...What type of ship is it, seeing as we're being war nerds?...
And what is false in your summary of the ex-War on Want man's statement (except I saw elsewhere 25k, not 30k; & the PM was appointed by the Supreme Council)?Jesus GG gets worse:
George Galloway MP
Russia has a LEGAL right to have 30,000 troops in Ukraine. It has half that and hasn't spilled a DROP of blood...The "prime minister" of Ukraine is self appointed. His "government" is unelected. The actual government was driven out by western backed force...The killing of 77 in Maidan was done by snipers hired by the opposition says Estonia. BBC has yet to broadcast the Ashton tapes proving this...
Jesus GG gets worse:
George Galloway MP
Russia has a LEGAL right to have 30,000 troops in Ukraine. It has half that and hasn't spilled a DROP of blood...The "prime minister" of Ukraine is self appointed. His "government" is unelected. The actual government was driven out by western backed force...The killing of 77 in Maidan was done by snipers hired by the opposition says Estonia. BBC has yet to broadcast the Ashton tapes proving this...
Well I don't like standing next to George Galloway but apart from the 30,000 (it's actually 25,000 according to what I've read) yet again, with a tired sigh- I have to say I agree with him.
Why? What's Russia's legal entitlement to occupy part of a country that isn't their own? Why didn't gorgeous complain about the same self appointed government when Egyptians turfed out Mubarak?
slightly nuanced answer theoretically, but a black and white answer in this case: you can use self-propelled guns (or any Artillery) in a 'less than war' situation if you use guided ammunition (we regularly fire single round missions in Afghanistan, we've used them against snipers, mortar teams, IED laying teams etc..), but to my understanding the Russians do not use guided artillery ammunition in the calibre of weapon seen in the picture, and the guns themselves are not the most modern systems they have, so even their unguided/ballistic acccuracy would be well below that found on a modern artillery peice with GPS navigation systems and gun laying radars.
in blunt terms, no, this is not a weapon you would use in any circumstance less than WW3 - its a blunt instrument, and given the historic Soviet/Russian reliance on Artillery as a part of their battle/fire plan, its a small part of a much bigger, much blunter instrument.
E2A: as butchersapron and @guess who? have noted, they are extremely good at persuading people to fuck off.
Why ask me why George Golloway does what George Galloway does
Turns out there was a treaty in place from way back re the 25,000 troops. I've not read it myself but apparently a US apparatchik has said that due to this treaty the Rus may not beleive they are acting illegally. Nations station troops in other nations all the time. Go ask the United states about the logic around such arrangements. It makes sense though that if there's a major arrangement for a massive naval complex in Ukranian territory, then there'd be an agreement for supporting ground-forces in the area too. Makes me wonder why Crimea is an autonomous republic in the first place actually.
...im not giving out to you btw, im just sick and tired of this utter nonsense still being talked about and giving out in general.
On the topic of utter nonsense, any evidence of those 500 offices being 'burnt to the ground' yet CR?
oh don't worry - i think i've mentioned before in the thread that i don't think the picture shows what its claimed to show for the reasons you've given - its also a bit possible that the SPG'S in the picture have got Ukrainin flags painted on the turrets. little flash of light blue...
Why? What's Russia's legal entitlement to occupy part of a country that isn't their own? Why didn't gorgeous complain about the same self appointed government when Egyptians turfed out Mubarak?
I may not be alone in being struck by Ashton's reaction to the two pieces of news: one set of snipers, & the new gov not wanting an inquiry. Her indifference was chilling, preferring to respond by emphasising, in effect, that a mere doctor & activist needs to get all real & start to effin' well act like a politician. Glad to see it's an easy transition from the new NHS ethics to those of promoting the national interest in the shark-infested oceans of foreign affairs.
But there's another possibility explaining this apparent indifference. Given that she knows this Olga I surmise this was not news to her at all. And thru repeatedly talking about it with countless others, when the perhaps Etonian Estonian raised it with her it was a case of oh-not-that-old-news-again-&-from-someone-else-who-thinks-they're-relating-a-scoop-Jesu.
And what is false in your summary of the ex-War on Want man's statement (except I saw elsewhere 25k, not 30k; & the PM was appointed by the Supreme Council)?
ADDED as correction: the Prez was appointed by the Supreme Soviet (what RT may call the SS), & then the Prez appointed the PM, submitted that to the SS who approved the appointment.
So no self-appointing going on: just ignoring the Constitution in such a way that a blow to the state is achieved, a coup d'état, i.e. the SS sat that Saturday, 22Feb, ignored the impeachment procedure that I quoted the other week, exceeded its constitutional powers to vote to remove Yanuk from office, then, again exceeding its constitutional powers, elected a new prez. That's called a coup, whether you think it reasonable or not, just or not. Call a spade what it is. As I also said before, politics can always trump law. It was a political revolution, changing the regime but leaving the state as a capitalist state. A revolution is always unconstitutional - that's its nature.
Given what you wrote, & the sequence of comments, it's not clear what your "that" refers to.The Estonian FM didn't claim that, he reported that someone else said it. That person has denied saying so. The tape doesn't prove anything, it's just someone repeating a rumour. [my emphasis]
What is your source that Olga B has denied something? And what has she denied?The Estonian FM didn't claim that, he reported that someone else said it. That person has denied saying so.
Its probably the local russian commander told to get a patrol moving as a show of force and they were fueled and ready to go
The British regualry used Starstreak a surface to air missile launcher in kosovo to impress the locals as its really really big and nosiy
Trundle it about abit locals see a huge noisy missle launcher and decide to put off murdering their neigbours till next tuesday
Tbf any snipers on any side in ukraine are going to be using aks or dragnovs because theres millions of the things about.
So unless you have the actual weapons and a csi lab your proving nothing
Cool I got 3 answers
What type of ship is it, seeing as we're being war nerds?
I was wondering why you agreed with him. I guess they wouldn't view themselves as acting illegally if that treaty stands up but who cares if it didn't? It's not as if states are known for abiding by international law. At least gorgeous' hot air didn't disappoint in the hilarity stakes!
What is your source that Olga B has denied something? And what has she denied?
Why? What's Russia's legal entitlement to occupy part of a country that isn't their own? Why didn't gorgeous complain about the same self appointed government when Egyptians turfed out Mubarak?
Where on earth did he or ashton say any such thing as that last claim? Earlier you had it as claims that the estonian minister supported and that she was standing by. What happened there then? Where's that gone?she has denied to the western media what the Estonian Foreign Minister claims he told her . Which prompted him to phone ashton .
eta I don't know about the snipers. Wouldn't surprise me mind (Venezuela), but come back with proper evidence than hearsay.