Support NeoGAF

[Starfish_Oxide]

I lol'd.

Without taking the human causalities into consideration both sides have been been putting out some grade A propaganda.

 

[Resident_UA]

I lol'd.

Without taking the human causalities into consideration both sides have been been putting out some grade A propaganda.

I think this is the first time I've seen Poroshenko compared to Hitler. Not sure if I should laugh or cry

 

[CertifiedFP]

I think this is the first time I've seen Poroshenko compared to Hitler. Not sure if I should laugh or cry

You should be enraged that the Russians commit this INSULT as they continue to steal land that is not theirs.

We should send unmarked men to Königsberg and retake it Für Deutschland!

That said, I wonder if The People of Ukraine regret giving up their nukes to the Russians back in the 90s? Would Russia commit these acts of cowardice with the looming threat of MAD in play?

 

[Doczu]

That said, I wonder if The People of Ukraine regret giving up their nukes to the Russians back in the 90s? Would Russia commit these acts of cowardice with the looming threat of MAD in play?

Of course it would look a tad different. You don't fuck around with a country equiped with nukes. If one person has a knife and you have a gun you can safely assume that you are in the winnong position, but if you both draw guns you think twice as there is a distinct possibility you will get shot.

 

[Resident_UA]

You should be enraged that the Russians commit this INSULT as they continue to steal land that is not theirs.

We should send unmarked men to Königsberg and retake it Für Deutschland!

That said, I wonder if The People of Ukraine regret giving up their nukes to the Russians back in the 90s? Would Russia commit these acts of cowardice with the looming threat of MAD in play?

Well current Ukrainian government is not godsend. I think at this point Ukrainians know better than to give a shit about the leaders.

The nukes thing is the biggest mistake in Ukrainian history (and I'm including "joining" of Soviet Union in that list). Nukes would have guaranteed piece in Ukraine for decades to come, but Ukraine gave them up in exchange for "protection" from UK, US, and fucking Russia...

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Land bridge is only secondary objective (Russia is after all already building kerch strait bridge that would connect mainland and Crimea)

Even if a bridge across the Kerch strait was eventually built (which would take God knows how many years and cost tens of billions of dollars) it still wouldn't help. The bridge could teleport into existence tomorrow, but that wont open irrigation channels and other infrastructure that makes Crimea anything more than a resource sinkhole.

 

[chadskin]

Lavrov Says Russia Will 'Take Measures' if There Are Attempts to 'Drag' Georgia into NATO

While it might seem as if grabbing more territory from Ukraine would preoccupy Russia at the moment, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's remarks at a press conference today following his talks with South Ossetian Foreign Minister David Sanakoyev indicates that paranoia is ever present.

Lavrov said that Russia was prepared to react if NATO tried to "drag" Georgia into NATO (translation by The Interpreter):

"We discussed our cooperation in the international arena, including the participation of delegations of Russia and South Ossetia in the Geneva discussions on stability and security in the Trans Caucasus. We affirmed the need to achieve an agreement for a legally-binding agreement on the non-use of force which would exclude a repeat of the events of 2008.

This task is especially relevant in light of the unceasing process of dragging Tbilisi into NATO. We were united in saying that this would not foster the efforts to secure stability in the Caucasus, and we will, naturally, if these steps will acquire practical outlines, and judging from everything, this has already begun, we will take measures in order not to permit negative influence on the situation from these processes."

http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-update-february-18-2015/#6909

Going to be fun years.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Lavrov Says Russia Will 'Take Measures' if There Are Attempts to 'Drag' Georgia into NATO


http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-update-february-18-2015/#6909

Going to be fun years.

Georgia's probably freaking right the hell out. They're next on the menu, it seems.

 

[Mully]

VICE Ukraine Dispatch #95: The Ruins of Donetsk Airport.

 

[SymbiantXenos]

Poor Russia, it's never their fault.....

 

[CHEEZMO™]

VICE Ukraine Dispatch #95: The Ruins of Donetsk Airport.

Isn't that commander the one who was filmed abusing prisoners?

 

[Mully]

Isn't that commander the one who was filmed abusing prisoners?

I'm not sure.

The dead bodies shown in the video had their hands tied, and destroyed gas masks were briefly in frame as the reporters were given a tour of the 3rd floor where supposedly ATO soldiers made their last stand.

The OSCE suspected gas was used to clear out the remaining soldiers at the airport due to a large volume of suspected gas exposure injuries and symptoms reported by ATO and medical personnel. There were also rumors and shaky evidence that ATO soldiers who surrendered were executed.

It looks like the video gave some credibility to those rumors and speculation.

 

[bonesmccoy]

That said, I wonder if The People of Ukraine regret giving up their nukes to the Russians back in the 90s? Would Russia commit these acts of cowardice with the looming threat of MAD in play?

I believe the problem was that Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain those stockpiles. As we've seen over the past 20 years, Ukraine is far from a stable, functioning country.

And no, probably not.

 

[Resident_UA]

I believe the problem was that Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain those stockpiles. As we've seen over the past 20 years, Ukraine is far from a stable, functioning country.

And no, probably not.

Wait what? Ukraine hasn't been involved in a single conflict before Russia got involved. How was it "far from a stable"?

Also maintaining Nukes is expensive, but Ukraine could just keep 1 or 2. That's enough to hold assholes like Russia back.

 

[chadskin]

White House: The leaders of Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia are to discuss the implementation of the Minsk deal in a phone call on Wednesday - @Reuters

White House: It is clear that Moscow and Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine have not lived up to the terms of the Minsk deal - @Reuters

US State Department: Obama administration has not yet made a decision on whether to supply 'defensive' equipment to Ukraine - @margbrennan

Keep an eye for more news over the next couple of hours here: http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/ukraine-protests-over-eu-agreement-delay/

 

[Nivash]

Wait what? Ukraine hasn't been involved in a single conflict before Russia got involved. How was it "far from a stable"?

Also maintaining Nukes is expensive, but Ukraine could just keep 1 or 2. That's enough to hold assholes like Russia back.

Keeping 1 or 2 nukes would be pointless. That's not a deterrence, it's an invitation to a first strike. The sad truth is that Ukraine would never have been able to afford both a conventional military and a nuclear arsenal worthy of deterrence when all her potential enemies - Russia and NATO - are so close and she lacked a guaranteed second strike capability through SLBMs. The decision to get rid of the nukes wasn't out of naivety as much as necessity.

It's also highly uncertain if either NATO or Russia would ever have been able to stomach a nuclear Ukraine. Having a non-aligned nuclear power in Europe would have upset the strategic balance in highly unpredictable ways and would have been viewed as very dangerous, even in the reasonably relaxed 90s. I'm not getting the impression that Minsk '91 involved pressure on Ukraine to comply because they relinquished the nukes willingly but I have no issue believing that there would have been pressure if they hadn't.

EDIT: Funny how all conferences regarding Ukraine seem to take place in Minsk. Wonder why that might be... *cough* Russia *cough*

 

[Resident_UA]

Keeping 1 or 2 nukes would be pointless. That's not a deterrence, it's an invitation to a first strike. The sad truth is that Ukraine would never have been able to afford both a conventional military and a nuclear arsenal worthy of deterrence when all her potential enemies - Russia and NATO - are so close and she lacked a guaranteed second strike capability through SLBMs. The decision to get rid of the nukes wasn't out of naivety as much as necessity.

It's also highly uncertain if either NATO or Russia would ever have been able to stomach a nuclear Ukraine. Having a non-aligned nuclear power in Europe would have upset the strategic balance in highly unpredictable ways and would have been viewed as very dangerous, even in the reasonably relaxed 90s. I'm not getting the impression that Minsk '91 involved pressure on Ukraine to comply because they relinquished the nukes willingly but I have no issue believing that there would have been pressure if they hadn't.

EDIT: Funny how all conferences regarding Ukraine seem to take place in Minsk. Wonder why that might be... *cough* Russia *cough*

Not sure why you are saying that 1 or 2 nukes wouldn't be enough. It helps Israel. From tactical perspective it won't help, but it is not like somebody would actually use Nukes. The point is that Russia would think twice about invading Ukraine. In fact they would not let Yanukovich just run if they knew they were messing with Nukes.

 

[Kabouter]

Not sure why you are saying that 1 or 2 nukes wouldn't be enough. It helps Israel. From tactical perspective it won't help, but it is not like somebody would actually use Nukes. The point is that Russia would think twice about invading Ukraine. In fact they would not let Yanukovich just run if they knew they were messing with Nukes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin-class_submarine
Because Israel has secondary strike capability.

 

[Purkake4]

Not sure why you are saying that 1 or 2 nukes wouldn't be enough. It helps Israel. From tactical perspective it won't help, but it is not like somebody would actually use Nukes. The point is that Russia would think twice about invading Ukraine. In fact they would not let Yanukovich just run if they knew they were messing with Nukes.

Israel has ~80-400 nukes according to estimations. I have to agree here even a handful of nukes wouldn't have done much, you still need a decently trained and equipped army. India and Pakistan managed to have a whole war while having nukes and not using them.

 

[Resident_UA]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin-class_submarine
Because Israel has secondary strike capability.

Israel has ~80-400 nukes according to estimations. I have to agree here even a handful of nukes wouldn't have done much, you still need a decently trained and equipped army. India and Pakistan managed to have a whole war while having nukes and not using them.

I'm not making a "tactical use" argument here. Sure, few nukes tactically are useless, BUT how do you think Russia would be able to sell Yanukovich story if Ukraine had nukes? Just imagine how freaked out Russians would be knowing that "fascist" Ukrainian "coup" got their hands on Nuclear weapons! This is all about perceptions. They make big difference... There's very little "real" going on in Ukraine.

 

[Purkake4]

I'm not making a "tactical use" argument here. Sure, few nukes tactically are useless, BUT how do you think Russia would be able to sell Yanukovich story if Ukraine had nukes? Just imagine how freaked out Russians would be knowing that "fascist" Ukrainian "coup" got their hands on Nuclear weapons! This is all about perceptions. They make big difference... There's very little "real" going on in Ukraine.

That would probably have just lead to some quick de-nuking operations before the dust had settled.

 

[Resident_UA]

That would probably have just lead to some quick de-nuking operations before the dust had settled.

Sure, which would make Russian involvement more obvious and very much more dangerous. EU/US would also be paying more attention to what is happening. The things within Ukraine would probably be as complicated as ever, but perceptions would be very different.

 

[Nivash]

Not sure why you are saying that 1 or 2 nukes wouldn't be enough. It helps Israel. From tactical perspective it won't help, but it is not like somebody would actually use Nukes. The point is that Russia would think twice about invading Ukraine. In fact they would not let Yanukovich just run if they knew they were messing with Nukes.

If you just have 1 or 2 nukes all the enemy needs is 3 or 4 nukes to take them out. Hence the invitation to a first strike. In order to have a guaranteed deterrence when you don't have SLBM's you need hundreds of nukes, minimum, to make sure that the enemy can't be certain that they got all of them.

As for Israel, like Kabouter said Israel actually does have SLBMs but to perfectly honest they don't need them because they're using their nukes to deter a conventional attack from their non-nuclear neighbors, not a nuclear attack. Their semi-official nuclear weapons are meant as a permanent reminder that if the Arab states ever make good on invading and wiping Israel off the map Israel will take them down with them too.

And honestly, Russia doesn't even need strategic nukes to take out 1, 2 or even half a dozen Ukrainian nukes so early on that they don't matter. They have sufficiently large numbers of high-precision ballistic missiles and cruise missiles close enough that they could pound them into oblivion by conventional means long before Ukraine has the chance to respond. Or even easier, use tactical nukes to limit both literal and political fallout to levels that wouldn't instantly spark WW3.

I'm not making a "tactical use" argument here. Sure, few nukes tactically are useless, BUT how do you think Russia would be able to sell Yanukovich story if Ukraine had nukes? Just imagine how freaked out Russians would be knowing that "fascist" Ukrainian "coup" got their hands on Nuclear weapons! This is all about perceptions. They make big difference... There's very little "real" going on in Ukraine.

Easy. Launch preventive strike. Putin gets hailed by Russians as the hero that saved them from nuclear annihilation, might even be able to convince large parts of the rest of the world that it was the right decision because nobody likes nukes. He gets sanctioned and condemned by the EU and US but nothing really changes compared to now. Except the UAF would be even weaker because they wasted a small fortune keeping those nukes maintained.

 

[Xando]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin-class_submarine
Because Israel has secondary strike capability.

Got to love german weaponary, in Israels case even payed by germany.

 

[Purkake4]

Sure, which would make Russian involvement more obvious and very much more dangerous. EU/US would also be paying more attention to what is happening. The things within Ukraine would probably be as complicated as ever, but perceptions would be very different.

Eh, I just see "true patriotic Ukrainian soldiers save world before fascists nuke it" headline.

There's a reason Israel keeps a standing army in addition to its nuclear arsenal.

 

[Resident_UA]

If you just have 1 or 2 nukes all the enemy needs is 3 or 4 nukes to take them out. Hence the invitation to a first strike. In order to have a guaranteed deterrence when you don't have SLBM's you need hundreds of nukes, minimum, to make sure that the enemy can't be certain that they got all of them.

As for Israel, like Kabouter said Israel actually does have SLBMs but to perfectly honest they don't need them because they're using their nukes to deter a conventional attack from their non-nuclear neighbors, not a nuclear attack. Their semi-official nuclear weapons are meant as a permanent reminder that if the Arab states ever make good on invading and wiping Israel off the map Israel will take them down with them too.

And honestly, Russia doesn't even need strategic nukes to take out 1, 2 or even half a dozen Ukrainian nukes so early on that they don't matter. They have sufficiently large numbers of high-precision ballistic missiles and cruise missiles close enough that they could pound them into oblivion by conventional means long before Ukraine has the chance to respond. Or even easier, use tactical nukes to limit both literal and political fallout to levels that wouldn't instantly spark WW3.

I don't know why everyone thinks that in this scenario Ukraine would actually use Nukes. Is Russia/NATO using them right now?

It's perceptions that count. Why does anyone care who have Nukes then? In your scenario it really doesn't matter if Iran or North Korea have Nukes. Russia already has them and you can't be much more insane than Putin.

 

[Resident_UA]

Easy. Launch preventive strike. Putin gets hailed by Russians as the hero that saved them from nuclear annihilation, might even be able to convince large parts of the rest of the world that it was the right decision because nobody likes nukes. He gets sanctioned and condemned by the EU and US but nothing really changes compared to now. Except the UAF would be even weaker because they wasted a small fortune keeping those nukes maintained.

Eh, I just see "true patriotic Ukrainian soldiers save world before fascists nuke it" headline.

There's a reason Israel keeps a standing army in addition to its nuclear arsenal.

It doesn't work that way. If Ukraine had nukes there would be more reason to invest in army. Protecting Nukes alone would be worth the cost. Ukrainian army was not destroyed in the past 20 years because it was poorly financed (although that was one of the reasons). The main reason was corruption because nobody actually believe that Ukrainian army would actually need all the stuff they had.

 

[Nivash]

I don't know why everyone thinks that in this scenario Ukraine would actually use Nukes. Is Russia/NATO using them right now?

It's perceptions that count. Why does anyone care who have Nukes then? In your scenario it really doesn't matter if Iran or North Korea have Nukes. Russia already has them and you can't be much more insane than Putin.

You're missing the point that you can only use the defensive nuclear diplomatic stick if you have guaranteed second strike capability. Otherwise it's a broken stick because everyone knows that the nukes can be taken out so easily that they pose no threat. You can actually still use it offensively - like North Korea is trying to do - because you would (obviously) still have your first strike capability, but that's a gamble considering that you can't ever push it hard enough that the opposing players don't simply remove it from equation with a first strike of their own.

And that's the thing, really. No-one really cares if Iran and North Korea have a handful of nukes for defensive use apart from the somewhat increased political costs of having to use nukes to take them out (and even that would be somewhat mitigated by the fact that, again, no-one actually likes nukes), it's the offensive use that keeps people up at night. North Korea against the non-nuclear South Korea. Iran in a suicidal attack on Israel because that's what Muslims do or something. So unless you suggest that Ukraine start acting like a rogue state a handful of nukes wouldn't change a thing .

It doesn't work that way. If Ukraine had nukes there would be more reason to invest in army. Protecting Nukes alone would be worth the cost. Ukrainian army was not destroyed in the past 20 years because it was poorly financed (although that was one of the reasons). The main reason was corruption because nobody actually believe that Ukrainian army would actually need all the stuff they had.

That money would have come from somewhere and that would be Ukrainian civilians. I really don't see a situation where Ukraine could have strolled along through the last twenty years with Ukrainian citizens being perfectly fine with the military costing something on the scale of 10 % of GDP when they didn't have any enemies until a year ago.

 

[Purkake4]

That money would have come from somewhere and that would be Ukrainian civilians. I really don't see a situation where Ukraine could have strolled along through the last twenty years with Ukrainian citizens being perfectly fine with the military costing something on the scale of 10 % of GDP when they didn't have any enemies until a year ago.

Yeah, sorry this just seems like wishful thinking at this point.

 

[Resident_UA]

That money would have come from somewhere and that would be Ukrainian civilians. I really don't see a situation where Ukraine could have strolled along through the last twenty years with Ukrainian citizens being perfectly fine with the military costing something on the scale of 10 % of GDP when they didn't have any enemies until a year ago.

Yeah, sorry this just seems like wishful thinking at this point.

Yeah, things in Ukraine really don't work that way. Russia is a perfect example. Corruption in Russia is on insane level, BUT corruption in army is not that bad because they have a sizable arsenal of nukes to take care of, and they know they will need to use that army. Ukrainian budget is very much "adjustable". Official salaries are very low and few people actually pay taxes. It really would not take much to fix few of those things double Army budget if anyone actually felt that it was necessary. On top of that corruption in the army would be perceived as even worse than corruption in general. As of a year ago nobody really cared about corruption in the army because people didn't think there was a reason why Ukrainian army existed in the first place.

You can't just make assumptions of what would happen if Ukraine had nukes without taking all of those things in account. One thing is clear the "nuke card" is very useful in the game of politics. If it wasn't, Russian propaganda would not be playing it constantly.

 

[Engell]

One thing is clear the "nuke card" is very useful in the game of politics. If it wasn't, Russian propaganda would not be playing it constantly.

Yeah, if Russia did not have nukes, they would be taken as serious as bad penis joke on a toilet wall. Also they would not be doing what they are doing to Ukraine at the moment.

 

[Resident_UA]

Back to news: At the national security meeting Ukraine agreed to invite UN and EU peacekeepers to Ukraine.

I'm sure that Russia will veto it at the UN, but it's a step towards peace...

 

[brian577]

Back to news: At the national security meeting Ukraine agreed to invite UN and EU peacekeepers to Ukraine.

I'm sure that Russia will veto it at the UN, but it's a step towards peace...

How is a none starter a step towards peace?

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Back to news: At the national security meeting Ukraine agreed to invite UN and EU peacekeepers to Ukraine.

I'm sure that Russia will veto it at the UN, but it's a step towards peace...

I think Lavrov pushed for this, but it was probably for a Russian/CIS force.

 

[Abinash117]

So if the seps or the ATO attack each other will the peacekeepers do anything to stop both of them? I wonder what EU countries will actually do a peacekeeping force ; I guess the baltics comes to mind.

 

[Xando]

So if the seps or the ATO attack each other will the peacekeepers do anything to stop both of them? I wonder what EU countries will actually do a peacekeeping force ; I guess the baltics comes to mind.

If some EU countries do it it would be a french-german core but russia wouldn't allow a peacekeeping mission.

 

[Oriel]

Back to news: At the national security meeting Ukraine agreed to invite UN and EU peacekeepers to Ukraine.

I'm sure that Russia will veto it at the UN, but it's a step towards peace...

Putin's idea of peacekeepers are those that wear the insignia of the Russian Armed Forces, like those "peacekeepers" in Georgia and Moldova.

 

[Abinash117]

If some EU countries do it it would be a french-german core but Russia wouldn't allow a peacekeeping mission.

I was saying as the assumption that they won't do it. But let's say they are them; it doesn't answer my other question.

 

[Piecake]

You should be enraged that the Russians commit this INSULT as they continue to steal land that is not theirs.

We should send unmarked men to Königsberg and retake it Für Deutschland!

That said, I wonder if The People of Ukraine regret giving up their nukes to the Russians back in the 90s? Would Russia commit these acts of cowardice with the looming threat of MAD in play?

How did Russia end up keeping Konigsberg anyways? I mean, geographically, it really doesnt make much sense.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

How did Russia end up keeping Konigsberg anyways? I mean, geographically, it really doesnt make much sense.

The area was depopulated and resettled with ethnic Russians (86% currently). Administratively speaking, the territory was incorperated into the Russian SFSR, so when the USSR split up, Russia inherited Kaliningrad Oblast.

 

[Doczu]

How did Russia end up keeping Konigsberg anyways? I mean, geographically, it really doesnt make much sense.

Who would they give it back to?Germany? Poland (technically this region was given to us after WWII, but the soviets thought it would be better to grab it for a marine base outpost)?

 

[chadskin]

Fighting seems to continue near/in/around Donetsk, Debaltseve and Mariupol today. I was hoping the fighting would quiet down now that the Russian forces have captured Debaltseve but seems like quite the contrary is happening:

alextomo: #Ukraine fighting now around Mariupol Donetsk and Debaltseve - most violent day yet since "ceasefire"

https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/568374091197108224

 

[chadskin]

SkyNews: Footage has emerged of Russian bomber filming being intercepted by RAF Typhoons thought to be close to UK airspace

http://www.snappytv.com/tc/483744/92519

Do they have to protect the Russians in the UK now?

 

[Doczu]

Fighting seems to continue near/in/around Donetsk, Debaltseve and Mariupol today. I was hoping the fighting would quiet down now that the Russian forces have captured Debaltseve but seems like quite the contrary is happening:


https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/568374091197108224

And it won't stop untill they have a land way to Crimea. And i feel they will go even further if they can, cutting Ukraine off from the sea.

 

[ClosingADoor]

http://www.snappytv.com/tc/483744/92519

Do they have to protect the Russians in the UK now?

That's usual stuff. Russians fly around around Europe all the time and are escorted by fighters from UK, Sweden, Holland, etc, depending on their location. It's mostly annoying for civilian air, since they don't have their location thingy on, so it can cause crashes if they fly too close.

 

[Resident_UA]

Debaltsevo is partially destroyed, most residents left the city, but these two assholes are happy. And guess what? They have never lived in Debaltsevo.

 

[Resident_UA]

Debaltseve under rebel control, Cossack fighters celebrate

It seems that Russian Cossak fighters were leading attack on Debaltsevo. Which is weird considering that Russian Cossaks are in control of Luhansk, not Donetsk. I wonder is Zacharchenko is happy about this...

 

[Oriel]

Irish controlled airspace breached by Russia for the second time in as many weeks:

The Irish Aviation Authority has confirmed that two Russian military aircraft flew within Irish-controlled airspace yesterday.

In a statement the IAA said the aircraft operated within 25 nautical miles of the Irish coast.

But it said the aircraft did not enter Irish sovereign airspace at any time.

It said the flight posed no safety threat to civil aviation on this occasion.

The IAA confirmed it monitored the activity of two Russian military aircraft off the west-south/ east coast of Ireland for about four hours yesterday from about 3-7pm.

The authority said it was not informed in advance.

It comes as the British Ministry of Defence said that RAF jets were scrambled yesterday after two Russian military aircraft were seen off the Cornwall coast.

The Russian Bear bombers were escorted from the UK area of interest, but did not enter its sovereign airspace.

The IAA said the aircraft operated in North Atlantic airspace and in airspace under the control of the IAA.

Irish controlled airspace extends 256 nautical miles off the west coast of Ireland. Irish sovereign airspace extends 12 nautical miles off the Irish coast.

Last month, the Irish Aviation Authority confirmed that two Russian military aircraft, shadowed by a number of British fighter jets, flew through Irish controlled airspace off the west coast.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0219/681373-russian-aircraft-raf-escort/

 

[Oriel]

Debaltseve under rebel control, Cossack fighters celebrate

It seems that Russian Cossak fighters were leading attack on Debaltsevo. Which is weird considering that Russian Cossaks are in control of Luhansk, not Donetsk. I wonder is Zacharchenko is happy about this...

No surprise to see Cossacks leading the charge. Those lunatics don't recognise Russia's current borders as legitimate, only the borders of the former USSR. Truly vile people, and no different to the violent Jihadis who travel to the ME to fight for ISIS.

 

[Vizzeh]

Irish controlled airspace breached by Russia for the second time in as many weeks:



http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0219/681373-russian-aircraft-raf-escort/

Video of them being escorted by RAF https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnZMy1WWjZs

actually according to a witness they entered British airspace...http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...mber-flew-inland-cornwall-uk-airspace-witness