Most in east Ukraine region against joining Russia

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Didn't India last year say they were going to buy new jets and upgrade their air force? If they don't then maybe they should just give China teh territory they seek.

The feature I was looking at was India lacking a dominant military faction, rather the military is under civilian control. However, it appears that India still has managed to grow to the world's 4th largest military force. I guess that should not be a surprise to the US, the largest military power, despite also being under civilian control.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Wasn't that long ago when Iraq had the 4th largest military. India is a large country and of course they are going to be large but the telling stat is how powerful they are. I remember about 15 years ago their power was not that great exept of course they had nukes. I really don't know now how much power they have now. I remember a few years ago they were looking at major upgrades. Pooky should know a lot more on this than I.

The feature I was looking at was India lacking a dominant military faction, rather the military is under civilian control. However, it appears that India still has managed to grow to the world's 4th largest military force. I guess that should not be a surprise to the US, the largest military power, despite also being under civilian control.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Wasn't that long ago when Iraq had the 4th largest military. India is a large country and of course they are going to be large but the telling stat is how powerful they are. I remember about 15 years ago their power was not that great exept of course they had nukes. I really don't know now how much power they have now. I remember a few years ago they were looking at major upgrades. Pooky should know a lot more on this than I.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=india

[BatmanUSA 105]

yet all of this could have been avoided..

NATO continued its expansion and attempts to isolate Russia instead of welcoming them into the world culture/economy. So NATO continued to threaten Russia...

the Russians and the West basically tried to bribe Ukraine and its economy to go their way... When Russia had the best offer, the west instigated riot and unrest in order to topple the legal Ukraine Government and install their puppets who quickly moved toward pro-EU/west alliances while at the same time they tried to stifle the pro-Russian Crimians and eastern Ukraines.... so those regions asked Russia for help..

Obama has said people should have the right of self-determination/governance.. but when those people vote contrary to Obama's wishes, he declares it illegal.. But the current government in Ukraine is unelected and illegal but Obama and the EU have no problem signing treaties and sending them large amounts of money.??

Russia should not have invaded Crimea.. but if NATO did not continue to expand and isolate Russia, none of this would have happened... I believe it is NATO that has continued the cold war, and Putin is only acting to protect Russia..

Some people say that Putin wants to restore the old soviet empire.. this is impossible... but if the world wants peace, then NATO must stop its expansion, or even dissolve.

Poland is a member of NATO.?? North Atlantic Treaty Organization... How close is Poland to the North Atlantic.? now tell me how NATO expansion is not an attempt to isolate and contain Russia.?? and to what end.?? Wasn't Russia our ally in WW2, and wasn't Germany the aggressor??

[Pooky 3,786]

Poland is a member of NATO.?? North Atlantic Treaty Organization... How close is Poland to the North Atlantic.? now tell me how NATO expansion is not an attempt to isolate and contain Russia.?? and to what end.?? Wasn't Russia our ally in WW2, and wasn't Germany the aggressor??

Up until mid-1941, the Soviet Union and Germany had the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact, which both used to their benefit. Operation Barbarossa just brought about a relationship with the Allies along the lines of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Churchill never trusted Stalin and I don't think Roosevelt did, either. However, the Soviet Union was key to defeating Germany, so they made the best of the situation.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Yes that shows they have a large number troops and material but the power rankings don't tell the whole story. What is the quality of their arms?

As an example. During the 1st Iraq war The Iraqi military had mostly soviet arms and used soviet tactics. Of course we had our own arms and tactics. We destroyed them and that would seem to indicate that our arms and tactics were superior. I talked to one tankerman who was at the battle of 73 Easting. The Iraqis had older T-55,T-62, T-72. The U.S. of course had the M1A1 Abrams. Instead of going over this heavily studied tank battle it is needless to say we destroyed them easily. (Or as easy as war could be)

I know a tnkerman that was there and I asked him about the tactics and he said that yes we were better tactic wise but the Iraqis were blind and deaf. We were not.

I have heard that India is way behind in quality and are looking to catch up.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=india

[Danno 1,228]

What seems to hypocritical is the way we park our Military all over the world, massing troops when we make a point, Russia does it within their own border and we act like that that just can't be tolerated.

Russia and the USA are doing the same thing just in different orders.

We hijack the political system and then do the military part (nato)

Russia does the military part first than attends to the political.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yes that shows they have a large number troops and material but the power rankings don't tell the whole story. What is the quality of their arms?

As an example. During the 1st Iraq war The Iraqi military had mostly soviet arms and used soviet tactics. Of course we had our own arms and tactics. We destroyed them and that would seem to indicate that our arms and tactics were superior. I talked to one tankerman who was at the battle of 73 Easting. The Iraqis had older T-55,T-62, T-72. The U.S. of course had the M1A1 Abrams. Instead of going over this heavily studied tank battle it is needless to say we destroyed them easily. (Or as easy as war could be)

I know a tnkerman that was there and I asked him about the tactics and he said that yes we were better tactic wise but the Iraqis were blind and deaf. We were not.

I have heard that India is way behind in quality and are looking to catch up.

Anyone that has been to Fort Irwin soon realizes there is nothing wrong with Soviet equipment, and as deployed in a field environment, in many ways superior to US equipment, not in sophistication, but in durability and utility, And there is nothing wrong with Soviet doctrine, at least as it is interpreted by and executed by experienced OPFOR, who usually defeat much larger units going through the training cycle.

As far as Iraq, the defeat the Iraqis suffered came largely because of their lack of a redundant command structure, and a reluctance to commit elite forces where they would have been most effective. Once we disabled Iraq's ability to communicate, its will to fight all but collapsed. The officer corps left the battlefield and abandoned the troops to the invading forces and CNN.

Edited April 27, 2014 by The Postmaster

[luckytxn 2,264]

That is what I was trying to say. We had destroyed their ability to communicate beforehand. We had complete air superiority. (They sent in attack choppers to destroy their forward observation and security and softened them up) By the time they engaged the smoke and dust in the air obscured all. We could still see them but they could not penetrate visually. In other words our technology was superior. We could still maneuver but they couldn't. The bad part was they had no kills but we had some bad 'friendly fire' deaths.

Now India wants to modernize but it sounds like they want to have air superiority. Very smart decision. It is the main reason that American troops will have the advantage. We rule the skies. It is the reason also that Israel dominates their neighbors.

I do remember when I was stationed at Fort Hood. It was exciting to be able to be chosen to go to Fort Irwin and go against the 'Russians'. We knew that we would be defeated more than likely but it was stil exciting. If I rememer right the Russians there used Russian equipment captured during the Israel war. The complete one sided victory at Eastering was more than due because of technology but our training was superior.

Anyone that has been to Fort Irwin soon realizes there is nothing wrong with Soviet equipment, and as deployed in a field environment, in many ways superior to US equipment, not in sophistication, but in durability and utility, And there is nothing wrong with Soviet doctrine, at least as it is interpreted by and executed by experienced OPFOR, who usually defeat much larger units going through the training cycle.

As far as Iraq, the defeat the Iraqis suffered came largely because of their lack of a redundant command structure, and a reluctance to commit elite forces where they would have been most effective. Once we disabled Iraq's ability to communicate, its will to fight all but collapsed. The officer corps left the battlefield and abandoned the troops to the invading forces and CNN.

[Danno 1,228]

The next war will be the beginning of a the era of drone war.

It will change warfare as did machine guns, tanks and air power.

The more I watch events proceed in that part of the world the more it seem, this whole Ukraine operation was simply a means or excuse to employ another phase in the decades old effort to thwart Russia's development. First we encircled her now we attack their economy.

We refuse to accept responsibility for what went on in Kiev yet we sanction Russia for simply being on their own border.... and not defusing a situation we helped create, in a country we, have stewardship over.

I think the events in Eastern Ukraine look less and less like Moscow is controlling anything .....as their actions are becoming more and more counter productive and contrary to anything that "The chess player" would orchestrate.

It's actually pretty clever on our part. We want to ruin their economy so we keep blaming them for whatever happens and piling on more crippling sanction.

Did I underestimate our state dept?

[Pooky 3,786]

We refuse to accept responsibility for what went on in Kiev yet we sanction Russia for simply being on their own border.... and not defusing a situation we helped create, in a country we, have stewardship over.

Where on Earth did you get the ridiculous notion that we have stewardship over the Ukraine?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Where on Earth did you get the ridiculous notion that we have stewardship over the Ukraine?

Colin Powell - "If you break it, you buy it."

The US, through the use of NGO's, facilitated (funded) the ouster of President Yanukovych .

[Sousuke 1,214]

The next war will be the beginning of a the era of drone war.

It will change warfare as did machine guns, tanks and air power.

The more I watch events proceed in that part of the world the more it seem, this whole Ukraine operation was simply a means or excuse to employ another phase in the decades old effort to thwart Russia's development. First we encircled her now we attack their economy.

We refuse to accept responsibility for what went on in Kiev yet we sanction Russia for simply being on their own border.... and not defusing a situation we helped create, in a country we, have stewardship over.

I think the events in Eastern Ukraine look less and less like Moscow is controlling anything .....as their actions are becoming more and more counter productive and contrary to anything that "The chess player" would orchestrate.

It's actually pretty clever on our part. We want to ruin their economy so we keep blaming them for whatever happens and piling on more crippling sanction.

Did I underestimate our state dept?

Drones seem like a dead end at least for the moment.

[Pooky 3,786]

Colin Powell - "If you break it, you buy it."

The US, through the use of NGO's, facilitated (funded) the ouster of President Yanukovych .

We never took away their ability to determine their own course. We never disbanded their police or their military. The Ukraine retained its capacity for self-determination.

No, the US has no stewardship over the Ukraine. If we had effected changed by force, to which the quote by Colin Powell refers, I believe, then you may have a point. But we did not.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

. If we had effected changed by force, to which the quote by Colin Powell refers, I believe, then you may have a point. But we did not.

That is only because the Obama administration wanted plausible deniability in case things went wrong, same as in the operation to get Bin Ladin. So, one went swimmingly for the President, and for which he took full credit, and the other, doesn't look so good.