At least they are more environmentally friendly, they retain their turrets thus making the post action clean up easier.. :)

This may have been footage from the first reported kill.

Badly I suspect, hence why they're not risking fielding them. They lost a couple in Syria apparently.

The China military leadership must also be scratching their heads, having not only based much of their kit on Soviet legacy stuff, but also much of their military doctrine. Back to the drawing boards lads!

They do use the word "another" in the description.

Without some "goal", realistic or not, you won't be able to strive to go to Mars......

Yep, Putin successors would be fighting to take-over from Putin. Though there are several, if not many. Which will make it quite a fight.

As such, my suggestion to break up the Russian Federation and suddenly the power base for all the would-be follow-up's would be gone.

And, to break up the Russian Federation, NATO needs to be in Moscow. Not to claim the country, though to initiate the political break-up of de Federation. With that, the Russian threat would be diminished, if not gone, etc.

You should be on stage with this, its comedy gold.

That's the point that you keep getting wrong. The USSR, for example, broke up without NATO being in Moscow.

As we saw with Saddam and Gaddafi, removing the head of the beast just creates a power vacuum and gets the different factions fighting with each other for control - that really would be a bad thing for Russia and the rest of Europe.

I think they were looking the wrong way, Looks like a pantomime shot to me.

If you think Putin is hacked of now, you try walking NATO into Russian territory, let alone getting to Moscow. What's more, the Russian people would be right behind him on that one for real. When Putin and his boys say no foreign forces in Russia, they mean it and will chuck everything they own at NATO, including the kitchen sink!

Nr. 1 in Ukraine seems to be doing pretty well, with a background like that. We also did have Reagan, though he was more of a movie star.

Of course. Just find a way, to get this resolved. Oh, I don't say, it should be military hardware. So, maybe as part of a political cease fire agreement, once all Putin's armament is turned into scrap ?

BREAKING: The Finnish parliament's defence committee recommends NATO membership.

Russia is a country. USSR was a collection of independent countries, who each decided (including the main one Russia), that going further on their own would be more beneficial to all.

Breaking-up the Russian Federation, would imply breaking-up a country with a central government, law, currency, etc (vs. multiple governments for the USSR, with each a lot of "freedom" to decide).

JUST ONE MORE TIME
NATO IS A DEFENSIVE ALLIANCE

which bit is not understood?

Please, spare us this nonsense. Benefit of a doubt, perhaps you mean the Warsaw pact / East bloc in mainland Europe?

I agree to that, as such, my suggestion to break up the Russian Federation in its individual states, which each do have a kind of "local government" already in place. Of course, a lot needs to be done, though, replacing Putin with just another dictator in a huge country, isn't going to take away the Russian threat, given its population seriously believes in all what the propaganda said. You're not going to change that in just a few years. So, better have a lot of small countries, who initially do not want to "work" together, etc, though learn on that, and each in itself aren't a threat to NATO.

Also, these individual states no longer have the ability to pay for the Nukes, so, these will also get scrapped.

Just assuming, it is possible to "bring" a democracy isn't something that is going to work, recent history has shown this extensively.

Having a lot of smaller though independent countries, condemned to gradually start working together to accomplish something, along the EU model, is one of the very few options, I think, to get rid of the Russian threat.

And, the above also sends a serious message to China, what might happen, in case they think a Hitler game would be appropriate.

Don't tell me, tell him!

Yep, NATO is "defensive". I don't say, NATO should invade Russia, though certainly be a strong negotiation partner, the moment, Putin his armies are turned into scrap. IE, go to Moscow, being the political center in Russia. And, NATO not even has to go there physically. Just be an important party at the table. This moment will come inevitable, once the Russian army is depleted of all their shiny stuff. NATO, just take care to be there, to lay the groundwork, that NATO doesn't need to become military active, not your official role, though take care to be there.

Please, folks, stop b*ggering an important thread.
Most of us do not want to wade through the stuff.

As one says:

There's a war on !

Widescreen - not a NATO job at all but the EU could act as a partner to a future Russia (they already were to some extent with the German policies of building links through trade).

The power and money of the EU could help a reborn Russia stand on it's own feet but there would have to be no military threat - which the Russians perceive NATO to be - it would have to be trade based and would need a lot of investment from the West.

The Russians have a common currency, an almost common language and a country-wide system of command and control/government - if you can remove the FSB and the thought police from their country and introduce a bit of free speech without the threat of imprisonment (or worse) the raw materials for a successful rebirth of a proud nation are there.