Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also you conveniently forget that ancient (Kievan) Rus’ was founded in Novgorod by Viking princes, so I don’t know why you are so proud of that “achievement”, just another occupier of Kiev, and before that it was the Turkic Khazar Khanate, Kiev has never had independence. Also if you look at the geographic names, particularly rivers, in Ukraine you will find very few of Slav
Where exactly are you looking? Tuva, Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan? Russia is not a homogenous place like Ukraine. Plus I doubt that people in Belgorod and Voronezh look all that different from Kharkiv.
But I'm pretty sure you already know all of this, it wouldn't surprise me that you would use the oldest trick in the propaganda play book, dehumanization of your enemy.
"Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman, worthless, or immoral, through suggestion or false accusations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
"Dehumanization of the enemy is a propaganda technique which promotes an idea about the enemy being threatening evil aggressor with only destructive objectives. Demonization is the oldest propaganda technique aimed to inspire hatred toward the enemy necessary to hurt them more easily, to preserve and mobilize allies and demoralize the enemy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonizing_the_enemy
I know right? "Russians are Mongols!" (shows a video of Ukrainian cossacks fighting against Polish army)
Ethinically, Ukrainians and Russians are the same thing, Slavs with some Tatar mixed in.
The "Tatars" were "mixed in" with Russians only at the nobility level- as in 18% of Russian nobility was of "Tatar descent" since it was a practice back in fifteenth(?) century in order to seal the peace between Russians and Tatars, once Russians won their independence back and incorporated the leftovers of Tatar state in their own state.
The rest of Russians don't have any "Tatar blood" in them. What they do have however, is the admixture of the "Finno-Ugric" group ( whatever that group is.)
Ukrainians on another hand have the admixture of Turkish blood-lines.
At least that's what DNK of Europe shows in both cases.
Looks like another reason for Russia not building 1000s of Armata tanks is they've spent that money on other things such as infrastructure and transportation. This lack of transport and logistics support has hampered not only Russia in the past. It will bring the best of armies to their knees in short order. What good is any tank without fuel and ammunition? It's just a target.
Another wise move was the restoration of many T-80 tanks for use in the arctic regions. Why? T-80s have a gas turbine engine, a jet engine instead of a diesel engine. Diesels are hard to start and maintain in cold climates. Gas turbines are not. They start in seconds. They are fuel hogs though, that can be a real problem.
Yeah, lack of money due to sanctions tends to lead to cancelling of weapons programs. We are beating Russia the way we did in the 80s.
The only reason T-80s can have success in the arctic is because there are few Chechen rebels there. Ouch, sorry!
You wanna talk about a good tank, the T-84 is no slouch, especially the Oplot version.
well for whatever the case, infrastructure is way more important then a new flashy tank, so if it's sanctions that is causing Russia to prioritize infrastructure and stop wasting money on their army then I'm all for it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.