Stipe neznam kolko dugo pratiš temu al pre par nedelja je moderator zorge postovao u moje im tom prilikom sam napisao da je u Černuhinu nađeno 200 belgijanaca mrtvih naravno dal su u pitanju plaćenici verovatno 90% moja pretpostavka. E sad ko ih financira da idu u Donbas neko mora da ih plati Ukraina je pred bankrotom oni više neće imati ni za kruha tako da nam ostaje druga opcija a to su koalicija koju čine SAD sa svojim slugama iz EU okupljenih u koaliciju koja se zove HATO. Ti podržavaš tu koaliciju i veruješ u to što ona servira tj njihovu propagandu nisi jedini ima tu još forumaša drugi deo foruma je na Ruskoj strani tj na strani Novorusa i Ukrainaca koji se bore protiv fašističke nemani koja je svojim pipcima uhvatila Ukrainu i nepušta. Niko tebi nebrani da ti izneseš svoj stav dokle god se tiče Ukraine i ne odstupa puno od teme i tiče se stanjana terenu. Al ti se brajo uvatio HATO-a ki pijan plota do sad nisam primetioda si preneo ili napisao ni jednu vest sa terena ili bilo čega drugog nego pišeš o HATO-u i Rusiji. Veze sa vezom nema nije ovo sukob HATO Rusija već između SAD i Rusije a EU i Ukraina su trenutno pioni na toj šahovskoj tabli jedan krvari u građanskom ratu kroz koi smo i mi sami prošli i saosećamo se sa stanovništvom Donbasa koje krvari zarad tuđi interesa a što se tiče EU ona će tek da oseti te posledice ni njima više ne teče med i mleko.
stipica1 ::...
Zašto se ne dozvoljava suprotno mišljenje od većine, ako hawkeye ne vrijeđa nikoga na forumu?
Ako hawkeye misli da se radi o ruskoj propagandi u nekim podacima zašto bi trebao otići sa ovog foruma?
ProkupacPK ispali puno veće gluposti pa nitko ne reagira.
Ma kakva božja vojska da citiram "Odlično naoružanu, opremljenu NATO momčad, njih oko 10-12.000"?
Ako misliš na ukrajinsku vojsku, ma gdje si to vidio da su odlično uvježbani? Po čemu su to ukrajinci NATO momčad? koju su to NATO obuku prošli?
Odlično uvježbana vojska bi ovako ratovala?
Ako misliš da je na terenu bilo NATO vojnika onda stvarno padaš na propagandu. Budi siguran da u borbama nije bilo nikakvih NATO vojnika. A 10-12.000 je poptuna besmislica, da je stvarno na terenu bila npr. NATO Response Force u broju od 12.000 vojnika, sa svom logistikom koju ima, ne bi pobunjenici imali nikakve šanse. niti bi taktika ratovanja bila ovako blesava, kakva jest. A kako sakriti toliki broj stranih vojnika, koji ne govore ukrajinski?
Prvo ko brani tvom drugaru da piše ovde?
Ko tebi brani da pišeš?
Ja?
Pišeš providne NATO traktate koje ovde slabo ko zarezuje za išta sem propagande (da ne kažem gluposti). Jer ovde su mnogi videli koliko je NATO realno moćan. Npr. ta tvoja silno obučena armada, nije ni SMELA DA PRIVIRI u jednu bednu SRJ 1999. godine, slali su ovde svoj najbolji deo - OVK...
Znači, bolje se ne pozivaj na NATO "uspehe", bar ne na ovim prostorima, a i beše zabranjeno.
A oće da ratuje sa jednom Rusijom - idi begaj...
I naravno da je bilo NATO vojnika u Debaljcevu i naravno da su zaginuli, a jer su nesposobni. Kao i NATO komanda koja ne izlazi iz ukro komande od majdana (da ne kažem i ranije). A da je NATO-vaca (ovaca) bilo oko 10-12.000 u Debaljcevu, pa vidiš, ako prelistaš malo temu, videćeš da je bilo. A sada nema više ni jedan živ. Zaharčenko koji do sada nije lagao, naravno da ima reputaciju veću od CNN, BBC i sličnih bez reputacije. Šta onda znači "tvoje" mišljenje (iz kuhinje...), ako Zaharčenko kaže 3-3500 mrtvih ukra i NATO-vaca?
A da si mogao da pročitaš moj post,
ProkupacPK ::
Ovaj poraz kod Debaljceva lagano pokušavaju da pretvore ustvari u "pobedu", praznim pričama, a sve je jasno:
- Odlično naoružanu, opremljenu NATO momčad, njih oko 10-12.000, sastavili su Novorusi tako, da ih više nikada neće biti. Sve ovo drugo je bunt onoga ko gubi.
...
nigde nisam naveo da ukri imaju NATO obuku, ili opremu.
Jer da znaš realne stvari, znao bi da je NATO poslao svoje obučene u bivšu Ukrajnu, rezultat bi bio daleko, daleko lošiji po ukre (po NATO), nego sa ukro momcima i njihovom opremom.
Znači te tvoje Force i Lažiborce - pojeli bi ih Novorusi za užinu, a ne dao Bog Rusi!!!
A šta misliš, što taj velesposobni NATO nije ušao u Ukrajnu, da pomogne svojima, ili u Gruziju?
Dal će smeti da pomogne svojima ikada?
Ko su uopšte ti "njegovi"?
Odgovorio sam ti, a nisam ni morao, misli šta hoćeš - tvoja stvar. Ali nastupaš prepotentno i sa neznanjem osnovnih stvari, a usput i vređaš. Opet tvoja stvar.
Hogare, 20-30mm je dole kod torzionih stapova. kako kod T-64 tako i kod T-72. O razlogu "raspada" smo pisali, najverovatniji razlog je cinjenica da su u Harkovu varili samo jednu plocu prednjeg sendvic oklopa za bocne ploce umest svih.
Plus u Avganistanu i Ceceniji je bilo mnogo manje (skoro 0%) direktnih pogodaka TF granatama iz artiljerijskih orudja veceg kalibra (152mm).
Tekst pocinje observacijom da je jako veliki broj tenkova T-64 unisten
sa posledicama koje nisu uobicajene: kupola odletela (sto je ok ako sam dobro razumeo)
ali i telo tenka razvaljeno. Sa konstrukcijom koja je popustila. Kazu da se to nije dogadjalo
u Avganistanu i Ceceniji. Pominju da su neki od tenkova probijeni sa boka, fragmentima
minobacackih mina od 120mm, ali ne iz male blizine vec sa rastojanja od 30-40m!
T-64 bi trebalo da ima 70mm oklopa sa boka koji bi trebalo bez problema da izdrzi.
Ali kazu da umesto 70mm nalaze 30mm.
Pominju se problemi u razvoju T-64 jos od 1963 godine pa nadalje.
Proizvodnja je bila u Ukrajni, u Harkovu.
ominju probleme sa motorom, punjacem topa...
1967-1969 35% motora je otkazalo.
Srednje vreme izmedju otkaza 212 sati.
Cak, da je fabrika zamenila pancirni celik sa obicnim, strukturalnim.
Sve u svemu voma zanimljivo.
Bio je Dobri čovek postovao članak koji je govorio o misterizonim eksplozijama koje su rasturale tenkove "ukrajinske vojske" i to van zone dejstava bez nekih simptoma RPG ili PT mina. Članak je govorio o mogućnosti da je naglo povećanom broju aktivnih tenkova uz efekat naglog trošenja municije podijeljena i ona municija koja se čuvala u lošijim uslovima ili nije prošla potrebne remonte (ili obatroje). Kako takva municija postaje sama od sebe nestabilna može se tek pomisliti kako li je "nerviraju" borbene aktivnosti samog tenka i dešavanja u njemu. Tu se ne zna šta je gore, barutna punjenja ili zrno.
stipica1 ::
Ovaj sajt je stvarno vrhunski sajt o vojnim temama, sa odličnim sugovornicima, zato ga redovito pratim. Vojne teme i tehnika bez politiziranja.
Samo se u ovoj temi ne piše kako treba.
Zašto se ne dozvoljava suprotno mišljenje od većine, ako hawkeye ne vrijeđa nikoga na forumu?
Ako hawkeye misli da se radi o ruskoj propagandi u nekim podacima zašto bi trebao otići sa ovog foruma?
A kako to misliš da se ne dozvoljava suprotno mišljenje od većine? Ko to ne dozvoljava? Urednici ove teme, koliko vidim, redovno propustaju poruke pomenutog @hawkeye i nisam primetio da se dotični buni da je cenzurisan ili sputan u iznošenju svojih stavova. Ne samo njegove, već mnogih drugih sa sličnim stavovima a i sam si se nekoliko puta oglašava sa sličnim stavom. Da li te je neko cenzurisao ili su ti , možda, moderatori "pretili" na PP da ne pišeš to što pišeš?
A na čega se svode stavovi pomenutog @hawkeye? On se u nekoliko poslednjih poruka ovde izruguje sa nekim ciframa o poginulim UKRopa u Debaljcevu. On uporno polemiše o nekakvoj cifri "6000+" kao da je to "zvanični stav ovog Foruma" ili bilo čiji zvanični podatak (DNR, LNR, RF, ...). On se jednostavno uhvatio te cifre "6000+" i nikako da nam kaže s kim se on tu uopšte "svađa". Čiji on to podatak izvrgava ruglu i podsmehu? Zaharčenka, Plotnickog, Eduarda Basurina, Motorole, Givija,Strelkova,Colonel Cassad, El Mjurid... LifeNews, Rossia24, Komsomolska Pravda, Griše Filipsa, RT, Ruskavesna, ...? Ja na takav podatak kod pomenutih nisam našao. Nikako da "udari citat" i da fino vidimo ko je taj "lažni potadtak i rusku propagandu" ovde prvi objavio i da vidimo gde se te cifre pominju i koji su izvori. Nikako da nam kaže ime člana Foruma koji je to prvi objavio ovde, pa da od njega "tražimo izvor" i linkove.
Koliko se ja sećam, taj podatak je ovde prvi pomenuo @Sirijus (6500).Podelio je sa nama poruku iz "njegovog sandučeta" i u startu je rekao, "videćeomo da li je istina". Nije tvrdio da je istina, bila je tvrdnja da je podatak pouzdan (1000%) ali u samoj poruci a ne od strane @Sirijusa.
Pošto pomenuti @hawkeye, izgleda nema "zentu" da se "kači" sa Moderatorom i da ga direktno prozove, on polemiše ovde sa imaginarnim zaslepljenim rusofilima ("rusofiličarima" u B92 terminologiji) koji, eto, gutaju takvu propagandu. Sipa granate (kalibar "6000+"), đuture, po svim koji su podlegli ruskoj propagandi iz poruke u poruku. Usput se žali što se ovde ne piše o strogo vojnim stvarima i to kompetentno.Ne znam koliko je on kompetentan po vojnim pitanjima ali nam on ovde uporno podmeće tezu o "ruskoj invaziji na Krim". Nisam ekspert ali meni to zvuči, kao kad kažeš: "Pera je ušao u sobu"." Odakle je ušao?". "Pa iz te iste sobe u koju je ušao". Kako je ruska vojska mogla da izvrši invaziju na Krim ako se ona već nalazila tu na Krimu? Da je upotrebio izraz "intervencija" ili"agresija", pa ajde da polemišemo, ovako nije vredno ni polemisati.
Važno je ponavljati neke mantre, tipa "invazija na Krim", "aneksija Krima", "delimična invazija na Jugo-istok Ukrajine","suverena Ukrajina u međunarodno priznatim granicama" ... da ne bi, kojim slučajem, mlade generacije "iskrivile pogled na svet" od ove ubitačne "rašističke" propagande ovde na Forumu.
Normalno, tu je i neizostvni gospodin @versus, koji izgleda uzeo na sebe misiju da bude "korektivni oftalmolog" mladih generacija a i šire. Onomad nam je svima prosvetlio umove i "ispravio iskrivljeni pogled" po pitanju uloge "Simensovih čeličana" u izgradnji Hitlerove ratne mašinerije.
Složio bih se sa pomenutom tezom, po pitanju pouzdanosti informacija koje objavljuje Strelkov. Nekako se njegovi podaci najčeće pokažu da su i najbliži istini.Da li je to zato što je on "idealista" ili ne, to je već teško dokučiti. Moje mišljenje je da je on, pre svega razuman i racionalan čovek i da ne laže ako ne mora. Poverenje je teško steći na lažima. Naročito ako iza tebe ne stoji neka moćna propagandna mašinerija. On kao pukovnik FSB ( u rezervi), verujem da ume da laže, kad za to postoji potreba. Ne verujem da ih u tom FSB uče da uvek i siključivo "govore istinu i samo istinu i ništa drugo osim istine". Skloniji sam da verujem da ih tamo, između ostalog, uče da lažu ali tako da ih niko ne uhvati u laži.
stipica1: "NATO Response Force u broju od 12.000 vojnika, sa svom logistikom koju ima, ne bi pobunjenici imali nikakve šanse. niti bi taktika ratovanja bila ovako blesava, kakva jest."
Kako nikakve sanse? Pa ne izgleda da je tako. Znaci Novorusi pobedjuju uprkos losim sansama! Pa to je onda heroizam na delu.
Ova ovako blesava NATOvska taktika ratovanja je svima nama ocigledno vodjena is Americke ambsade u Kijevu uz pomoc NATO oficirskog kadra i placenika na terenu a kolika je ta Response Force to se ne zna. Americki NATOvski generali i savetnici, koji ako pratis ovaj forum posle svakog poraza izjavljuju da se poraz desio jer nismo imali ovo pa nismo imali ono, pa to onda kao dopune pa ponovo krenu u napad pa opet izgube. Znaci ne valja im doktrina. Doktrina drzanja aerodroma u pozadini, pravljenja klinova sa namerom za munjeviti napad ala Oluja, krvolocno bombardovanje stambenih zgrada da bi Novoruse demoralisali itd. A pored doktrine ne valja im ni ideologija koja tvrdi da su Rusi i Ukrajinci razliciti narodi i da Ukrajinci treba da su NATOvsko topovsko meso. E sad ti mozes ovde nama da tvrdis kao sto si i do sada da je to samo pitanje vremena kad ce NATO da sastavi sve kockice kako treba, da ih iznuri i da pobedi Novoruse jer ima veci potencijal i pametniji su a uz to jos i demokrate. Ako se tebi takav ishod dopada ako se to desi, to je tvoja stvar ali vecina nas ovde iz poznatih razloga voli da gleda NATOvsku nemoc.
+ The Neoconservative Threat To International Relations
Paul Craig Roberts
For the illustrated version go here: kingworldnews.com/paul-craig-roberts-trust-.....hreatened/
This week I was invited to address an important conference of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev succeeded in establishing. All of Russia is distressed that Washington alone has destroyed the trust between the two major nuclear powers that had been created during the Reagan-Gorbachev era, trust that had removed the threat of nuclear armageddon. Russians at every level are astonished at the virulent propaganda and lies constantly issuing from Washington and the Western media. Washington’s gratuitous demonization of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has rallied the Russian people behind him. Putin has the highest approval rating ever achieved by any leader in my lifetime.
Washington’s reckless and irresponsible destruction of the trust achieved by Reagan and Gorbachev has resurrected the possibility of nuclear war from the grave in which Reagan and Gorbachev buried it. Again, as during the Cold War the specter of nuclear armageddon stalks the earth.
Why did Washington revive the threat of world annihilation? Why is this threat to all of humanity supported by the majority of the US Congress, by the entirety of the presstitute media, and by academics and think-tank inhabitants in the US, such as Motyl and Weiss, about whom I wrote recently?
It was my task to answer this question for the conference. You can read my February 25 and February 26 addresses below. But first you should understand what nuclear war means. You can gain that understanding here: thebulletin.org/what-would-happen-if-800-ki.....hattan8023 [2]
The Threat Posed to International Relations By The Neoconservative Ideology of American Hegemony, Address to the 70th Anniversary of the Yalta Conference, Hosted by Institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Moscow, February 25, 2015, Hon. Paul Craig Roberts
Colleagues,
What I propose to you is that the current difficulties in the international order are unrelated to Yalta and its consequences, but have their origin in the rise of the neoconservative ideology in the post-Soviet era and its influence on Washington’s foreign policy.
The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the only constraint on Washington’s power to act unilaterally abroad. At that time China’s rise was estimated to require a half century. Suddenly the United States found itself to be the Uni-power, the “world’s only superpower.” Neoconservatives proclaimed “the end of history.”
By the “end of history” neoconservatives mean that the competition between socio-economic-political systems is at an end. History has chosen “American Democratic-Capitalism.” It is Washington’s responsibility to exercise the hegemony over the world given to Washington by History and to bring the world in line with History’s choice of American democratic-capitalism.
In other words, Marx has been proven wrong. The future does not belong to the proletariat but to Washington.
The neoconservative ideology raises the United States to the unique status of being “the exceptional country,” and the American people acquire exalted status as “the indispensable people.”
If a country is “the exceptional country,” it means that all other countries are unexceptional. If a people are “indispensable,” it means other peoples are dispensable. We have seen this attitude at work in Washington’s 14 years of wars of aggression in the Middle East. These wars have left countries destroyed and millions of people dead, maimed, and displaced. Yet Washington continues to speak of its commitment to protect smaller countries from the aggression of larger countries. The explanation for this hypocrisy is that Washington does not regard Washington’s aggression as aggression, but as History’s purpose.
We have also seen this attitude at work in Washington’s disdain for Russia’s national interests and in Washington’s propagandistic response to Russian diplomacy.
The neoconservative ideology requires that Washington maintain its Uni-power status, because this status is necessary for Washington’s hegemony and History’s purpose.
The neoconservative doctrine of US world supremacy is most clearly and concisely stated by Paul Wolfowitz, a leading neoconservative who has held many high positions: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Director of Policy Planning US Department of State, Assistant Secretary of State, Ambassador to Indonesia, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Deputy Secretary of Defense, President of the World Bank.
In 1992 Paul Wolfowitz stated the neoconservative doctrine of American world supremacy:
“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”
For clarification, a “hostile power” is a country with an independent policy (Russia, China, Iran, and formerly Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad).
This bold statement struck the traditional American foreign policy establishment as a declaration of American Imperialism. The document was rewritten in order to soften and disguise the blatant assertion of supremacy without changing the intent. These documents are available online, and you can examine them at your convenience.
Softening the language allowed the neoconservatives to rise to foreign policy dominance. The neoconservatives are responsible for the Clinton regime’s attacks on Yugoslavia and Serbia. Neoconservatives, especially Paul Wolfowitz, are responsible for the George W. Bush regime’s invasion of Iraq. The neoconservatives are responsible for the overthrow and murder of Gaddafi in Libya, the assault on Syria, the propaganda against Iran, the drone attacks on Pakistan and Yemen, the color revolutions in former Soviet Republics, the attempted “Green Revolution” in Iran, the coup in Ukraine, and the demonization of Vladimir Putin.
A number of thoughtful Americans suspect that the neoconservatives are responsible for 9/11, as that event gave the neoconservatives the “New Pearl Harbor” that their position papers said was necessary in order to launch their wars for hegemony in the Middle East. 9/11 led directly and instantly to the invasion of Afghanistan, where Washington has been fighting since 2001. Neoconservatives controlled all the important government positions necessary for a “false flag” attack.
Neoconservative Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who is married to another neoconservative, Robert Kagan, implemented and oversaw Washington’s coup in Ukraine and chose the new government.
The neoconservatives are highly organized and networked, well-financed, supported by the print and TV media, and backed by the US military/security complex and the Israel Lobby. There is no countervailing power to their influence on US foreign power.
The neoconservative doctrine goes beyond the Brzezinski doctrine, which dissented from Detente and provocatively supported dissidents inside the Soviet empire. Despite its provocative character, the Brzezinski doctrine remained a doctrine of Great Power politics and containment. It is not a doctrine of US world hegemony.
While the neoconservatives were preoccupied for a decade with their wars in the Middle East, creating a US Africa Command, organizing color revolutions, exiting disarmament treaties, surrounding Russia with military bases, and “pivoting to Asia” to surround China with new air and naval bases, Vladimir Putin led Russia back to economic and military competence and successfully asserted an independent Russian foreign policy.
When Russian diplomacy blocked Washington’s planned invasion of Syria and Washington’s planned bombing of Iran, the neoconservatives realized that they had failed the “first objective” of the Wolfowitz Doctrine and had allowed “the re-emergence of a new rival . . . on the territory of the former Soviet Union” with the power to block unilateral action by Washington.
The attack on Russia began. Washington had spent $5 billion over a decade creating non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Ukraine and cultivating Ukrainian politicians. The NGOs were called into the streets. The extreme nationalists or nazi elements were used to introduce violence, and the elected democratic government was overthrown. The intercepted conversation between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador in Kiev, in which the two Washington operatives choose the members of the new Ukrainian government, is well known.
If the information that has recently come to me from Armenia and Kyrgyzstan is correct, Washington has financed NGOs and is cultivating politicians in Armenia and the former Soviet Central Asian Republics. If the information is correct, Russia can expect more “color revolutions” or coups in other former territories of the Soviet Union. Perhaps China faces a similar threat in Uyghurstan.
The conflict in Ukraine is often called a “civil war.” This is incorrect. A civil war is when two sides fight for the control of the government. The break-away republics in eastern and southern Ukraine are fighting a war of secession.
Washington would have been happy to use its coup in Ukraine to evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base as this would have been a strategic military achievement. However, Washington is pleased that the “Ukraine crisis” that Washington orchestrated has resulted in the demonization of Vladimir Putin, thus permitting economic sanctions that have disrupted Russia’s economic and political relations with Europe. The sanctions have kept Europe in Washington’s orbit.
Washington has no interest in resolving the Ukrainian situation. The situation can be resolved diplomatically only if Europe can achieve sufficient sovereignty over its foreign policy to act in Europe’s interest instead of Washington’s interest.
The neoconservative doctrine of US world hegemony is a threat to the sovereignty of every country. The doctrine requires subservience to Washington’s leadership and to Washington’s purposes. Independent governments are targeted for destabilization. The Obama regime overthrew the reformist government in Honduras and currently is at work destabilizing Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Argentina, and most likely also Armenia and the former Central Asian Soviet Republics.
Yalta and its consequences have to do with Great Power rivalries. But in the neoconservative doctrine, there is only one Great Power–the Uni-power. There are no others, and no others are to be permitted
Therefore, unless a modern foreign policy arises in Washington and displaces the neoconservatives, the future is one of conflict.
It would be a strategic error to dismiss the neoconservative ideology as unrealistic. The doctrine is unrealistic, but it is also the guiding force of US foreign policy and is capable of producing a world war.
In their conflict with Washington’s hegemony, Russia and China are disadvantaged. The success of American propaganda during the Cold War, the large differences between living standards in the US and those in communist lands, overt communist political oppression, at times brutal, and the Soviet collapse created in the minds of many people nonexistent virtues for the United States. As English is the world language and the Western media is cooperative, Washington is able to control explanations regardless of the facts. The ability of Washington to be the aggressor and to blame the victim encourages Washington’s march to more aggression.
This concludes my remarks. Tomorrow I will address whether there are domestic political restraints or economic restraints on the neoconservative ideology.
Људи, још једном апелујем да се баталите коментарисања једни других. Овде се заиста трудимо да свако може да искаже свој став, па био и различит од некога другога.
Баталите овде и светску економију, НАТО, као и све што нема директне, најдиректније везе са актуелним догађањима у Украјини јер заиста не желим да се неко осети цензурисан јер је неко од модера склонио његов офтопик.
Kako je ruska vojska mogla da izvrši invaziju na Krim ako se ona već nalazila tu na Krimu? Da je upotrebio izraz "intervencija" ili"agresija", pa ajde da polemišemo, ovako nije vredno ni polemisati.
