Hey Raellus the Ruskies are at it again...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...uclear-rivalry

It's deja vu all over again.

Finland
 

An interesting piece on how Finland plays into the strategic calculations of both Russia and NATO. It could be a potential flashpoint for a conflict between the two powers as well.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...-no-nato-11978

Second Battle of Donetsk Airport
 

I find this one odd, in that I started looking at this in Wikipedia. The entry was recent, starting with dates in Sept-2014 (to be expected).

The last updates are from... yesterday. Someone is updating this about as often as the BBC posts an update. I just find that a bit bizarre.

Second_Battle_of_Donetsk_Airport

Most of the last paragraphs (for the last few days) include "alleged" and "'X' said that..." with no real facts.

So why is it in Wikipedia if this is still an ongoing event?

The description sounds at points like Stalingrad, with one side holding the second floor (we have not been ejected from the building!) and the other holding the third floor and the basement.

My son plays Call of Duty; this sounds like one of the locations for that game.

The BBC coverage includes published drone flight purportedly from the Ukrainian armed forces over the Donetsk airport, which may be more appropriate for the apocalyptic imagery file (trashed building exterior and interior):

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30876223

It also includes some shots of tanks and individual soldiers, including one with what I believe is a WW2 Russian ATR, a PTRD or PTRS (I can't tell as the gunner covers his end and the muzzle is out a window).

Addition: I guess it is the PTRS-41, and that I am not hte first one to see it video from Donbass. This was on the PTRS-41 page, at the bottom:

" These rifles have been seen in use by pro-Russian militiamen in Eastern Ukraine, during the Donbass War. One of the rifles was fitted with a nonrganic muzzle brake from PTRD"

Uncle Ted

wikis can be posted by many parties - I a told
 

The source of a particular wiki is not the product of careful editing I am told. Content may be biased.

Politically Influenced? You Think?
 

Hmmm. Let's see.

1. Facts not multiply verifiable.
2. Situation still apparently fluid, activity on-going.
3. No independent or non-partisan reporting

I didn't mean to imply that the Wiki was completely accurate; more that i was amused that Wikipedia was being used as a war diary, more or less.

Which means that it is being followed by someone with a current interest, which leads me to assume that there is some spin included; the higher level of detail seems to be form the Ukrainian government side.

Personally, I'd rather not see anything in Wikipedia until say a year from now, when somebody can take a longer look back than 12 hours ago.

I almost got the feeling that I was about to read "Esteban just told me he reached the men's room on the second floor near the West end stairs in the new terminal, and that he can fire down the corridor into the old terminal!"

Uncle Ted

Both sides' strategy and capabilities are evolving.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...dley/23555365/

Meanwhile in Russia....

http://news.yahoo.com/prominent-russ...223512822.html

Putin being a bad boy as usual, from the looks of it.

And I'm rather unimpressed by this latest attempt at a so-called "cease fire". It seems the "rebels" may be just getting rested, rearmed and regrouped before launching another offensive in the spring. That's what NATO seems to be thinking and if I were leading the rebels, I'd probably do the same thing.

As well as giving the 5th column time to move in and stir things up. Last week there was a bomb in the West that killed two and wounded others. Probing the wire.

One wonders just how much control Putin actually has over the rebels.

According to NATO, if there are indeed well around several thousand Russian troops operating alongside "rebels" inside the Ukraine? The question of control may be fairly academic. Methinks the rebels know they wouldn't be getting very far if not for all the shiny toys and assistance Ivan's been giving them.

Rebels don't seem to be too worried about getting kicked out.

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...onetsk/387247/

Bet you never had one of these in your T2k game.

No....but it would be something rather ironic and interesting to run into....

Are the "girls" in question some baron or warlord's personal harem?

Are they there to perhaps entice all the sex-starved males that are probably around in this post-apocalyptic world, only to rob them, kill them, convert them into some crazy brainwashed cult or possibly worse (such as cannibalism)?

Are they not really "military/guerrilla pageant queens", but maybe part of some weird hybrid New Age militaristic "Amazon nation" formed from the ashes hoping to bring about a new order since the machinations of men have apparently failed spectacularly?

Hmmm, now that I think of it, that does give me an idea or two... :D

Well, I think I've read that the Amazons were supposed to live in or near the Scythians, aka Ukraine.

I'd heard that. I've also heard they may have been based out of what's now modern-day Libya, also possibly Anatolia (modern Turkey).

Really, in a Twilight 2000 post-apocalyptic world, I could see some sort of "Amazon nation" popping up somewhere. What are their aims? Their ideology? Religion (Would they resurrect Pagan worship, particularly of Artemis)? Form of government? How would they tolerate the other surviving governments, most of whom still governed mostly by men (a very open question)? It could make for a very interesting campaign, indeed.

An Amazon society is an interesting idea. The origin story could have a lot of variability. Lots of possibilities. The Last Submarine includes a female-dominated megapunk gang, the Black Widows. In my fantasy world, the Widows are more pro-woman than anti-man. I dream of the Widows being fit young women who have cast off the sexual repression of Judeo-Christian society and who need--nay, demand--regular servicing by the males among the Widows.

To answer the question, the Finnish doctrine prior to the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines was to mine the hell out of most of the Eastern Finland (but keep tabs on every mine layed) and use the narrow avenues between the fields to drive the enemy under concentrated fire. However, things have changed with the ratification of the treaty (which many active reservists consider a bad idea due to the fact, our easternly neighbour has not done the same).

As for Nato, the Finnish Defence Forces has constantly been setting up gear so that it would function well with the gear Nato uses. Our special forces obtained bunch of FN SCARs just recently, to be used alongside the indigenous Rk62/95 -series. The older Rk62s are going to be upgraded so that they can mount the same optics (until now, they only had iron sights) and other paraphernalia, the Rk95 can.

As for the comments on Light Infantry versus Armour, there are certain tactics for that. Defense in depth with the forward units making guerilla strikes against the enemy columns and fading away before the enemy can react, only to allow the enemy to advance to the next ambush and the next and next, until the enemy has been worn down a notch and the final ambush with anti-tank mines, missiles, directional charges (that is, Claymores - we don't get to call them mines but directional explosive munition) and precission artillery strikes, and of course, conventional small-arms fire.

The limited offensive capability is based on the Armoured Brigade fielding Leopard 2A4's and 6's (including the Leopard 2 Marksman -systems that have the quite advanced Marksman ADA turrets with twin 35mm Oerlikons formerly mounted on T-55 chassis' that have now been phased out), BMP-2's, MTLB's and mechanized infantry riding the CV9030FIN. They are supported by the Finnish built Tampella 155mm's and MRLS units, not to mention their organic 120mm mortars.

Nato discussion, especially now that we're preparing for parliamentary elections, is flaring up and the Defence Minister outed himself with his opinion about the Russians not giving half of a dead rat's ass on whether Finland is neutral or not, if it suits their plans. With earlier cutbacks in the funding, the FDF has not had the chance to hold refresher training for most troops in the past few years which has caused some damage to the quality of the troops that will take a long time to repair.

With what has been going on in the Baltic, my best guesstimate is, Sweden will apply for membership in Nato within the next three years and Finland will most likely follow suit. We've been living next to, under and eventually next to Russia for a long time and fought a number of wars against them. There are some Finns, including a particular adjunct professor of the University of Helsinki, who spread bullshit about Finland in Russia to advance the goals of Putin's crew. Most Finns do strongly condemn that behavior.

p.s. Gentlemen, I'm back...;)

Welcome back Medic - nice to see you back on the forum

That really does say something apparently when the Finns and Swedes are that nervous, and now actually considering the possibility of foregoing neutrality and joining NATO. And what you mentioned with the professor is rather interesting as Russia is quietly, yet very busy setting up disinformation campaigns along with "sympathetic viewpoints" (or IMO, fifth columnists) in other countries.

In this case, the said professor, however, is pushing disinformation, not in Finland but Russia. There has been some animosity about "the treatment of Russian-born children in Finland" as the Russian Child Rights official is claiming, with the said professor's support, the Finnish Social Services have taken kids from their parents simply because they were ethnic Russians. And yes, there are the fifth columnists, not to mention the troll factories in Russia that create fake Facebook profiles and feed BS on the public discussion in the Finnish newspapers' comment sections.

In the past two years, we've seen Russian military planes violating the Finnish territorial waters and (probably Russian) sub/subs violating Swedish archipelago. We've got military build-up along the Finnish border with the reopening of Alakurtti base and the placement of an Arctic Brigade there. They are not very far from the Finnish border and, being regular troops, are well equiped and can be put to readiness with little warning. And well, you've probably read about the military exercise the Russians held up north - up to 80000 troops. Kind of hard not to be concerned...

The afore mentioned associate-professor Bäckman is also the ambassador of "People's Republic of Donetsk" to Finland and from the embassy (which Finland has not acknowledged officially) gives orders to the Finnish press on things like that the Ukrainian government should be called only the "Fascist junta of Kiev" and claiming that the People's Republic is the only legal government in Ukraine... Then again, the press is also mainly ignoring him and the pro-Russian groups in Finland consider him an embarrassment, complaining that every time Bäckman opens his mouth, joining NATO gets more support in Finland.

But the Russian "trolls" have been busy for a year or so. Finnish newspaper actually had an article about them and apparently they are mainly based in Moscow and it really is a job. The main trolls are working for a living and need to meet quotas on how many pro-Russian posts they make daily.

Certainly there are other pro-Russian people but the "Troll-army" does most of the job spreading misinformation on the net.

Actually the Fins can do this still as the Ottawa Treaty only covers non command anti personel mines, it dose apply to anti tank mines, claymores, the new XM-7 Spider Mines or booby traps

There is also nothing that prevents(Grey Area) thrid party from mining a coutry or storage of land mines by a non signing country.

In in theory the US could have a stockplie of it's own Army equipment (land mine) in Finland. As long as they are under US control the Fins claim could that the treaty is still enforced as it not their stockplie, and they are for use by the US which did not sign the treaty.

The Treat also states that each country can have a "small" number of land mines for training purposes, so have 40,000 no stock for training, that one per regular solider.

In Short there is not a document written by a man that another man can't find a way around.

Well said. Rules, for better or for worse, are meant to be bent, circumvented and broken. Not to mention, should a full-scale conflict ever occur that, at least in the eyes of one of the involved parties, actually might entail the very survival of their existence? There's a good chance any written rules, treaties, laws, etc. will quickly go the way of the dodo bird.

It's interesting that countries which were neutral during the Cold War are now thinking seriously about joining NATO. Very interesting. For Sweden in particular to give up her neutrality would be a sea change in Swedish thinking.

Interesting, and also frightening. Something really has changed in Russia and the overall global equation if they're seriously considering this now.

Well, I do know that, but by removing the non-command detonated mines, the Finnish defense strategy changed completely.

The most useful mine in the Finnish arsenal was the Sakaramiina m/65, made of 60 grams (that's about two ounces for those who don't read metric) of TNT, a detonator and a three pronged pressure plate on top of the detonator. Until 1998, the pressure plate was made of bakelite or plastic and thus made the mine undetectable. The charge was enough to blow a tire or destroy a limb without killing, which was even better for the psychological effect on the enemy. The idea was, with anti-tank mines, one would deploy these smaller mines amongst them as a deterrent, so the enemy would think twice before trying to clear the minefield. Of course, nowadays we need to use a bit more drastic measures and use the Telamiina (Track Mine roughly translated), a 9kg pressed TNT-charge with a plastic center and the exactly same 60 gram charge in the middle with a pressure detonator without the plastic cap on the detonator so the mine will blow from far less pressure. With the cap, one could supposedly hop on the mine, but I would not test that. Without the cap, one steps on it and turns in to a mass of unidentified goo.

Now, I understand what you are suggesting about storing the mines for someone else or having them for training, but that won't fly. If the Finnish politicians are anything, they are far too honest in matters like these and dishonest in things they should be honest in. Perhaps not all of them, but the Finnish politics...well, that's enough about that.

FDF conducted research on the matter and could replace (at least in theory) all the aspects of an infantry mine, save for one - the psychological effect of walking in to a minefield.

The Swedish thinking has changed quite a bit, especially after that submarine incident. The Swedes dismantled their conscript army and turned it in to a small force of professional soldiers. However, they ran in to a bit of a problem - they could not get enough professional soldiers in to service. They have a Homeguard (Hemvärnet) that is a bunch of volunteers who train once or twice a year as far as I know, but they are at the same type of situation, they were in the beginning of WW2. Back then their pride, the Air Defense Artillery, had ammo for about 17 minutes, after which it would have run dry. There has been talk about the Swedes returning to the good old conscript army soon, though it might be a bit more selective service than in Finland.

Another interesting article, though I wish it was longer and a bit more detailed in regards to Russia establishing relations and close ties with anti-EU and anti-NATO parties on the right and left in Europe. By no means is it anything new, rather an old Soviet tactic, but still interesting nonetheless. "If it isn't broke, don't fix it."

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-gambles...180919227.html

I believe there is a quote about "useful fools", or words to that effect...

I never saw an "end" to the Cold War. It just shifted into an Economic and Political war in the mid 90's. Once Russia amassed enough "Petrodollars;" they simply picked up right where they left off. Their behavior in Yugoslavia in the 90's demonstrated this. Putin is NOT to be trusted, and I see NATO being drawn into WW3 through a series of "brushfire wars" (probably in the Balkans).

It's interesting you bring up the idea of the Balkans. Perhaps Putin tries something in Moldova and Romania, while simultaneously stirring up s**t in Poland and the Baltics as a feint to make everyone think he might go there next? Possible. I still think the Baltics is his next stop though. Or at least, Estonia along with Latvia and Lithuania seem to think so....

IMO, if Putin can have his trolls work effectively enough? Convince enough of the public and politicians in both Europe and the U.S. that "Is it really worth it to start WW3 with Russia over three small Baltic enclaves that probably belong in the Russian sphere of influence anyway?" Yes, I know, NATO policy says one thing, but it may not mean much if overall public opinion says another. I think that's Putin's rationale anyway. Then all he has to do is have his T-80's roll down the main street of the Baltic capitals, and claim another piece from there.

Or, not worry about NATO at all....and roll into Finland and Sweden instead while they're effectively neutral while their military has been reduced. NATO can't really say much about a country when it's "officially" neutral to begin with.

I like the comment one Pole who was interviewed made when the U.S. military convoy rolled through Poland after visiting the Baltic countries. "Why are they leaving? They should be staying here, not going back to Germany."