Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Until I figure out how to un-close it, at least.

0 (0%)

So yeah.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: May 01, 2014, 02:06:40 pm

[Descan]

Poor Latvia...

[Knit tie]

Poor Latvia...

Why?

[Descan]

Estonia took all potato.

* Descan tsks.

[Mr. Strange]

I laughed more than I should have...

* Strange gives potato to Latvia

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Ok, as you wish Guardian G.I.

UR, aren't the Western regions the poorest?

If you look at GDP and tax generated, than yes. Western Ukraine has little economical might. But if you look at per capita and pay attention to income inequality than Western Ukraine is actually one of the better places to live in Ukraine.

Also, the Eastern Ukraine is large, our essential industry and resources are in Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk and Poltava regions. Kharkiv has some problems but far-far from armed man capturing cities and Poltava\Dnipropetrovsk are absolutely calm

Spoiler: here are a good map of usefulness of regions (click to show/hide)

Green - regions that give more to national budget than receive from it
Red - vice versa.
yellow line - Billions of UAH given
Blue line - Billions of UAH received

[vagel7]

Mr.Strange: No, we just got him ourselves! You can have Ansip though.

[Mr. Strange]

...from the frying pan and into the fire. I'll trade Timo Soini for him, though. Or you can have both, if you want. _{I'll pay you if you take him?}


On Ukraine, YLE has quoted Reuters and Itar-Tass in article claiming that Ukrainian goverment is giving russian language special position on regional level, but that Party of Regions is rejecting it.

[misko27]

I don't think Russia would do anything in a place it is literally monitoring as part of a peacekeeping force. That would be perhaps too audacious even. Plus now there are Americans there. Who would be in the crossfire.

I think it wants to be seen as a positive force in Ukraine. Russia not there=Anarchy. Russia there=Peace. Plus Obama appears to be holding Russia personally responsible for the situation. And sanctions, despite what some may say, suck. Especially for Russia right now.

It's just that sanctions aren't exactly *that* damaging for them. They can recover after a while. Smaller nations would have larger problems, but Russia will easily bounce back once they're gone.

That might be the case if the Russian economy wasn't already on the verge of recession. People always, always, underestimate the economy as a factor in things. Russia very literally cannot afford serious sanctions against their oil industry: it makes up so much of their budget they'd be broke.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

You all keep assuming that Putin is sane not a schizophrenic with imperial ambitions...

[Knit tie]

You all keep assuming that Putin is sane not a schizophrenic with imperial ambitions...

He is definitely not sane, but he is also very smart. Stupid moves is not how he managed to hold the power for so long.

[mainiac]

What? Of course you eat bulls in France. I ate bulls in France.

But you didn't hear any jokes apparently.

well, italy in world war 2 played a not indifferent part in harming germany's efforts, opening new fronts and then failing utterly, forcing germany to get there and help. it might not have been a decisive blow, but it weighted them down. Hitler himself asked Mussolini to stay out of the war for a couple more years, until the italian army was actually able to fight, but this sound advice was ignored.

Or to put it another way, the Germans used the Italians as scapegoats for their own horrible strategic decisions.  Nobody forced the Germans to keep sending more troops to get trapped in North Africa when it was clear they lost, they made that choice freely.

[BlindKitty]

You all keep assuming that Putin is sane not a schizophrenic with imperial ambitions...

This is exactly what I'm saying all around here...

About me calling the Europe surrender monkeys and/or cowards: well, yeah. I just did that. And I really hope that it won't come to checking that, because I'm seriously afraid that I'm quite right. Mind you, I'm _not_ saying that there would be no fighting, or no defence at all. But recent poll in Poland showed that about 15% of the population is ready to take part in defence of the country. 15%, that's not a typo. More people are willing to escape to some/any other country in case of trouble than to try and defend their homeland. And I think the actually nice result is the fact that there was only a small amount of people calling the poll-people crazy for even asking something like that; there would be probably some more further West. Although I don't really know about the Balkan states, situation might be different morale-wise there. But on the other hand, they don't seem to stand much chance against seriously overpowering them Russian military.

What I'm saying is: people are too used to living in comfort and safety, and without a thought of serious conflict. At least that's how I see it, but I'm a pessimist, really. Hey, nice surprises are nicer than bad ones.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

But recent poll in Poland showed that about 15% of the population is ready to take part in defence of the country. 15%, that's not a typo

15% of Poland it is something like 5 millions... If we take away he one who are incapable to actually fight due to health\age reasons... It is still at least one million. Respectable reserve for mobilization

Besides what matters is willingness of army to fight, not willingness of civilians. And not only willingness but training and equipment matter. Yes, Russia has some good troops, maybe 10, maybe 30, maybe even 50 thousands. But beyond that there are undisciplined, undertrained corrupt and half ruined conscription army. Russia is actually weak military-wise... If you take away the nukes.

I think Turkey alone will be enough to defeat Russia. it's 300 000 land forces are roughly equal to Russian in size and at the very least not worse in equipment and training.

Turkish navy is just decades ahead wise

And airforce... Well just look at any war of 20th century (Arab-Israeli wars, Desert Storm, Yugoslavia bombing, you name it) and see how MIGs and SUs performed against Western fighter jets. So those ~200 something F-16s Turkey has should be enough to wipe out entire Russian airfleet. At least in a defensive war with assistance of Turkish SAMs (land and shipbased)

And that Turkey with zero NATO aid

Really the only way Russia can win against NATO if NATO will choose not to fight...

[10ebbor10]

I'm pretty sure that that was Blindkitty's point.

But don't fear, in an invasion it seems very unlikely that the decision to fight back will be taken by referendum.

[Guardian G.I.]

And airforce... Well just look at any war of 20th century (Arab-Israeli wars, Desert Storm, Yugoslavia bombing, you name it) and see how MIGs and SUs performed against Western fighter jets. So those ~200 something F-16s Turkey has should be enough to wipe out entire Russian airfleet. At least in a defensive war with assistance of Turkish SAMs (land and shipbased)

MiGs and SUs which were sent to Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Yugoslavia and other socialist countries from the Soviet Union were downgraded export versions, whose performance was also hindered by either poor maintenance due to lack of supplies or lack of experience among pilots. Judging the fighting effectiveness of non-export versions of these aircraft in one country by the performance of downgraded export versions in other countries is a little bit incorrect, in my opinion.