War with Russia
Discussion
EskimoArapaho said:
The key difference is that Russian (the state, rather than the people) doesn't care about bodybags coming back home; unlike the West.
Dont think thats necessarily true. Russians are just as attached to their sons and daughters as we in the west. I'm sure Vlad would pull out under domestic pressure if bodies started to flood back as they did in Afganistan. Pretty sure Russian advisors have been in Syria for decades. They have been supplying ME forces since the Arab Israeli wars of the 50's.Norco said:
EskimoArapaho said:
The key difference is that Russian (the state, rather than the people) doesn't care about bodybags coming back home; unlike the West.
Dont think thats necessarily true. Russians are just as attached to their sons and daughters as we in the west. I'm sure Vlad would pull out under domestic pressure if bodies started to flood back as they did in Afganistan. Pretty sure Russian advisors have been in Syria for decades. They have been supplying ME forces since the Arab Israeli wars of the 50's.The Russian people have unfortunately been silenced in this devious piece of legislation introduced in the wake of the Ukraine conflict that makes it a crime for families to talk about members killed in conflict.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86fdcb96-0555-11e5-bb7d-...
They have also banned any internet memes that mock Putin
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/...
Norco said:
EskimoArapaho said:
The key difference is that Russian (the state, rather than the people) doesn't care about bodybags coming back home; unlike the West.
Dont think thats necessarily true. Russians are just as attached to their sons and daughters as we in the west. I'm sure Vlad would pull out under domestic pressure if bodies started to flood back as they did in Afganistan. Pretty sure Russian advisors have been in Syria for decades. They have been supplying ME forces since the Arab Israeli wars of the 50's.gofasterrosssco said:
Norco said:
EskimoArapaho said:
The key difference is that Russian (the state, rather than the people) doesn't care about bodybags coming back home; unlike the West.
Dont think thats necessarily true. Russians are just as attached to their sons and daughters as we in the west. I'm sure Vlad would pull out under domestic pressure if bodies started to flood back as they did in Afganistan. Pretty sure Russian advisors have been in Syria for decades. They have been supplying ME forces since the Arab Israeli wars of the 50's.My view is that a Western army will never have long term success in a boots on the ground operation in the ME, yes they can win pitched battles but these don't occur. It isn't a liberation, it's an occupation as there will always be a group or faction of locals that don't want you there. Has a Western Democracy occupied a hostile nation since WW2? The Russians stand a better chance as they won't be following the single-sided rule book.
t even before bombing had startedThe OSCE has spotted the TOS-1 Buratino weapon system in separatist hands for the first time
This is a hugely powerful and destructive thermobaric weapon and which could only have come directly from Russia.
Once again they are caught red faced.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/02/ukraine-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1
This is a hugely powerful and destructive thermobaric weapon and which could only have come directly from Russia.
Once again they are caught red faced.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/02/ukraine-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1
EskimoArapaho said:
Yes. I remember the stories of Russian mothers who took perilous trips to Chechnya to try to find the truth about their sons' deaths there. Then, and still in Crimea, the Russian state treats its soldiers as cannon fodder.
Apologies Eskimo! Broke my own rule and replied to a topic in haste. 
scherzkeks said:
Good to see they have decided to start leveling the playing field.
Is that a joke?"If it looks like a terrorist, walks like a terrorist ..." could have been said about separatists in Ukraine.....yet he gives them weapons that are literally going to level the playing field.
Liokault said:
scherzkeks said:
Good to see they have decided to start leveling the playing field.
Is that a joke?"If it looks like a terrorist, walks like a terrorist ..." could have been said about separatists in Ukraine.....yet he gives them weapons that are literally going to level the playing field.
Taken from Aarse forum
http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/chronicle...
http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/chronicle...
Emsav said:
The supposed trial of Nadiya Savchenko is becoming increasingly more farcical by the day. This politically-motivated charade, condemned by the international community in which the ‘defendant’s unbreakable alibi and absurdity of the charges against her are of no interest to the court. Words like ‘trial’, ‘witness’ and ‘testimony’ lose any meaning when nobody is in any doubt that the sentence in this case will be passed in the Kremlin. This is nothing more than a show-trial in a Kangaroo Court where the state is prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
What follows is a report made by three representatives from the European Union who are monitoring proceedings from inside the courteoom – I claim NO credit or copyright
October 6th marked a new low for the Russian judicial system, with the video appearance of a witness whose account is alleged by the defence to be a lie from beginning to end but who was permitted by the court to conceal information that would have immediately confirmed that his story was false.
Up till Wednesday not one of the witnesses had appeared in this obscure courtroom in Russian Donetsk, 150 kilometres from the nearest remand prison, conveniently far from Moscow and small enough to enable journalists to be forced to follow the proceedings by video. The Investigative Committee claims that Savchenko entered Russia ‘illegally’ through the Rostov oblast, although she was initially remanded in custody in the Voronezh oblast. Savchenko and the defence insist that she was taken by force to Voronezh, crossing the border with a bag over her head, after being captured by Kremlin-backed militants in the Luhansk oblast in Ukraine.
One of the witnesses on Tuesday – Alexie Miroshnikov – was supposed to have picked her up near Russian Donetsk, however typically he was also questioned by video from Voronezh.
The testimony is critical to the Investigative Committee’s version and the later charge laid against Savchenko of having crossed into Russia illegally through the Rostov oblast.
He claimed to have been travelling with a humanitarian load for refugees in a car borrowed from a friend and to have received 25 thousand roubles for this from volunteers. This large amount of money was supposedly to cover transport costs. According to this version, on his way back he met Savchenko on the outskirts of (Russian) Donetsk. She supposedly said that she was a refugee, and that her home, together with documents and money, had been bombed, and that her Ukrainian soldiers’ uniform had been given to her by the Kremlin-backed militants. He claims to have agreed to give her a lift and dropped her in the Voronezh oblast, and to have given her 15 thousand roubles.
As if those details were not farcical enough, Miroshnikov’s story had not even been embellished with a semblance of credibility. Asked by the defence to say who had provided him with the car, Miroshnikov claimed that the owner had asked him not to disclose his name. The defence pointed out that the law required Miroshnikov to disclose this information, and for the owner to be summoned for questioning.
The court, as on all occasions, rejected the defence’s law-based demands and allowed Miroshnikov to not give the information.
The court also allowed him to conceal his phone number although this was crucial for ascertaining where he actually was on the relevant day. The court rejected questions as to whether the 15 thousand roubles Miroshnikov is alleged to have so generously given away was a large amount of money, and whether he often gives people money.
On Wednesday, an FSB officer in disguise was questioned, together with a taxi driver and militants.
The FSB officer – Alexei Pochechuyev - appeared on the video in a wig with grey hair, makeup and glasses.
As reported earlier, two men are claimed by the prosecution to have given Savchenko a lift after Miroshnikov ‘dropped her off’. They are supposed to have been stopped by a traffic police officer who then passed Savchenko to the FSB.
The defence has been demanding – without success – to have witnesses brought to the courtroom since the video link has poor sound quality. In a telling moment, Savchenko asked Pochechuyev if he could see her well. He answered that he could. She promptly put a bag over her head and asked if he could see her face. He answered that he could.
Pochechuyev also explained his having allegedly taken 7 hours to get Savchenko to the Investigative Committee building, rather than the requisite 3-4 hours as being because he’d been ‘tired’ and had driven at 40 kilometres an hour.
The defence believes that since Pochechuyev couldn’t remember the questioning which he signed as having been part of, refused to give his age and appeared in comical disguise, that he may not have been the FSB officer at all. More importantly, they assert that his story is fiction.
Savchenko herself says that there were five FSB officers in balaclavas. Due to the disguise and bad quality of the video, she was unable to say whether the alleged Pochechuyev had been among those who interrogated her.
The only ‘witnesses’ to so far appear in court were a taxi driver working for the militants and some militants who were involved in Savchenko’s capture. One of the latter’s allegations about Savchenko’s own words to them aroused the latter’s mirth.
It remains to be seen whether Igor Plotnytsky, now leader of the so-called Luhansk People’s Republic who was directly involved in Savchenko’s capture, will be questioned.
His testimony, and especially the way it changes with the Investigative Committee’s version, is particularly indicative of the nature of this case.
So too, unfortunately, is the behaviour of the court which, has not only ignored Savchenko’s alibi, but rejects uncomfortable questions and allows the prosecution to conceal information which would confirm Savchenko’s total innocence.
What follows is a report made by three representatives from the European Union who are monitoring proceedings from inside the courteoom – I claim NO credit or copyright
October 6th marked a new low for the Russian judicial system, with the video appearance of a witness whose account is alleged by the defence to be a lie from beginning to end but who was permitted by the court to conceal information that would have immediately confirmed that his story was false.
Up till Wednesday not one of the witnesses had appeared in this obscure courtroom in Russian Donetsk, 150 kilometres from the nearest remand prison, conveniently far from Moscow and small enough to enable journalists to be forced to follow the proceedings by video. The Investigative Committee claims that Savchenko entered Russia ‘illegally’ through the Rostov oblast, although she was initially remanded in custody in the Voronezh oblast. Savchenko and the defence insist that she was taken by force to Voronezh, crossing the border with a bag over her head, after being captured by Kremlin-backed militants in the Luhansk oblast in Ukraine.
One of the witnesses on Tuesday – Alexie Miroshnikov – was supposed to have picked her up near Russian Donetsk, however typically he was also questioned by video from Voronezh.
The testimony is critical to the Investigative Committee’s version and the later charge laid against Savchenko of having crossed into Russia illegally through the Rostov oblast.
He claimed to have been travelling with a humanitarian load for refugees in a car borrowed from a friend and to have received 25 thousand roubles for this from volunteers. This large amount of money was supposedly to cover transport costs. According to this version, on his way back he met Savchenko on the outskirts of (Russian) Donetsk. She supposedly said that she was a refugee, and that her home, together with documents and money, had been bombed, and that her Ukrainian soldiers’ uniform had been given to her by the Kremlin-backed militants. He claims to have agreed to give her a lift and dropped her in the Voronezh oblast, and to have given her 15 thousand roubles.
As if those details were not farcical enough, Miroshnikov’s story had not even been embellished with a semblance of credibility. Asked by the defence to say who had provided him with the car, Miroshnikov claimed that the owner had asked him not to disclose his name. The defence pointed out that the law required Miroshnikov to disclose this information, and for the owner to be summoned for questioning.
The court, as on all occasions, rejected the defence’s law-based demands and allowed Miroshnikov to not give the information.
The court also allowed him to conceal his phone number although this was crucial for ascertaining where he actually was on the relevant day. The court rejected questions as to whether the 15 thousand roubles Miroshnikov is alleged to have so generously given away was a large amount of money, and whether he often gives people money.
On Wednesday, an FSB officer in disguise was questioned, together with a taxi driver and militants.
The FSB officer – Alexei Pochechuyev - appeared on the video in a wig with grey hair, makeup and glasses.
As reported earlier, two men are claimed by the prosecution to have given Savchenko a lift after Miroshnikov ‘dropped her off’. They are supposed to have been stopped by a traffic police officer who then passed Savchenko to the FSB.
The defence has been demanding – without success – to have witnesses brought to the courtroom since the video link has poor sound quality. In a telling moment, Savchenko asked Pochechuyev if he could see her well. He answered that he could. She promptly put a bag over her head and asked if he could see her face. He answered that he could.
Pochechuyev also explained his having allegedly taken 7 hours to get Savchenko to the Investigative Committee building, rather than the requisite 3-4 hours as being because he’d been ‘tired’ and had driven at 40 kilometres an hour.
The defence believes that since Pochechuyev couldn’t remember the questioning which he signed as having been part of, refused to give his age and appeared in comical disguise, that he may not have been the FSB officer at all. More importantly, they assert that his story is fiction.
Savchenko herself says that there were five FSB officers in balaclavas. Due to the disguise and bad quality of the video, she was unable to say whether the alleged Pochechuyev had been among those who interrogated her.
The only ‘witnesses’ to so far appear in court were a taxi driver working for the militants and some militants who were involved in Savchenko’s capture. One of the latter’s allegations about Savchenko’s own words to them aroused the latter’s mirth.
It remains to be seen whether Igor Plotnytsky, now leader of the so-called Luhansk People’s Republic who was directly involved in Savchenko’s capture, will be questioned.
His testimony, and especially the way it changes with the Investigative Committee’s version, is particularly indicative of the nature of this case.
So too, unfortunately, is the behaviour of the court which, has not only ignored Savchenko’s alibi, but rejects uncomfortable questions and allows the prosecution to conceal information which would confirm Savchenko’s total innocence.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff