‘Vladimir’ tanks in battle for Aleppo (Russian T-90)

GAZETA.RU ^ | 10 February 2016 | YEKATERINA ZGIROVSKAYA, PAVEL KOTLYAR, GAZETA.RU

[baltimorepoet]

I suspect he has been intentionally weak going after ISIS for the specific purpose of giving Putin the excuse to move in and basically grab control of the region.

Before ISIS came to the region, Russia already was in good with Iran and Syria and to some extent Iraq. Russia is trying to keep her position in Syria, not expand. Grabbing Crimea was essentially reversing Khrushchev's ill-advised administrative transfer of Crimea to the Ukraine -- they wanted to make sure they kept their Crimean ports. Eastern Europe will never again fall under the sway of Russia. The Poles and others have long memories and are members of NATO. At best, the Russians can keep Byelorussia and Ukraine as a buffer zone between them and NATO. It is really idiots like Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt and others that were mucking around with things they shouldn't have, that helped provoke the whole thing. You might remember Nuland from her involvement in the Susan Rice talking points on Benghazi.

[MotorCityBuck]

In case you havent noticed the USSR is gone, and Putin is Fighting our enemy and Winning! Post your BS to your fanboys, and Pearl Cluthers. Grab yourself a mint julip, faint on your chaise lounge and bite me. Dumb Ass.
Oh yea...
Go Trump

[ETL]

From Investor's Business Daily, Jan 2012:

Obama To Betray Missile Defense Secrets To Moscow

Investor's Business Daily ^ | January 9, 2012 | IBD staff

Appeasement: From ObamaCare to recess appointments, honoring the Constitution has not been an administration hallmark. But when it comes to betraying secrets to mollify the Russians, it becomes a document the president hides behind.

It was bad enough that the 2012 defense authorization bill signed by President Obama set America on a downward spiral of military mediocrity.

He also issued a signing statement, something he once opposed, saying that language in the bill aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on the U.S. Standard Missile-3 - linchpin of our missile defense - might impinge on his constitutional foreign-policy authority.

Section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending any funds that would be used to give Russian officials access to sensitive missile-defense technology as part of a cooperation agreement without first sending Congress a report identifying the specific secrets, how they'd be used and steps to protect the data from compromise.

The president is required to certify that any technology shared will not be passed on to third parties such as China, North Korea or Iran, that the Russians will not use transferred secrets to develop countermeasures and that the Russians are reciprocating in sharing missile-defense technology. ..."

"In his signing statement, Obama said he would treat these legal restrictions as 'non-binding' and that 'my administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 (sic) in a manner that does not interfere with the president's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications.'

Betraying our secrets is easy for a president who betrayed allies Poland and the Czech Republic to placate Moscow.

Poland was to host ground-based interceptors such as those we've deployed in California and Alaska, with missile-tracking radar deployed in the Czech Republic.

Obama pulled the plug when Moscow objected. Never mind, he said, we have a better approach: a four-phase plan that calls for using three versions of the Navy's Standard SM-3 interceptor missile that forms the backbone of its Aegis missile-defense system.

The fourth phase consists of a missile still on the drawing board scheduled for deployment by 2020, a version of the SM-3 called the Block IIB. It would intercept hostile missiles in the "early intercept" phase before an enemy missile could release its warheads and decoys. The Russians want the SM-3's secrets, and Obama appears to be willing to turn them over.

The president wants to save the New Start Treaty, which the Russians have threatened to abandon if we try to fully implement President Reagan's dream of defeating a nuclear missile attack.

Russia has unilaterally asserted that any qualitative or quantitative improvement in U.S. missile defenses would be grounds for withdrawal from the treaty.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010912-597158-obama-gives-russia-missile-defense-secrets.htm#ixzz3jXmMbVwY
___________________________________________________

March 2012...

"Obama was talking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when neither of them realized that their conversation was being picked up by microphones. Here is what they said:

Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space."

Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ..."

Obama: "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."

Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

"This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." That statement tells us much about the president's mindset.

The specific mention of missile defense is worrisome enough. Mr. Obama has retreated from the missile defense plan that was negotiated with European allies during the George W. Bush administration. Apparently, he is signaling Moscow that he intends to retreat further. The clear implication from the president's comments is that he cannot tell the American people before the election what he plans to do after the election.

In addition, there is the phrase "on all these issues," implying more is at stake than just missile defense."

Article: Obama plans double cross on missile defense
When it comes to keeping America safe, we shouldn't be too flexible:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-plans-double-cross-on-missile-defense/print/
__________________________________________________________

[ETL]

From the campaign trail, 2008...

Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs

February 29, 2008 :: News
MissileThreat.com

A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.

The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:

Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.

First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[i.e. not win it]

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.

Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090412030633/http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp

"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."

[ETL]

From 2014

Yushchenko, hero of Ukraine's Orange Revolution warns Europe that Putin won't stop at Crimea

by Matthew Schofield - McClatchy Foreign Staff
March 27, 2014

Many Ukrainians believe you need look no further than the face of Viktor Yushchenko to understand Russia's aggression against Ukraine.

Once smooth and ruggedly handsome, it still bears the scars from an assassination attempt when someone slipped dioxin into Yushchenko's food. ..."

Read more here:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24765781.html#storylink=cpy
______________________________________________

[ETL]

Czech Defense Minister: "Russia is Orchestrating Muslim Invasion of Europe"

Posted By: TRT NEWS October 31, 2015

Prague, Czech Republic - Russia is orchestrating, coordinating, and funding the ongoing invasion of European countries by Muslim, military-age males, the Czech Defense Minister shared with IDNES.cz on October 10th, 2015.

According to Martin Stropnicky, the Defense Minister for the Czech Republic, he was informed by the Hungarian Defense Minister Istvan Simicsko that Russia was financing the busing of military-age Islamic males across the borders of the Balkan nations.

-snip-

Speculation has been rife for some time now that Russian forces have been plotting a ground invasion to retake the former satellite states of the Soviet Union, and eventually capturing the European capitals.

The overwhelming of these nations' borders, social services, and law enforcement mechanisms would destabilize and weaken the internal security controls when Russian military units would make their move.

"The Russian Federation does not desire a unified and cohesive European Union," Stropnicky said in the interview. "I do not envision the current invasion ceasing anytime soon."

As the Russian Federation has modernized its military forces and transformed its military theory to a hybrid combination of special forces, infantry, and airpower, it has made impressive advances in its latest generation tank and fighter jet, both of which purportedly claim to be superior to American counterparts. ..."

http://www.therussianthreat.com/czech-defense-minister-russia-is-orchestrating-muslim-invasion-of-europe/
____________________________________________________

Understanding Provocation [Provokatsiya]

March 29, 2014

One of the most powerful tools the Kremlin has in its secret arsenal of Special War is provocation, what they call provokatsiya.

While Moscow cannot claim to have invented this technique, which has existed as long as there have been secret services, there's no doubt that Russians have perfected the art and taken it to a whole new level of sophistication and deviousness. At times, it can become a strategy all on its own (not always, mind you, with edifying results).

Provokatsiya simply means taking control of your enemies in secret and encouraging them to do things that discredit them and help you. You plant your own agents provocateurs and flip legitimate activists [in this case, dupe actual Jihadis -ETL], turning them to your side.

When you're dealing with extremists to start with, getting them to do crazy, self-defeating things isn't often difficult. In some cases, you simply create extremists and terrorists where they don't exist. This is causing problems in order to solve them, and since the Tsarist period, Russian intelligence has been known to do just that.

While this isn't a particularly nice technique, it works surprisingly well, particularly if you don't care about bloody and messy consequences. ..."

http://20committee.com/2014/03/29/understanding-provocation/
_________________________________

In other words, it's like starting a fire, or pouring gasoline on a fire, in order to be the 'big hero', being first on the scene to put it out. Except in this case, you get to grab control over the buildings and town you helped 'saved' from the fire you helped to start.

[ETL]

From Aug 23, 2015:

"a recent investigation conducted by Novaya Gazeta, one of the few independent newspapers left in Russia, complicates this cozy tale of counterterrorist cooperation. Based on extensive fieldwork in one village in the North Caucasus, reporter Elena Milashina has concluded that the "Russian special services have controlled" the flow of jihadists into Syria, where they have lately joined up not only with ISIS but other radical Islamist factions.

In other words, Russian officials are adding to the ranks of terrorists which the Russian government has deemed a collective threat to the security and longevity of its dictatorial ally on the Mediterranean, Bashar al-Assad."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/23/russia-s-playing-a-double-game-with-islamic-terror0.html

[ETL]

ISIS might already have their hands on the WMDs that our 'friends' (according to the FR Putinistas) in Russia snuck out of Iraq and into Syria just prior to the war.
___________________________________

"Romanian intelligence defector Ion Mihai Pacepa alleged that an operation for the removal of chemical weapons was prepared by the Soviet Union for Libya, and that he was told over thirty years ago by Romanian President Nicolae Ceausescu, KGB chairman Yury Andropov, and later, Yevgeny Primakov, about the existence of a similar plan for Iraq.

It is 'perfectly obvious', wrote Pacepa, that the Russian GRU agency helped Saddam Hussein to destroy, hide, or transfer his chemical weapons prior to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. 'After all, Russia helped Saddam get his hands on them in the first place.'[13]

John Loftus, director of The Intelligence Summit, said in the November 16, 2007 issue of FrontPage Magazine that many documents from Iraq point to WMD being transferred to other countries such as Syria: 'As stated in more detail in my full report, the British, Ukrainian and American secret services all believed that the Russians had organized a last minute evacuation of CW [chemical] and BW [biological] stockpiles from Baghdad to Syria.'

His researchers allegedly found a document ordering the concealment of nuclear weapons equipment in storage facilities under the Euphrates River a few weeks before the invasion.[14]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Alleged_Russian_involvement
_____________

[13] http://web.archive.org/web/20110712102918/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/aug/20/20030820-081256-6822r/

[14] http://web.archive.org/web/20110810213451/http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F715A709-2614-4EA5-967C-F6151F94A364

[ETL]

In case you havent noticed the USSR is gone

In case YOU haven't noticed, you ignorant friggin dope, I just put up a mountain of evidence that Putin is trying to revive it.

[Delta 21]

The only time Russian Armor does well in battle is when they are not fighting American made armor. U.S. SABOT round slice thru that reactive armor like warm butter.

..but I am biased

[MotorCityBuck]

https://youtu.be/wlMwc1c0HRQ
Go Trump

[DungeonMaster]

Warthog food!

[lacrew]

The crewless turret has long been a dream of many in the US military.

I hope they never do it.

Admittedly, our forces train ‘open hatch’ too much...but there are legitimate reasons to have the tank commander sticking his head out the top, especially for times when not in actual combat...but approaching the battle, etc.

- Navigation. Yes there is gps, but there’s no guaranty it will always be working, and no amount of cameras and video screens can match what you can see very quickly (360) just by sticking your head out the hatch.

- Formations. Again there is gps for this...but if it goes down, you’ll be chattering on the radio constantly trying to make sure you aren’t too far ahead of your wingman, etc. You can’t just look back and find him.

- Maneuver over terrain. There are some things the driver just can’t see, with his limited field of view, and often the commander directs him around holes and other terrain that would rattle the crew. The best place to see these obstacles is from the top of the turret.

Id the enemy. Yes there are sensors all over this thing, and the gunner has optics...but sometimes a wide field of view is important. Its the whole reason the tank commander has the ability to move the turret and get the gunner on a target. It would take forever for the gunner to find a target with the narrow view of optics.

- Tank protection. I had a gunner who had been a loader in the first Gulf War. During the 100 hour push, his unit went through a lot of infantry...and in combat, he had his hatch open, manning the loader’s 240, to protect the tank from infantry.

I’m actually glad the Russians have developed this first, so the US can observe the strengths and weaknesses. This tank has some amazing capabilities (the effective range makes my jaw drop), but I think the crewless turret is a fundamental flaw.

[PIF]

Interesting. The Russians believe the crew-less turret is a strength, but then I saw a video of a T-90 (not a T-14) traveling over rough and very muddy ground - up until the tank hit the big mud puddle there was some guy with a cell phone sitting on the left front ?fender? talking to the driver. At the big mud puddle the driver managed to bury the tank so deep only the turret was visible ... another tank pulled it out.

You are right about the visibility bit - the Russians must know this also, so there may be something we are missing - certainly all that gear on the turret could well be shot/blown off - then what?.

[lacrew]

The Soviet/Russian formations have always had their great distances in mind...and in my opinion led them to flawed conclusions. They anticipate entering a battle in a column, on a high speed avenue of approach, such as a paved road.

When they get close to the ‘battle’, they switch to a formation that is essentially a half dozen columns side by side. This approach also allows them to have fewer ‘leaders’ who might know how to navigate, and more ‘followers’ who just follow the leader.

Anyway, they have some lead elements way out ahead that are similar to scouts, except they are attempting to make contact. This is very different that US tactics where the scouts ‘sneak and peek’ but do not try to make contact. Once this contact is made, the Russians believe they can gage the enemy’s response and determine where the main body of the enemy is...and change from columns into a wide line at the last minute prior to battle.

With this doctrine in mind, I imagine they plan on racing into the battle, along a road, with the driver hatch open (unheard of in western armies because the moving main gun can actually crush your head)...and ‘button up’ as soon as they hit the line formation.

This doctrine, which dates back to the 1950’s, doesn’t match up well against a western army that fights ‘in depth’. They won’t just ‘show up’ to a battle, without first going through miles of artillery barrages (barrages which will tear up the roads, etc, air attacks, rockets, possible mine fields, etc). I’ve always thought this was a flawed doctrine.

However, I keep talking in terms of an epic tank battle with the west. It may turn out to be a good ‘armored bulldozer’ for flattening poorly defended towns in Ukraine or Syria. And I still am very much intrigued by the advertised range. And, their hydraulic roadwheel system that is supposed to smooth the ride and decrease fire times while on the move is very interesting - it could be game changing or it could be too complex to withstand combat.

You noted that all that sensing gear up top could get blown off...and absolutely it can. If you look closely at an M1 tank, there are thick steel doors, operated from levers inside, which can cover the gunner’s optics. And all of the ‘vision blocks’ which allow the crew to see outside while buttoned up can be replaced as easily as putting a new roll of toilet paper on a roll. IOW, it is ready to withstand an artillery barrage, and get back into service very quickly. Same for getting pelted with heavy machine gun fire. The new Russian tank? I can’t imagine all these sensing systems can be similarly protected or replaced.

[NorthMountain]

Very interesting.