Are the ethics of this sort of political activity likely to help or hurt the former Soviet Union?

[Loren Pechtel]

Almaz-Antey's claims are probably the most important ones so far. The Americans have stated they saw the launch of a buk and that it was fired from Snizhne. If this is wrong and the Americans lied and it was fired from Ukrainian held territory then the implications could be big.
But remember if the Americans did lie it also means you must be a Russian troll.

I would be very surprised if US had capability to see the launch from space. Satellites can't give you continuous video feed, otherwise UAV drones would have been pretty pointless. So Kerry pulled another Colin Powell.

1) Satellites most certainly can give a continuous video feed. UAVs exist because they can get a higher resolution picture of the area than a satellite can.

2) I seriously doubt this was caught on a video feed in the first place. I don't think "saw" is the right word here--"detected" would be better. Specifically, launch detection satellites that operate in the infrared. Their job is to warn us if Moscow throws ICBMs our way. If they couldn't maintain continuous coverage they wouldn't be of much use. Such things have been around for a long time--there was an incident from the 80s where the top Russian guy in charge of their satellites repeatedly suppressed a launch warning from their satellites as he figured the profile didn't make sense but was worried that his superiors would start WWIII if he reported it as he should have. (Turns out the "missiles" were high altitude clouds catching the sun while the missile fields underneath were already past sunset.)

Think that in the more than 30 years since that incident that the sensitivity hasn't improved to the point that they can see the booster of a SAM as well as an ICBM?

 

[barbos]

Well, Zaroshhenskoe was mentioned in one of the briefings by russian military last year. They asked why ukrainian army was moving their BUKs there. And considering that they did not have data on plane damage (used in Almaz-Antey analysis) at the time it seems unlikely they were aware of the importance of that question.
So it all rests on Almaz-Antey analysis.
Allso I am pretty sure speakers knew that Zaroschenkoe was not under rebel control but ignored journalist claim on purpose just to keep an a appearance. To me these people look like people who know they are right.
This looks very bad for ukrainian side.

- - - Updated - - -

I would be very surprised if US had capability to see the launch from space. Satellites can't give you continuous video feed, otherwise UAV drones would have been pretty pointless. So Kerry pulled another Colin Powell.

:you are too late:
And you really need some kind of video to get direction.
and ICBM launch can more easily be detected by radars, I believe Soviet Union used space based radars for that.

 

[barbos]

Anyway, this does not look good at all for a Free World.

 

[Will Wiley]

Well, Zaroshhenskoe was mentioned in one of the briefings by russian military last year. They asked why ukrainian army was moving their BUKs there. And considering that they did not have data on plane damage (used in Almaz-Antey analysis) at the time it seems unlikely they were aware of the importance of that question.

Do you have a reference for that?
And that part of Ukraine have been under the control of Ihor Kolomoyskyi, no?

 

[barbos]

Well, Zaroshhenskoe was mentioned in one of the briefings by russian military last year. They asked why ukrainian army was moving their BUKs there. And considering that they did not have data on plane damage (used in Almaz-Antey analysis) at the time it seems unlikely they were aware of the importance of that question.

Do you have a reference for that?
And that part of Ukraine have been under the control of Ihor Kolomoyskyi, no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thLMUmQzyj8
it is in russian, Zaroshhenskoe is meantioned at 4.15, they ask why two BUK systems were there then moved and why were they so close to rebel controlled area anyway.
I doubt Kolomoyski was controlling ukrainian BUKs. Zaroshhenskoe probably was not under real control by anybody at the time.
Assuming russians are not lying about increased ukrainian BUKs radar activity and movement, It all looks like ukrainian forces were conducting anti-aircraft exercises at that time and somebody probably pushed wrong button.
As for US, I think they did not see the launch, assumed that most speculated version about Snezhnoe was true and bluffed about having satellite evidence. They probably were not even looking because Ukraine does not have ICBMs and all that noise from surface-to-surface launches in that area was a daily occurrence.

By the way, that briefing took place only 4 days after the disaster, not enough time to concoct a decent lie.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, Zaroshhenskoe was mentioned in one of the briefings by russian military last year. They asked why ukrainian army was moving their BUKs there. And considering that they did not have data on plane damage (used in Almaz-Antey analysis) at the time it seems unlikely they were aware of the importance of that question.
So it all rests on Almaz-Antey analysis.
Allso I am pretty sure speakers knew that Zaroschenkoe was not under rebel control but ignored journalist claim on purpose just to keep an a appearance. To me these people look like people who know they are right.
This looks very bad for ukrainian side.

- - - Updated - - -

:you are too late:
And you really need some kind of video to get direction.
and ICBM launch can more easily be detected by radars, I believe Soviet Union used space based radars for that.

Here's the incident I was talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident

While it doesn't specifically say the detection was infrared there's nothing else that could have produced the false alarm.

Radar has two big problems:

1) It's mostly a line-of-sight detection. While over-the-horizon systems exist they're based on bouncing signals off the ionosphere and thus are always rather iffy.

2) Radar relies on reflected energy, thus it drops off at the 4th power of distance rather than the square of distance. Jammers, however, only drop off at the square of distance. This means at long range it doesn't work too well. A ground-based radar seeing into Russia is going to be dodgy and a space-based radar simply isn't going to have the power to do much. The low power and fixed orbit of space-based radar also means it's easy to blind.


As for whether you need video--infrared signals can be focused on a sensor. You get a false-color image (or video if you take many frames) from this. The longer wavelength means the location isn't as accurate but this isn't a case where you need great accuracy.

 

[barbos]

Well, Zaroshhenskoe was mentioned in one of the briefings by russian military last year. They asked why ukrainian army was moving their BUKs there. And considering that they did not have data on plane damage (used in Almaz-Antey analysis) at the time it seems unlikely they were aware of the importance of that question.
So it all rests on Almaz-Antey analysis.
Allso I am pretty sure speakers knew that Zaroschenkoe was not under rebel control but ignored journalist claim on purpose just to keep an a appearance. To me these people look like people who know they are right.
This looks very bad for ukrainian side.

- - - Updated - - -


:you are too late:
And you really need some kind of video to get direction.
and ICBM launch can more easily be detected by radars, I believe Soviet Union used space based radars for that.

Here's the incident I was talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident

While it doesn't specifically say the detection was infrared there's nothing else that could have produced the false alarm.

Radar has two big problems:

1) It's mostly a line-of-sight detection. While over-the-horizon systems exist they're based on bouncing signals off the ionosphere and thus are always rather iffy.

2) Radar relies on reflected energy, thus it drops off at the 4th power of distance rather than the square of distance. Jammers, however, only drop off at the square of distance. This means at long range it doesn't work too well. A ground-based radar seeing into Russia is going to be dodgy and a space-based radar simply isn't going to have the power to do much. The low power and fixed orbit of space-based radar also means it's easy to blind.


As for whether you need video--infrared signals can be focused on a sensor. You get a false-color image (or video if you take many frames) from this. The longer wavelength means the location isn't as accurate but this isn't a case where you need great accuracy.

Stop with your stupid reality checks already and have one yourself.
Soviet union used space based radars, no line of sight problem, and jamming radars is not as easy as you think.
Anyway, this a derail of a derail. Thread was originally about russian trolls and then got predictably derailed into MH17

 

[Jayjay]

According to the map, yes.

What map?
Speaking of which, Almaz-Antey released their own investigation/conclusion/opinion of the sort and it points toward ukrainian forces.

Before you start laughing and crying "Yeah, right, russian lies!" I need to to tell you that Almaz-Antey did not really need to do it and lying would be very costly to them, they are not anonymous trolls from some troll factory in Saint Petersburg or Netherlands, they are huge military contractor which sells a lot of stuff abroad, even Finland have bought BUKs from them in the past. Despite what you think Putin is not all powerful, he can't just tell people in Almaz-Antey to lie no matter what it costs them financially.

Maybe he can, maybe he can't. A lie where you have little or no chance of getting caught is hardly going to give them any financial troubles that they wouldn't already have due to the strained relations with the West.

It's also possible, that the actual missile used was intentionally an older model that is not in active use by Russian military.

 

[Jayjay]

Fact is, Almaz-Antey has absolutely nothing to gain by lying and in fact has a lot to lose by lying.

Actually, they do have something to gain:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...mh17-almaz-antey-rocket-buk-lawsuit/28501567/

Almaz-Antey hopes to leverage their case in a lawsuit filed in the General Court of the European Union to lift sanctions placed on the company after the Boeing 777 was shot down over eastern Ukraine last year.

"If MH17 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile, it could only have been done by a 9M38-M1 missile fired from a Buk-M1 launcher," Almaz-Antey CEO Yan Novikov told reporters at a press conference last week.

This version of the Buk missile has been out of production since 1999, three years before Almaz-Antey's creation, and therefore sanctions against the firm are baseless, Novikov argued.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Stop with your stupid reality checks already and have one yourself.
Soviet union used space based radars, no line of sight problem, and jamming radars is not as easy as you think.
Anyway, this a derail of a derail. Thread was originally about russian trolls and then got predictably derailed into MH17

A space-based radar isn't going to be fooled by clouds catching sunlight over dark ground. The only thing that could make that mistake is infrared.

If they're actually using radar for missile launch detection what satellites are doing it?? It's not like you can hide radar, we know every active radar in orbit.

 

[fromderinside]

More falsehoods. Finland didn't buy BUK's. Russia *gave* them to Finland as a form of debt repayment. So Finland having them is not really some sort of evidence for Russian sales prowess. Finland is also replacing them with the Norwegian NASAMS-2.

Wow, you must be fuming with outrage.
Almaz-Antey sold arms to NATO country(s), enjoy further fuming.

Did you miss the recent NYT article "Pentagon Seeks Easing of Ban on Russian Rockets for U.S. Space Missions" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/w...ssian-rockets-for-us-space-missions.html?_r=0? Fortunately France has agreed to not send the Ship they built for Russia to Russia. Sanctions are a bitch but sanctions are probably the best the wesh as to retrain Russia without a complete collapse of oil prices (say to $30 a barrel or so) which can be engineered if the US supplements our producers and convince SA to increase production a bit. Fortunately US taxes is citizens and business which givers them a leg up of Russia, pl;us the fact that our citizens and business make a damn sight more than do Russian citizens and businesses.

Russia is threatening a gun fight and we're calling in the mortgage on the guns.

 

[tupac chopra]

Russia is threatening a gun fight and we're calling in the mortgage on the guns.

Aproblem with this is that is had encouraged Russia to form a strong strategic alliance with China, and much stronger ties with the other BRICS. These countries are are advancing whilst America is declining and burdened by debt.
Also it is Europe which is bearing the brunt of the sanctions.

 

[barbos]

Russian business does not really like China, they expect sanctions to be lifted eventually and business going back to Europe. But US should not expect getting back Crimea.

 

[fromderinside]

Russia is threatening a gun fight and we're calling in the mortgage on the guns.

Aproblem with this is that is had encouraged Russia to form a strong strategic alliance with China, and much stronger ties with the other BRICS. These countries are are advancing whilst America is declining and burdened by debt.
Also it is Europe which is bearing the brunt of the sanctions.

Here's one solution to the China problem. We default. They collapse and we still ave a military with a strong industrial complex supporting it. Too bad for second rate Russia and pretty perilous China.

The real problem is Russia is trying to influence failed nations to come back to their failed nation as a means for propping up support of their locals for the nostalgic days of yesteryear that were never there. Without resources from others Russia has no means for sustaining itself in a world beginning to move away from oil. Last time they tried that was Afghanistan where they were so successful the Soviet Union collapsed and the Soviet military lost all confidence.

America is predisposed to step back, but, their military are confident they can accomplish their missions. Russia is saber rattling without any spirit in their military. We accomplished our missions in Iraq when we really didn't want to go there. Does anyone doubt a fully competent and confident US military can't do the job again if asked. Russia's only hope is that they won't be asked.

 

[tupac chopra]

Aproblem with this is that is had encouraged Russia to form a strong strategic alliance with China, and much stronger ties with the other BRICS. These countries are are advancing whilst America is declining and burdened by debt.
Also it is Europe which is bearing the brunt of the sanctions.

Here's one solution to the China problem. We default.

A solution is not paying your way? ok. that will "solve" the current debt problem I guess....but.

They collapse

Why?

and we still ave a military with a strong industrial complex supporting it. Too bad for second rate Russia and pretty perilous China.

But who will fund your wars and military if you aren't seen as a good debtor?

The real problem is Russia is trying to influence failed nations to come back to their failed nation as a means for propping up support of their locals for the nostalgic days of yesteryear that were never there.

Russia's actions are to make strong ties with the BRICS and forge new systems of cooperation.

America is predisposed to step back, but, their military are confident they can accomplish their missions.

They haven't won a major war since WW2, and it was Russia who defeated Hitler really.

Russia is saber rattling without any spirit in their military.

Why do you say that?

We accomplished our missions in Iraq when we really didn't want to go there

You did. What were your aims? To bring on the Islamic State and leave the country a mess, with hundreds of thousands dead?

Does anyone doubt a fully competent and confident US military can't do the job again if asked.

How competent is America's military?

Russia's only hope is that they won't be asked.

I agree Russia doesn't not really want to waste resources on war. They's prefer to slowly recover and be a force in a multi-polar world, I think

 

[barbos]

Wow, you must be fuming with outrage.
Almaz-Antey sold arms to NATO country(s), enjoy further fuming.

Did you miss the recent NYT article "Pentagon Seeks Easing of Ban on Russian Rockets for U.S. Space Missions" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/w...ssian-rockets-for-us-space-missions.html?_r=0? Fortunately France has agreed to not send the Ship they built for Russia to Russia. Sanctions are a bitch but sanctions are probably the best the wesh as to retrain Russia

You are not retraining anybody. Russia is not Iran and even with Iran you have not retrained them much.
China did not join the sanctions and while clearly is a second choice for Russia as a partner they will work fine for a time being.
As for France and that piece of junk they just built, many (including military) are glad they are getting money and some back.
These ships were ordered during good times, now they are not needed that much.
For sanctions to work you really need to bring back 90s level of decay in Russia and to achieve that I am afraid you will need complete 100% isolation which did not exist even during Cold War.
As for Pentagon that's interesting how US justify forcing Europe to sanction Russia but somehow want these engines.
Russia is not a problem, problem is a US policy of supporting regimes which are openly hostile to Russia, be it Saakashvili or current Ukrainian government.

 

[Jayjay]

The US isn't "forcing" Europe to sanction Russia. It seems to be a popular Russian narrative to portray US as the root of all evil, and Europe as its hapless victim who just goes along but doesn't really want to, but that's bullshit. It's Europe that's taking a stand here and not the US.

 

[fromderinside]

Here's one solution to the China problem. We default.

A solution is not paying your way? ok. that will "solve" the current debt problem I guess....but.

They collapse

Why?

Ever see a country that isn't confident and capable survive a crisis when their economy suddenly can't grow and others won't invest in it. Ours won't collapse because power defines strength so we'll print p=money and our allies will accept that as 'payment for what they think we owe them to keep their military cover we supply. On the other hand China, suddenly holding worthless american IOUs has nothing upon which to base faith and confidence in. Are they suddenly going to attack us? Not a chance. Yet, unless they do they are toast. That's why they'll collapse. They don't have a world who trusts them or depends on them. We do and we have the power. That's the whole story.

and we still ave a military with a strong industrial complex supporting it. Too bad for second rate Russia and pretty perilous China.

But who will fund your wars and military if you aren't seen as a good debtor?

We will pay cash with money we print based on our power. We will pay only pay our debts to those who support us. China wants to go another way. sorry. That debt they hold is worthless.

The real problem is Russia is trying to influence failed nations to come back to their failed nation as a means for propping up support of their locals for the nostalgic days of yesteryear that were never there.

Russia's actions are to make strong ties with the BRICS and forge new systems of cooperation.

. Those BRICS are corrupt governments with failed economies. Nothing there for the Russians that they haven't taken already. Look at the problems Russia is having paying benefits to their w=own citizens with oil money that is draining up because of low prices.

America is predisposed to step back, but, their military are confident they can accomplish their missions.

They haven't won a major war since WW2, and it was Russia who defeated Hitler really.

If that's what you think its worse for you than you can imagine. We extended 9 thousand miles with a supply line and brought Afghanistan back from the hands of al Quada. Russia had a supply line of zero miles and they had to leave Afghaniztan and then collapse as an empire. There are others and it doesn't get better for Russia. Why isn't Russia just occupying Ukraine. Why are Russian citizens now unsatisfied with Putin's leadership? Its because Saudi Arabia choose to poke them in the eye with cheap oil supply. Obviously Russia, now a capitalist nation which is failing at that too, is now wrestling with how to hold the confidence of their people without enough cash to get the job done. They were so weak they chose capitalism and now they can't go back to despotism without losing the people and their military.

Russia is saber rattling without any spirit in their military.

Why do you say that?

Oh I don't know. Maybe because those who get caught are turning on Russia rather than just going name, rank,and seriel number. Maybe because Russian troops won't move without being paid. maybe because three's ot enough productivie capacity to keep even a small war afloat against a much weaker opponent. Probably all the above.

We accomplished our missions in Iraq when we really didn't want to go there

You did. What were your aims? To bring on the Islamic State and leave the country a mess, with hundreds of thousands dead?

First it was a mess before we eliminated its corrupt infrastructure so that's a non starter. As for what it is now. Its a headless mass trying to find an identity.

As for our military. Wow. I said strong military not wise government. The military kicked military ass. The military adjusted when it had to and kicked ass again. Its now being asked to find waysto kick ass again without using boots on the ground. Prospects seem better now that we understand Iraq isn't a nation, but, rather a consort of tribes. We've just chosen to work with those tribes we need to successfully stop ISIS and we'll son be seeing Sunnis taking back their land and culture from those nihilists whi crept in.

Does anyone doubt a fully competent and confident US military can't do the job again if asked.

How competent is America's military?

It is extremely confident, powerful, and advanced beyond any other force the world has ever seen.

Russia's only hope is that they won't be asked.

I agree Russia doesn't not really want to waste resources on war. They's prefer to slowly recover and be a force in a multi-polar world, I think

Given their fool hardy attempt to shore up support at home with allusions about their 'powerful' past and actions suggesting that they can go back to that they've put their entire government on the line beyond their ability to control and accomplish successes. They are nearly out of money, their oil income is so low that people are going without benefits,soldiers are going without pay and their economy is nearing depression. There will be no good fairy and Peter will be eaten by capitalist wolves.

I had to put in my party line because you've gone balls out putting in yours.

 

[tupac chopra]

A solution is not paying your way? ok. that will "solve" the current debt problem I guess....but.

They collapse

Why?

Ever see a country that isn't confident and capable survive a crisis when their economy suddenly can't grow and others won't invest in it. Ours won't collapse because power defines strength so we'll print p=money and our allies will accept that as 'payment for what they think we owe them to keep their military cover we supply. On the other hand China, suddenly holding worthless american IOUs has nothing upon which to base faith and confidence in. Are they suddenly going to attack us? Not a chance. Yet, unless they do they are toast. That's why they'll collapse. They don't have a world who trusts them or depends on them. We do and we have the power. That's the whole story.

I'm not sure I follow. You say that America could not honour it's debts and whatever IOU's China still held at that time would be worthless but that you could then just print money to pay for things.
The dollar would likely be worth far less if America defaulted so it wouldn't work

and we still ave a military with a strong industrial complex supporting it. Too bad for second rate Russia and pretty perilous China.

But who will fund your wars and military if you aren't seen as a good debtor?

We will pay cash with money we print based on our power. We will pay only pay our debts to those who support us. China wants to go another way. sorry. That debt they hold is worthless.

Whilethe dollar is strong and going up they will probably hold T Bills, but they may sell them before they become worthless. You seem to think this could never happen.

The real problem is Russia is trying to influence failed nations to come back to their failed nation as a means for propping up support of their locals for the nostalgic days of yesteryear that were never there.

Russia's actions are to make strong ties with the BRICS and forge new systems of cooperation.

. Those BRICS are corrupt governments with failed economies. Nothing there for the Russians that they haven't taken already. Look at the problems Russia is having paying benefits to their w=own citizens with oil money that is draining up because of low prices.

It can be easily argued America is a failed economy. It consumes more than it produces and pays for it with dollars it "prints" out of thin air. that is unsustainable in the long run

 

[Jayjay]

A solution is not paying your way? ok. that will "solve" the current debt problem I guess....but.

They collapse

Why?

Ever see a country that isn't confident and capable survive a crisis when their economy suddenly can't grow and others won't invest in it. Ours won't collapse because power defines strength so we'll print p=money and our allies will accept that as 'payment for what they think we owe them to keep their military cover we supply. On the other hand China, suddenly holding worthless american IOUs has nothing upon which to base faith and confidence in. Are they suddenly going to attack us? Not a chance. Yet, unless they do they are toast. That's why they'll collapse. They don't have a world who trusts them or depends on them. We do and we have the power. That's the whole story.

Why would the world trust the US, if it starts arbitrarily defaulting on its debts? That kind of thing tends to erode trust pretty fast, and merely having a strong military isn't likely to convince the world that the US should be trusted. Quite the opposite in fact.

and we still ave a military with a strong industrial complex supporting it. Too bad for second rate Russia and pretty perilous China.

But who will fund your wars and military if you aren't seen as a good debtor?

We will pay cash with money we print based on our power. We will pay only pay our debts to those who support us. China wants to go another way. sorry. That debt they hold is worthless.

Global markets don't work that way. You can't refuse to pay debt to China, and expect business with Europe to just continue as if nothing happened. First, the debt held by China may have been bought by European banks, and vice versa. And second, the countries in between that are at risk of being defaulted by the US would start selling their US debt elsewhere. The US dollar isn't backed by US military might, it's backed by the trust that it'll be worth something in the future, and part of that trust is that the US will pay back its debts with interest.

You make valid points about Russia and ISIS, which should be pointed out since this is a thread about Russia after all, but the notion that the US would somehow benefit or even come out on top if it started defaulting its debts is just nuts.