• Confirmed: MH17 was shot down by a missile belonging to Russia's 53rd brigade
    69 replies, posted
Haha, you're getting the Russian system of government confused with ours. In the USA, oligarchs control the corrupt leadership. In Russia, the corrupt leadership keeps a handle on the oligarchs.
Jeez guys, you're all jumping to conclusions. The missile was owned by the Russian army, but that doesn't mean it was fired by them. Plenty of Russian equipment was supplied to the separatists.
And this absolves Russia...?
"Guys, it's okay, Russia only directly and willingly enabled and then covered up the murder of 193 of my countrymen and another 100 others, they didn't actually do it!"
They are at fault for supplying the separatists, but should any country that supplies rebels be "sanctioned into poverty"? There is only evidence which proves that the missile came from Russia, but there is no evidence who shot it. Yet in this thread there are people claiming Russia murdered the people on that plane.
So, it was supplied by Russia. Which means Russia enabled it. Then returned to Russia. Which means Russia covered it up. Your point..?
It was there for like a day as well, its travel through eastern Ukraine was well documented. Keep in mind that you need special training in the use and characteristics of that radar and weapons systems. It isn't just something you sit down for a few hours and learn.
"Which means Russia killed everyone" They supplied a lot of equipment to the separatists, not just this single anti-air missile. It was fired at a civilian plane, so it's a more logical conclusion that Russia wanted it back since rebels couldn't be trusted with it.
Russia was complacent in providing the BUK platform at the very least. Then covering up that fact (Remember the badly photoshopped RT news piece?) It also wouldn't surprise me if it was Russians who pulled the trigger, since why train Ukrainian / Russian separatists when you can just have your dudes in the van? We already know Russia has their SF out there fighting against Ukraine, why not just roll a SAM over the border real quick to shoot something down? (BBC Also backs me up on this) Russia should be sanctioned to hell and back for this.
I didn't say that. You dismissed Russia of blame when they're clearly very fucking much at blame, since the murder of 300 people this way would literally not have been possible if that air defence system was not present at the time. Whether they're directly at blame for the actual button-push is still up to the investigation to figure out, but we now know for sure that A: It wasn't loyalist Ukrainians who did it and B: It wasn't a captured loyalist Ukrainian air defence vehicle used by rebels. It was either a Russia-supplied air defence vehicle crewed by Ukrainian rebels, or a Russian air defence vehicle.
People always talk about the appeasement of Russia and how we'll end up regretting it. I think we might have already reached that point actually. Russia should have been stopped before they were able to pull off a decapitation strike against the West by installing a feckless stooge as President of the United States. There's no way of knowing whether we could have successfully stopped them before they did that, but if we knew what was coming, we could have and should have tried harder. They killed Litvinenko in 2006, they invaded Georgia in 2008, they annexed Crimea in 2014 and it still feels like we're only just starting to realise that they need to be treated as an enemy.
Do note that my original post you responded to literally says that Russia didn't do it.
If the blame for the deaths of people could be laid at the nations who supplied militias with equipment, Britain and the US should be really worried.
I don't at all support supplying rebels in collapsing countries weapons. Especially things like SAMs and TOWs which can have HUGE civilian casualty consequences.
Yeah. Watch Occupied, a Norwegian political thriller, it's fictional but shows well the unholy energy partnership that EU and Russia has and the consequences of such partnership. As well as EU's dependence on fossil fuels aside from Russia. Was made a few years ago but also portrayed the direction that the USA has gone in now as well... very interesting.
So how much can sanctions hurt Russia
I haven't watched the video in a while but I believe it's this one by CaspianReport that explained it could strangle Putin's power if the sanctions cut too deep. I don't doubt he's done more video essays like this explaining Russian sanctions too (but I need to find the time to watch those). https://youtu.be/BT4sK36cU3Y
There's a difference between fighting against a country that has a poorly trained and equipped military and with little power outside of their own country, and a country that has a massive military that is fairly well equipped and trained, can project power outside of their country, and supplies other countries with vital resources. Principally I agree. Removing Putin and his closest allies can be nothing but good for Russia, but it's impossible to remove them forcefully. The only thing that'll remove Putin is time.
Downed by a Buk. (Codenamed SA-11 Gadfly by NATO.) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Buk-M1-2_air_defence_system_in_2010.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Buk-M1-2_9A310M1-2.jpg Launcher with "Fire Dome" tracking radar. http://www.ausairpower.net/PVO-SV/9S18M1-1-Snow-Drift-Buk-M1-2-1S.jpg "Snow Drift" search radar. More info here
Yup. Parts of Georgia are still under Russian military occupation and have for all intents and purposes been annexed.
Diplomacy can be so wacky, I love that extremely formal and polite first paragraph which leads in to what is essentially "you're a cunt, stop being a cunt"
Any info on if a search radar was involved in the shooting-down of MH17? 'cause if it was, that'd be a solid indication that it wasn't even an accident or misidentification.
Pretty much all SAM systems need to use a search radar to actually "find" a target so the tracking radar can lock onto it. SA-13 gopher is typically IR homing with no radar needed, yet it still uses one to find targets and get range. Buk has different varients and missiles, most of them are either semi active radar homing (Tracking radar needs the lock held, missile sees the reflection off the aircraft and flies towards it.) and I think there's a few that use active radar. (Radar emitter is in the missile itself, fire and forget. Usually still needs a tracking radar for launch.) https://twitter.com/annaholligan/status/999582800159354881 9M38 missile uses semi active from what I've read. 9m38M (But other sources also mention a 9M38M1? Is it just a typo or is the M and M1 two different missiles?) uses active radar homing. http://www.ausairpower.net/PVO-SV/9M317E-Buk-M2E-9E420+Slantets-1S.jpg Semi Active seeker on the left, from a 9M317 Grizzly while the right is an active emitter for the 9M38M(1?) missile. Also I want to mention you don't "Shoot down aircraft by accident." it's a very deliberate process to lock and engage a target, although typically they're just dots on a screen. One of the later Buk variants had an onboard system designed to try and discern military aircraft from civilian aircraft by radar reflection profiles, even without IFF transponders.
They can still operate without the radar vehicle, just sub-optimally. With sub-optimal target-finding and identification capabilities, you could reasonably make the argument that a radar dot for a passenger jet might be mistaken for a radar dot for a military jet. With the radar vehicle in support, that mistake is much less likely to occur.
With only tracking radar it seems like shooting something down would be a major pain in the fucking ass. You'd only go by eyesight and it'd be very hard to get the tracking lined up. With search radar I don't think you'd be able to identify a target either. IFF only indicates friendly. Foes and unknown aircraft show up the same. (or even a friendly with his transponder off) I don't know if it was the later variant which is supposed to identify civies. EDIT: You're right. Gadfly launcher has an electro-optical system which can engage targets independently of Snow Drift search radar.
We're in an odd place where the traditional warhawks on the right see Russia as a shining beacon against left wing beliefs, and the left who see Russia as a threat but are still stuck in their left anti-war hippieness and will probably never support anything harder than sanctions. The only people who might do something about it are in the centre but there's not enough of them.
sure, if you want to start WWIII.
You don't generally try to "regime change" countries that have nukes
Pretty sure they asked the same question about USA
It's just stupid that we have to rely so much on Russian gas, most of its household applications have more efficient electric alternatives. It's only mandatory for some industrial applications.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.