Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The best bit is the crew are still inside.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The best bit is the crew are still inside.

the worst part about that is that with the Russians that is possible

Its actually a practice in Ukraine and elsewhere to stick broken tanks and APC hulls to the back of trucks...

Everytime I see one of these pictures all I can think of is

"Meanwhile in Russia"

I think the army should sell more of its surplus domestically without Demilling it. We can't let the Russians have all the orky looting and converting to themselves.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
The semi trailer is sectional. Sides, Support strut, and framing can be removed and placed back in.

I figured that, but they still dumped a tank on its side.

And centered over the three axles

Whoever the crane operator was is good

 Jihadin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
The semi trailer is sectional. Sides, Support strut, and framing can be removed and placed back in.

I figured that, but they still dumped a tank on its side.

And centered over the three axles

Whoever the crane operator was is good

Thats for sure. I'm actually shocked the truck isn't leaning to the right.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33710088

Stop trying to get some justice for that nonsense about some aeroplane crashing.

Its a bit of a joke (of many) how easy it is to veto things at the UN. "Hey we want to investigate X country over this matter. Oh damn that country, one out of many, just vetoed us doing that so now we can't".

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Its a bit of a joke (of many) how easy it is to veto things at the UN. "Hey we want to investigate X country over this matter. Oh damn that country, one out of many, just vetoed us doing that so now we can't".

Only 5 countries have veto power. That is already quite an improvement over the original League of Nations where every member had veto power. Those 5 countries are the ones who set up the UN in the first place, and they gave themselves veto power to ensure the UN can not be used against its own creators. I don't think it is a joke, it makes a lot of sense, altough I can very well imagine countries without veto power don't like it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Its a bit of a joke (of many) how easy it is to veto things at the UN. "Hey we want to investigate X country over this matter. Oh damn that country, one out of many, just vetoed us doing that so now we can't".

Only 5 countries have veto power. That is already quite an improvement over the original League of Nations where every member had veto power. Those 5 countries are the ones who set up the UN in the first place, and they gave themselves veto power to ensure the UN can not be used against its own creators. I don't think it is a joke, it makes a lot of sense, altough I can very well imagine countries without veto power don't like it.

I think the problem that some folks have, is that all it takes to veto something is ONE veto vote, on a council of multiple members.

Why would Russia veto that?

When the topic is the wrong doing of one member and that member can torpedo the whole thing with their veto that makes the system rather bent. Of course this topic isn't at the face of it about Russia, but they're heavily invested and one of the major parties involved in the incident are their proxy. If it were to come down to simple majority ruling then perhaps it'd be better. However in that case then you have the issue of calling the whole system's integrity into account. As it is though right now one country can hold everyone else to ransom as it likes, though I suppose that's what other organisations like NATO are for.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
When the topic is the wrong doing of one member and that member can torpedo the whole thing with their veto that makes the system rather bent. Of course this topic isn't at the face of it about Russia, but they're heavily invested and one of the major parties involved in the incident are their proxy. If it were to come down to simple majority ruling then perhaps it'd be better. However in that case then you have the issue of calling the whole system's integrity into account. As it is though right now one country can hold everyone else to ransom as it likes, though I suppose that's what other organisations like NATO are for.

Majority ruling would be better only if all parties were truly neutral, otherwise the outcome is still the same, except heavily biased towards the West as there are three Western and only two non-Western nations on the council. Indeed the West already has NATO to advance the national interests of its members, it doesn't need to have the UN as well. The UN is not there as a vehicle of Western interests, it is there to serve as a platform for cooperation and negotiation between the world's great powers in order to try and prevent conflict.
The veto power is necessary to make the UN function. The League of Nations has shown that such an organisation is doomed to fail unless all great powers in the world participate. And the great powers refused (especially the US and USSR) to particpate without having veto power to ensure the UN could not be used against them.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
When the topic is the wrong doing of one member and that member can torpedo the whole thing with their veto that makes the system rather bent. Of course this topic isn't at the face of it about Russia, but they're heavily invested and one of the major parties involved in the incident are their proxy. If it were to come down to simple majority ruling then perhaps it'd be better. However in that case then you have the issue of calling the whole system's integrity into account. As it is though right now one country can hold everyone else to ransom as it likes, though I suppose that's what other organisations like NATO are for.

Majority ruling would be better only if all parties were truly neutral, otherwise the outcome is still the same, except heavily biased towards the West as there are three Western and only two non-Western nations on the council. Indeed the West already has NATO to advance the national interests of its members, it doesn't need to have the UN as well. The UN is not there as a vehicle of Western interests, it is there to serve as a platform for cooperation and negotiation between the world's great powers in order to try and prevent conflict.
The veto power is necessary to make the UN function. The League of Nations has shown that such an organisation is doomed to fail unless all great powers in the world participate. And the great powers refused (especially the US and USSR) to particpate without having veto power to ensure the UN could not be used against them.

But why would Russia veto this?

 CptJake wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
When the topic is the wrong doing of one member and that member can torpedo the whole thing with their veto that makes the system rather bent. Of course this topic isn't at the face of it about Russia, but they're heavily invested and one of the major parties involved in the incident are their proxy. If it were to come down to simple majority ruling then perhaps it'd be better. However in that case then you have the issue of calling the whole system's integrity into account. As it is though right now one country can hold everyone else to ransom as it likes, though I suppose that's what other organisations like NATO are for.

Majority ruling would be better only if all parties were truly neutral, otherwise the outcome is still the same, except heavily biased towards the West as there are three Western and only two non-Western nations on the council. Indeed the West already has NATO to advance the national interests of its members, it doesn't need to have the UN as well. The UN is not there as a vehicle of Western interests, it is there to serve as a platform for cooperation and negotiation between the world's great powers in order to try and prevent conflict.
The veto power is necessary to make the UN function. The League of Nations has shown that such an organisation is doomed to fail unless all great powers in the world participate. And the great powers refused (especially the US and USSR) to particpate without having veto power to ensure the UN could not be used against them.

But why would Russia veto this?

They went along with an earlier resolution that called for an independent investigation, but they felt the tribunal as proposed was a political tool of Washington rather than a proper part of the ongoing independent investigation.
Churkin himself said yesterday said also that a tribunal like this is something that shouldn't have come for the Security Council in the first place, because it is not about a threat to international peace and security, and that setting up tribunals for aviation incidents is not normally a matter for the Security Council.

That is what I am getting from the RT article on it: https://www.rt.com/news/311109-russia-veto-un-tribunal-mh17/

Though it doesn't seem suspicious at all when one country out of, what was it ...fifteen, vetos it? Its like you just happening to lose the combination for a safe filled with incriminating paperwork just as the police want access to it (or rather given all the roadblocks that the Russians have put up against this in the past, like setting the safe and then the building on fire, though we're not at the attacking the police and shooting yourself just yet). Calling it all a Washington conspiracy just stinks of that aggravating stance that the Russians just love to take of them being the little country that everyone's just out to get.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Churkin himself said yesterday said also that a tribunal like this is something that shouldn't have come for the Security Council in the first place, because it is not about a threat to international peace and security, and that setting up tribunals for aviation incidents is not normally a matter for the Security Council.

Most 'aviation incidents' are not the use of a SAM against a passenger jet.

When else have the Russians vetoed a UN resolution about an airliner shoot down? (Hint: Think 1983 KAL shoot down...)

 CptJake wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Churkin himself said yesterday said also that a tribunal like this is something that shouldn't have come for the Security Council in the first place, because it is not about a threat to international peace and security, and that setting up tribunals for aviation incidents is not normally a matter for the Security Council.

Most 'aviation incidents' are not the use of a SAM against a passenger jet.

When else have the Russians vetoed a UN resolution about an airliner shoot down? (Hint: Think 1983 KAL shoot down...)

If there wasn't a tribunal for the Iranian Flight 655, there shouldn't be a tribunal for this.

 Tyran wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Churkin himself said yesterday said also that a tribunal like this is something that shouldn't have come for the Security Council in the first place, because it is not about a threat to international peace and security, and that setting up tribunals for aviation incidents is not normally a matter for the Security Council.

Most 'aviation incidents' are not the use of a SAM against a passenger jet.

When else have the Russians vetoed a UN resolution about an airliner shoot down? (Hint: Think 1983 KAL shoot down...)

If there wasn't a tribunal for the Iranian Flight 655, there shouldn't be a tribunal for this.

Did the US veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 616?

No. They did not.

I have two examples of the Russians doing so.

 CptJake wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Churkin himself said yesterday said also that a tribunal like this is something that shouldn't have come for the Security Council in the first place, because it is not about a threat to international peace and security, and that setting up tribunals for aviation incidents is not normally a matter for the Security Council.

Most 'aviation incidents' are not the use of a SAM against a passenger jet.

When else have the Russians vetoed a UN resolution about an airliner shoot down? (Hint: Think 1983 KAL shoot down...)

If there wasn't a tribunal for the Iranian Flight 655, there shouldn't be a tribunal for this.

Did the US veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 616?

No. They did not.

I have two examples of the Russians doing so.

 CptJake wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Churkin himself said yesterday said also that a tribunal like this is something that shouldn't have come for the Security Council in the first place, because it is not about a threat to international peace and security, and that setting up tribunals for aviation incidents is not normally a matter for the Security Council.

Most 'aviation incidents' are not the use of a SAM against a passenger jet.

When else have the Russians vetoed a UN resolution about an airliner shoot down? (Hint: Think 1983 KAL shoot down...)

Russia did not veto the resolution about the Korean airliner (which was also very different because it was about condemning the USSR, not about launching an independent investigation) as Russia was not even in the Security Council at that time. Soviet Union ≠ Russian Federation.

The US did not block resolution 616 same as Russia did not block resolution 2166. Both were resolutions just about an independent investigation, which is completely different from the resolution just vetoed by Russia. No one was ever persecuted for the shooting down of Iran Air 655, nor has the US ever apologised. Had a resolution about a tribunal to punish those responsible for the Iranian airliner comer for the Council, the US would have certainly vetoed it.
Besides that, all these incidents are very different from each other, and thus it is not right to compare them.

Finally, in amount of vetos, the US has vetoed far more resolutions than everyone else combined since 1991. Russia uses its veto only rarely.

weren't you all tired of political? let's look at these fine creations

They're setting the next mad max film in Ukraine?

New VICE episodes on Ukraine

They visit DNR, Ukrainian Army, and Right Sector front line positions, and basically everyone says the same thing "the ceasefire is nonexistent, we're being shelled with heavier weapons than what we're using, we try to restrain ourselves, yadda yadda". If they didn't tell you who was who, you certainly wouldn't be able to figure it out from what most of them are saying.

The positions that VICE visits come under fire on both sides of the line, and extensive damage to civilians is evident on both sides.

https://news.vice.com/video/on-the-dnr-frontline-ukraines-failed-ceasefire-part-1

https://news.vice.com/video/holding-the-line-for-another-dnr-assault-ukraines-failed-ceasefire-part-2

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
They're setting the next mad max film in Ukraine?

Beat me to it... but there is that one, VERY decorative vehicle, I think Martha Stewart would like it

deleted - Not really relevant to Ukraine.

An interesting development in some of the external problems caused by the conflict

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33798102

Looks like France will be keeping the Vladivostok and Sevastopol, and reimbursing Russia to the tune of ~$1.3 Billion.

It's good that the issue was settled amicably, but that's going to be awkward for both sides there. It'll certainly make doing business with France a lot more suspect for many nations, and Russia will now have to wait likely a decade or more for replacement vessels of similar capability (particularly if domestically built) and go through an entirely new acquisition & training process and deal with the operational gap in what they were expecting to have available in the coming years.

 Vaktathi wrote:
An interesting development in some of the external problems caused by the conflict

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33798102

Looks like France will be keeping the Vladivostok and Sevastopol, and reimbursing Russia to the tune of ~$1.3 Billion.

It's good that the issue was settled amicably, but that's going to be awkward for both sides there. It'll certainly make doing business with France a lot more suspect for many nations, and Russia will now have to wait likely a decade or more for replacement vessels of similar capability (particularly if domestically built) and go through an entirely new acquisition & training process and deal with the operational gap in what they were expecting to have available in the coming years.

I don't think it'll adversely affect business with France too much. Just don't invade your neighbour before you have your warships and you're fine.

This article reminded me of this topic:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/russia-uses-army-of-trolls-to-sway-sentiment-online-20150817

Russia Uses Army of 'Trolls' to Sway Sentiment Online

Putin's keyboard operatives "assert the offending bloggers are CIA spies, professional photoshoppers, forgers, Russia haters, hokhols (a derogatory expression for Ukrainians) -- perhaps even insane," Gregory wrote in July. "These trolls keep busy by poking holes in the evidence, and the more absurd, the better (false facts, photoshopped images). Their job is to raise doubts and cause confusion."

Thats awesome! I want one!

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:

Needs more dakka and places for da boyz to hang off.