Russia sends a planeload of humanitarian aid to Mali, blames the West for the spread of terrorism in - Polidicks

[QUOTE]MOSCOW — Russia dispatched a planeload of humanitarian aid to war-stricken Mali on Friday, a day after Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov warned about the spread of terrorism in North Africa, which the Russian government has blamed on Western intervention in Libya. Mr. Lavrov met on Thursday with the United Nations special envoy for the region, Romano Prodi, to discuss the situation in Mali, where Russia has supported the French-led effort to oust Islamic militants. But Russia has also blamed the West for the unrest and singled out the French in particular for arming the rebels who ousted the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. “Particular concern was expressed about the activity of terrorist organizations in the north, a threat to regional peace and security,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement after the meeting. “The parties agreed that the uncontrolled proliferation of arms in the region in the wake of the conflict in Libya sets the stage for an escalation of tension throughout the Sahel.” The Sahel is a vast region stretching more than 3,000 miles across Africa, from the Atlantic in the west to the Horn of Africa in the east. In a television interview earlier this month, Mr. Lavrov said, “France is fighting against those in Mali whom it had once armed in Libya against Qaddafi.” Russia’s state-controlled weapons company, Rosoboronexport, has been selling small arms to the Malian government and is considering a request to buy additional matériel, including armor and helicopters. The plane dispatched to the Malian capital, Bamako, by Russian’s Emergency Situations Ministry was carrying about 36 tons of humanitarian aid, including 45 tents, 2,000 blankets, canned food, cereals and rice. Russia voted in favor of a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing the deployment of African troops in Mali, but Russia has also stressed that the resolution required the consent of the Malian government. French and Malian troops have repelled jihadists from major towns, but the Islamist rebels are now said to be hiding in nearby villages. Russian officials have pointed repeatedly to the unrest in North Africa and political turmoil in Egypt as evidence that the Western-supported Arab Spring has created a dangerous and chaotic situation and potential breeding grounds for terrorists. Russia has also used the examples of Libya and Egypt to justify its opposition to any Western effort to oust the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Russian officials say that negotiations are needed between the Assad government and Syrian rebels to determine any transition of power in Damascus, the Syrian capital. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/world/africa/russia-sends-humanitarian-aid-to-mali.html"]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/world/africa/russia-sends-humanitarian-aid-to-mali.html[/URL]

I guess its probable that weaponry was smuggled out of Libya to other North African states. Remember the scare when warehouses full of surface to air missiles were going missing?

Because it's always the Wests fault. Fucking commies.

The actual reason they complain: Russia is big wepons produser. And west faggots of course don't want to buy their weapons,but instead turn to their dumb idiot filth NATO. So Russia must sell weapons to mostly dictatorshit countries,which are deliberately crushed by our previously mentioned cancer that starts with the letter N. TL;DR it hurts their economy when there are no dictatorshit countries they can sell weapons to,blames west. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - MaxOfS2D))[/highlight]

Here's something to suck on Russia, its YOUR damn fault we are in Afghanistan. You jacked the place up even more than the Afghan's could ever do in a eon, allowing the Taliban to take power. Plus, last time i checked russias idea of "humanitarian aid" was AK-47's and military materiel. Its so funny how hypocritical the Russians are. They'll give out "humanitarian aid" to people to look like the good guys, but they won't help countries where civilians are fighting for their lives. Russia isn't intervening in Syria because they don't want to lose a ally who doe not even have too much of a modern military to bare except nerve agents.

[QUOTE=IPK;39678983]wepons produser[/QUOTE] While most of your post is hilarious BS, I found this to be the funniest.

[QUOTE=IPK;39678983]The actual reason they complain: Russia is big [B]*wepons *produser.[/B] And west faggots of course don't want to buy their weapons,but instead turn to their dumb idiot filth NATO. So Russia must sell weapons to mostly dictatorshit countries,which are deliberately crushed by our previously mentioned cancer that starts with the letter N. [B]TL;DR[/B] it hurts their economy when there are no dictatorshit countries they can sell weapons to,blames west.[/QUOTE] First of all, NATO weaponry is top shelf shit. Post-Warsaw Pact stuff is outdated and only poorer or Eastern European countries like will use them. So before you go on a poorly written, multiple spelling mistake rant on how the west is so bad, do your god damn research. In layman's terms, Get out.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;39679133]Here's something to suck on Russia, its YOUR damn fault we are in Afghanistan. You jacked the place up even more than the Afghan's could ever do in a eon, plus, last time i checked russias idea of "humanitarian aid" was AK-47's and military materiel. Its so funny how hypocritical the Russians are. They'll give out "humanitarian aid" to people to look like the good guys, but they won't help countries where civilians are fighting for their lives. Russia isn't intervening in Syria because they don't want to lose a ally who doe not even have too much of a modern military to bare except nerve agents.[/QUOTE] Uh no. That isn't how it happened at all. The reason the US is in Afghanistan is because they funded the fuck out of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, so in the late eighties the Soviet Union gave up in Afghanistan. Then the government in control was toppled and the Taliban gained control. So then they decided to harbour AQ who then attacked the twin towers. So, the US invaded and started 'nation building'. This shit wouldn't have happened if the US didn't fund, supply and aid in every way the Afghani mujahideen who were against the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan(Soviet aided Afghanistan). And ahaha, I doubt EMERCOM(Russian Emergency Ministry) was smuggling guns into Mali, when they could just send it legally since everybody supports Mali's government in the war against Al-Qaeda backed groups. God damn you're hilarious.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;39679193]First of all, NATO weaponry is top shelf shit. Post-Warsaw Pact stuff is outdated and only poorer or Eastern European countries like will use them. So before you go on a poorly written, multiple spelling mistake rant on how the west is so bad, do your god damn research. In layman's terms, Get out.[/QUOTE] Gaddafi was going to sign a contract for Su-35's. That isn't outdated nor shit, he would have had air power over all his neighbours for a long time. Also, please provide examples of where Russian equipment is unable to compete with NATO equipment since that is what you were getting at. Russia maintains a huge export market. The majority of that was to India and other countries who have access to NATO equipment. They are very competitive.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39679318]Are you dumb? Gaddafi was going to sign a contract for Su-35's. That isn't outdated nor shit, he would have had air power over all his neighbours for a long time. Also, please provide examples of where newer generation Russian equipment is unable to compete with NATO equipment since that is what you were getting at.[/QUOTE] Are you daft? Libya wasnt too poor. It was an oil exporting country/ Second of all, if the Soviets didn't invade Afghanistan, there would of never been a Mujahedeen. Soviet equipment isn't yet up to par with Western equipment. Lets do an example with tanks and my good sir, T-90 -/- M1A2 Abrams T-72 -/- Leopard / Challenger / etc BMP series -/- Stryker series And dont even fucking try to compare a old tank with explosive reactive armor and computerized turrets (which i may add is western technology)

[QUOTE=SexualShark;39679412]Are you daft? [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Libya wasnt too poor. It was an oil exporting country/[/QUOTE] So? What was your point then? [QUOTE]Second of all, if the Soviets didn't invade Afghanistan, there would of never been a Mujahedeen.[/QUOTE] Uh no, the Afghan government requested soviet assistance in a brewing civil war. [QUOTE]Soviet equipment isn't yet up to par with Western equipment. [/QUOTE] No shit it isn't yet up to date, the Soviet Union does not exist anymore. [QUOTE]Lets do an example with tanks and my good sir,[/QUOTE] Okay I'm going into this assuming you have citations for all this classified information you seem to have your hands on. [QUOTE]T-90 -/- M1A2 Abrams T-72 -/- Leopard / Challenger / etc[/QUOTE] I don't see a citation, how is T-90 (you haven't specified a variant) inferior? Citation? [QUOTE]BMP series -/- Stryker series[/QUOTE] Those aren't in the same class you dolt. The BMP is a tracked IFV and the Stryker is a wheeled APC. [QUOTE]And dont even fucking try to compare a old tank with explosive reactive armor and computerized turrets (which i may add is western technology)[/QUOTE] Ehem? What?

[QUOTE=SexualShark;39679412] T-90 -/- M1A2 Abrams T-72 -/- Leopard / Challenger / etc [/QUOTE] If you could actually cite where M1A2's and T-90's have actually fought each other, that'd be great. Or when a Leopard I fought a T-72 that'd be great thanks

Why are you attacking Russia back for their claims instead of analyzing it and see if its true?

The T-90 series of battle tank is still an OKAY tank, US and British forces encountered T-90 and T-72 tanks and sustained very minimal losses. But like most of Russia's arsenal is showing its age. The BMP and Stryker series are both APC's and both IFV's to be honest. The big difference is that the BMP is designed around the Soviet tactical doctrine of fighting in a giant group with helicopters, artillery, etc while BMP's brought them to their destination, dropped them off and supported the infantry as best it could. [editline]22nd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39679532]If you could actually cite where M1A2's and T-90's have actually fought each other, that'd be great. Or when a Leopard I fought a T-72 that'd be great thanks[/QUOTE] *M1A1's my bad. M1A1's have fought a few T-90's the Iraqi military had during both Golf Wars. [video=youtube;yrWZlD4Tcd4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrWZlD4Tcd4&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active[/video]

[QUOTE=SexualShark;39679571]The T-90 series of battle tank is still an OKAY tank, US and British forces encountered T-90 and T-72 tanks and sustained very minimal losses. But like most of Russia's arsenal is showing its age. The BMP and Stryker series are both APC's and both IFV's to be honest. The big difference is that the BMP is designed around the Soviet tactical doctrine of fighting in a giant group with helicopters, artillery, etc while BMP's brought them to their destination, dropped them off and supported the infantry as best it could.[/QUOTE] No. T-90's never fought against US and British forces since Russia or countries possessing T-90's have never gone to war. The only T-72's that have fought against US and British forces were knocked down monkey models in the Iraq war. Only other times the T-72 has fought were in limited numbers in poorly trained and maintained armies.

The reason the T-90 is considered inferior is because of a little thing called ammo storage in crew can. The Abrams is nearly 20 tons heavier iirc

[QUOTE=Zambies!;39679595]The reason the T-90 is considered inferior is because of a little thing called ammo storage in crew can. The Abrams is nearly 20 tons heavier iirc[/QUOTE] Modern tank battles are essentially whomever sees whoever first. I'd like to see where he gets his classified technically specifications so he can make a amazing comparison like no other before. The T-90 is a smaller target than the Abrams and moves quite a bit faster. [editline]22nd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SexualShark;39679571] *M1A1's my bad. M1A1's have fought a few T-90's the Iraqi military had during both Golf Wars. [video=youtube;yrWZlD4Tcd4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrWZlD4Tcd4&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active[/video][/QUOTE] Absolutely incorrect, I wouldn't even trust that video since it seems to think Iran has T-90's. It shows the M1 being slower, bigger and heavier which is true. I don't see how any of this leads to the conclusion that the T-90 is a inferior tank. [editline]22nd February 2013[/editline] SexualShark please stop trying to argue over something you clearly know nothing about. All of your posts in this thread are full of baseless conclusions and lies. If you want to learn more about the Soviet Afghan war I recommend you check on youtube for a documentary or something. Even wikipedia, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan[/url]

[QUOTE=SexualShark;39679412] Second of all, if the Soviets didn't invade Afghanistan, there would of never been a Mujahedeen. [/QUOTE] Where did you hear that? Afghanistan Mujahideen "movement" (since it's not really movement, it's a huge union of extreme Islamic jihadist tribes) have been around since XIX century. They actively opposed, and still oppose ANY regime surfacing there. Including Brits, Afghanistan's national government, Soviet aided government, NATO aided government.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;39679133]Here's something to suck on Russia, its YOUR damn fault we are in Afghanistan. You jacked the place up even more than the Afghan's could ever do in a eon, allowing the Taliban to take power. Plus, last time i checked russias idea of "humanitarian aid" was AK-47's and military materiel. Its so funny how hypocritical the Russians are. They'll give out "humanitarian aid" to people to look like the good guys, but they won't help countries where civilians are fighting for their lives. Russia isn't intervening in Syria because they don't want to lose a ally who doe not even have too much of a modern military to bare except nerve agents.[/QUOTE] Actually, it's the fault of the USA that the US is in Afghanistan. The CIA funded, trained, and equipped the Taliban. The CIA trained Bin Laden and his muj against Russia. The CIA has planted the seeds of every single war the United States has been involved in since Vietnam. Prove me wrong, I'd love to see that.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39679626]Modern tank battles are essentially whomever sees whoever first. I'd like to see where he gets his classified technically specifications so he can make a amazing comparison like no other before. The T-90 is a smaller target than the Abrams and moves quite a bit faster. [editline]22nd February 2013[/editline] Absolutely incorrect, I wouldn't even trust that video since it seems to think Iran has T-90's. It shows the M1 being slower, bigger and heavier which is true. I don't see how any of this leads to the conclusion that the T-90 is a inferior tank. [editline]22nd February 2013[/editline] SexualShark please stop trying to argue over something you clearly know nothing about. All of your posts in this thread are full of baseless conclusions and lies. If you want to learn more about the Soviet Afghan war I recommend you check on youtube for a documentary or something. Even wikipedia, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan[/url][/QUOTE] Is the T-90 faster, or is it just more maneuverable?

Of course the M1 would defeat a T-90 in a tank on tank battle, but I believe that the hypothetical is irrelevant because people always disregard the many, many other threats that tanks face in real life other than enemy tanks. The M1 (and other NATO tanks) are notorious for taking multiple hits from man-portable antitank weapons and continue fighting, but these instances have only been recorded in battles involving the RPG-7 or other mid-Cold War weapons, which in their day were more dangerous than today. Western tanks rarely face modern weapons such as the RPG-29, but when they have they have been seriously damaged, including a Challenger 2 which was disabled from a single shot to its frontal armor. Russian tanks are smaller and faster because this is a huge advantage against man-portable weapons, among other reasons.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39679281]Uh no. That isn't how it happened at all. The reason the US is in Afghanistan is because they funded the fuck out of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, so in the late eighties the Soviet Union gave up in Afghanistan. Then the government in control was toppled and the Taliban gained control. So then they decided to harbour AQ who then attacked the twin towers. So, the US invaded and started 'nation building'. This shit wouldn't have happened if the US didn't fund, supply and aid in every way the Afghani mujahideen who were against the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan(Soviet aided Afghanistan). And ahaha, I doubt EMERCOM(Russian Emergency Ministry) was smuggling guns into Mali, when they could just send it legally since everybody supports Mali's government in the war against Al-Qaeda backed groups. God damn you're hilarious.[/QUOTE] Thats a pretty decent explanation except for two things. 1. The Saudis gave the muj the exact same amount of money we did ( even more if we count private donations by Saudi sheiks). If you're going to blame whoever funded the muj for the current state of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia deserves half of your blame. 2. We didn't directly fund muj, we gave money to the Pakistani ISI who then distributed it to muj groups. Oh and the ISI chose extremist groups over more moderate muj because the extremist had more recruits and were generally way better fighters. Also the ISI officials sympathized with the extremists ideology. Vocal people in the US intelligence community, including two of Ronald Reagan's aides, disagreed with supporting extremists and wanted to support moderates, but Pakistan never listened and one of their top generals assured us that everything would be under control. so much for that.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39679587]No. T-90's never fought against US and British forces since Russia or countries possessing T-90's have never gone to war. The only T-72's that have fought against US and British forces were knocked down monkey models in the Iraq war. Only other times the T-72 has fought were in limited numbers in poorly trained and maintained armies.[/QUOTE] In the first gulf war M1A1 engineers were having to pry out KEP rounds that couldn't penetrate and were stuck in their side armor, even the soviet 2A46 gun and associated ammunition types (IE: The T90's main armament if I'm not mistaken) just doesn't pack the punch to reliably make it through the some 600-900 mm RHA armor that these Abrams have, it'd take a freak or impressively skilled shot to be able to pierce the side armor, let alone the frontal armor on an Abrams, and that's assuming that T90 crews can get perfect 90 degree shots at vulnerable areas, which is just unlikely given the training level of western tank crews. It's not that the T90 is a bad tank, but you're talking about western nations that have had runaway post cold war military budgets and frankly the hardware shows the difference. The T90 is a good MBT but you need to keep in mind that it was designed for the soviet armor doctrine, which was ultimately quantity over quality, and such was the case when the soviet union was still in power. That "quantity" aspect is lost in regards to modern Russia and it's poor economy, and even moreso lost when referring to countries who have bought a small number of export soviet models. The Leopard 2, Challenger 2 and (modern) Abrams, are utterly uncontested so far, they are brilliantly designed, their armor is so thick that conventional munitions simply can't deliver damage through them.. only ones lost or seriously damaged so far have been to massive IEDs or lucky RPG 29 hits. I'm curious about China's Type 99, but unless they release the specs (which they wont) it's hard to tell how good it is. [editline]22nd February 2013[/editline] Wait, what is this thread about again?

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39682151]Thats a pretty decent explanation except for two things. 1. The Saudis gave the muj the exact same amount of money we did ( even more if we count private donations by Saudi sheiks). If you're going to blame whoever funded the muj for the current state of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia deserves half of your blame. 2. We didn't directly fund muj, we gave money to the Pakistani ISI who then distributed it to muj groups. Oh and the ISI chose extremist groups over more moderate muj because the extremist had more recruits and were generally way better fighters. Also the ISI officials sympathized with the extremists ideology. Vocal people in the US intelligence community, including two of Ronald Reagan's aides, disagreed with supporting extremists and wanted to support moderates, but Pakistan never listened and one of their top generals assured us that everything would be under control. so much for that.[/QUOTE] Saudis did fund the muj. They always do. It was the US military, however, that trained and armed them.

so much lack of tank knowledge in this thread however it is true that modern tanks cannot reliably penetrate each other (M1A2 SEP and T90 with K5 ERA)

[QUOTE=archangel125;39682698]Saudis did fund the muj. They always do. It was the US military, however, that trained and armed them.[/QUOTE] Nope, no US military was involved, but we had less than 10 American CIA operatives in the Pak-Afghan region. The reason for this was that the CIA was actually [I]scared[/I] the Soviets would capture or detect Americans. No Americans did any training or had any direct contact with muj, for obvious reasons. The ISI did the almost all of the training required, training ~100,000 fighters. China also trained and armed fighters and so did Britain's famous SAS. The most effective thing the US did was give the muj Stinger missiles, the Russians learned to hate those.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39682617]In the first gulf war M1A1 engineers were having to pry out KEP rounds that couldn't penetrate and were stuck in their side armor, even the soviet 2A46 gun and associated ammunition types (IE: The T90's main armament if I'm not mistaken) just doesn't pack the punch to reliably make it through the some 600-900 mm RHA armor that these Abrams have, it'd take a freak or impressively skilled shot to be able to pierce the side armor, let alone the frontal armor on an Abrams, and that's assuming that T90 crews can get perfect 90 degree shots at vulnerable areas, which is just unlikely given the training level of western tank crews. It's not that the T90 is a bad tank, but you're talking about western nations that have had runaway post cold war military budgets and frankly the hardware shows the difference. The T90 is a good MBT but you need to keep in mind that it was designed for the soviet armor doctrine, which was ultimately quantity over quality, and such was the case when the soviet union was still in power. That "quantity" aspect is lost in regards to modern Russia and it's poor economy, and even moreso lost when referring to countries who have bought a small number of export soviet models. The Leopard 2, Challenger 2 and (modern) Abrams, are utterly uncontested so far, they are brilliantly designed, their armor is so thick that conventional munitions simply can't deliver damage through them.. only ones lost or seriously damaged so far have been to massive IEDs or lucky RPG 29 hits. I'm curious about China's Type 99, but unless they release the specs (which they wont) it's hard to tell how good it is. [editline]22nd February 2013[/editline] Wait, what is this thread about again?[/QUOTE] Iraqi's were using steel penetrators with half charges and crap tank. All of these conclusions make no sense and if they're so behind then they wouldn't be leading the race to next generation tanks.

as much as I hate mike sparks this is pretty accurate [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7NVRTlAkx0[/media]

[QUOTE=SexualShark;39679571] M1A1's have fought a few T-90's the Iraqi military had during both Golf Wars. [/QUOTE] aha ahhahaha oh god oh man you're bad at this, aren't you.

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;39683951]so much lack of tank knowledge in this thread however it is true that modern tanks cannot reliably penetrate each other (M1A2 SEP and T90 with K5 ERA)[/QUOTE] What is so dumb about this post? [QUOTE=Apache249;39681020]Is the T-90 faster, or is it just more maneuverable?[/QUOTE] I ask this because I know that the Abrams is limited to 42 MPH to reduce track wear and chance injury in the case of a collision, but I know very little about the T-90's automotive performance.