially armoured forces). With an increasingly aggressive Russia we need to be strong.

If we kept our noses out of Russia's sphere of influence they would not need to be aggressive.

Post: #2417

I agree, but they took parts of the Ukraine because they knew they could. Also, the EU is about to implode and with the threat of ISIS conquering the Middle East, the UK needs to be strong militarily like never before.

Post: #2418

(05-30-2015 08:11 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  I agree, but they took parts of the Ukraine because they knew they could. Also, the EU is about to implode and with the threat of ISIS conquering the Middle East, the UK needs to be strong militarily like never before.

Russia needs to seriously rearm to combat an increasingly aggressive NATO.

Post: #2419

(05-30-2015 06:55 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  With an increasingly aggressive Russia we need to be strong.

Is any of you familiar with Civilization V PC game? The more advanced nation keeps expanding its boundaries until it's neighbor with the unadvanced nation, and then the advanced nation declares war, clamining the unadvanced nation is too close to its boundaries. That's what US has been doing for half a century. Now they want to put another military base in Ukraine because Russia is too close a secutiry risk to the NATO nations in Europe.

Post: #2420

(05-30-2015 06:55 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  On the subject of tanks, neither the Armata nor the Leopard would be able to stand against the British Challenger II.

"During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to enemy fire, although one was penetrated by an IED. This was, at the time, unprotected by Dorchester armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within an urban area, a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and, while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by 14 rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[16] The crew survived, remaining safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later, after repairs had been done. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[17]"

In contrast to 16 or so M1A2 Abrams which were knocked out in the Gulf war. The only Challenger II to have been lost was by friendly fire, knocked out by mistake by another Challenger II. This is why the UK needs to re arm, RAF, navy and Army ( especially armoured forces). With an increasingly aggressive Russia we need to be strong.

We will probably find out soon enough which is the best tank, in real war conditions. On the subject of Challenger 2, - if another Challenger can kill it, so will T14/Armata with significantly more powerful gun. On some T14s they plan to install a 152mm gun whose projectile can burn through a meter of steel. But even the standard 120mm gun will in all likelihood kill it quite nicely as it would be super moronic to invest a bunch of money to make a new tank that can't take out existing tanks of the enemy.

Post: #2421

(05-30-2015 02:23 AM)Caveman Wrote:  Fugitive Georgian ex-president (Saakashvili) nominated as governor of Ukraine’s Odessa region

Can someone who knows the sheeple of Odessa tell me how they don't explode in riots and overthrow the junta the moment this news reaches them?

Just by the fact that it's a done deal, tells me the junta know they can get away with it, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

So far everyone seems to be rolling on the floor in laughter with this appointment, the tie meme and all. I really doubt he will be effective there since people won't take him seriously after his Georgia fiasco, especially as a complete outsider. It appears the US wants to press the Transnistria spot to once more try to provoke Russia into an open war, and from this angle Mishiko would be great in that role.

Post: #2422

(05-30-2015 09:21 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 06:55 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  With an increasingly aggressive Russia we need to be strong.

Is any of you familiar with Civilization V PC game? The more advanced nation keeps expanding its boundaries until it's neighbor with the unadvanced nation, and then the advanced nation declares war, clamining the unadvanced nation is too close to its boundaries. That's what US has been doing for half a century. Now they want to put another military base in Ukraine because Russia is too close a secutiry risk to the NATO nations in Europe.

Haven't had time to even see Civ 4 & 5, but I used to play Civ 1, 2 and 3 a lot, and the best one was when another nation feels they're so strong, they just send a message "We're tired of you vile provocations, prepare for war!", and this is a nation you never had a conflict with.

It was probably the most educational game for politics ever created and just like in the real world, might makes right and nothing else matters.

However one aspect the game severely lacked (versions 1 & 2 & 3) was that there was no concept of long term brainwashing of the masses under democracy so that they'll happily support the president when launching new wars.

Post: #2423

(05-30-2015 08:11 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  I agree, but they took parts of the Ukraine because they knew they could. Also, the EU is about to implode and with the threat of ISIS conquering the Middle East, the UK needs to be strong militarily like never before.

It wouldn't hurt you to read a bit about the main geopolitical games of today before trying to "contribute" on this issue.

And ISIS is nothing but Al-qaeda renamed, and just like Al-qaeda has always been an obedient execution arm of Washington so is ISIS today:

Post: #2424

(05-30-2015 08:23 PM)rover Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 06:55 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  On the subject of tanks, neither the Armata nor the Leopard would be able to stand against the British Challenger II.

"During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to enemy fire, although one was penetrated by an IED. This was, at the time, unprotected by Dorchester armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within an urban area, a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and, while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by 14 rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[16] The crew survived, remaining safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later, after repairs had been done. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[17]"

In contrast to 16 or so M1A2 Abrams which were knocked out in the Gulf war. The only Challenger II to have been lost was by friendly fire, knocked out by mistake by another Challenger II. This is why the UK needs to re arm, RAF, navy and Army ( especially armoured forces). With an increasingly aggressive Russia we need to be strong.

We will probably find out soon enough which is the best tank, in real war conditions. On the subject of Challenger 2, - if another Challenger can kill it, so will T14/Armata with significantly more powerful gun. On some T14s they plan to install a 152mm gun whose projectile can burn through a meter of steel. But even the standard 120mm gun will in all likelihood kill it quite nicely as it would be super moronic to invest a bunch of money to make a new tank that can't take out existing tanks of the enemy.

People still go on about which tanks are better?

Do you also forget the use of tactical and ballistic nuclear weapons renders any toy like a tank null and void?

Russian generals would have no issue with nuking a battlefield they will surely lose I am sure.

Post: #2425

(05-31-2015 07:48 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  People still go on about which tanks are better?

Do you also forget the use of tactical and ballistic nuclear weapons renders any toy like a tank null and void?

Nuclear weapons are the last resort, which neither side is going to use, at least not in Europe. Besides they tend to be shot down fairly reliably, just like the aircraft. The wars in Europe are won or lost by the tank armies.

(05-31-2015 07:48 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Russian generals would have no issue with nuking a battlefield they will surely lose I am sure.

You seem very informed about Russian generals. Must have watched every Hollywood movie. I am not sure about Russian generals but what we do know about American generals, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they will have no problem nuking any battlefield, or any large civilian population for that matter, even when they are winning. Just ask the Japanese.