Don't apologise for not reading it all. Quite a bit of drivel in there amongst a few gems of insight. The propaganda war on both sides is heating up with both trying to apply whatever leverage they have at hand. No-one knows what is true or false in this conflict.

Saw these earlier on UK tv but yes, loads more stuff like that if not just to make people sit up and apply more pressure.

Agreed, although most upgraded Ukrainian T-72s have a very distinctive armour covering below the turret ERA which in a way makes it look a little like an IS-3 from certain angles.

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/.../t72mp_009.jpg
T-72MP

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/.../banan_001.jpg
T-72AM 'Banan'

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/.../t72ag_007.jpg
T-72AG

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/...t72amg_003.jpg
T-72AMG

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/...t72120_004.jpg
T-72-120

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/.../bmt72_007.jpgBMT-72

http://media.desura.com/images/group..._Technolog.jpg
And the T-72E


Now, comparing these T-72 pictures, to this picture:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...1_tanktank.jpg

You note that the turret ERA does not match up with any of the above, the E does not have the gaps between the ERA blocks, and the AM has more blocks. You'll also note the IR searchlight (the 'Luna' I believe) to the commanders right of the gun barrel, only the Banan variant of the Ukrainian T-72 series has that still in place, and the Banans ERA doesn't match the tank in the above picture.


http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/.../t72bm_022.jpg
This is the BM variant of the T-72 (or to be a bit more accurate, the obr.1989), note the IR searchlight and the ERA, believed to be Kontakt-5. The more modern obr.2006 variant has Relikt ERA, which is where I screwed up in my ID yesterday, I got my BMs mixed up...but to be fair, so did wikipedia.

I'm not going to go out there and say it's 100% proof, because there are still questions to be asked, but it looks a lot like a type of T-72 that is not operated by the Ukrainian military, which raises a lot of questions, especially when the IFVs in the convoy are flying the Donbass People's Militia flag. :hmmm:

Yep
Keeping this mess murky as possible to prevent the politicians climbing trees they don't want to climb anyway.
After all I don't believe anyone wants to go to too much trouble over Ukraine yet the game has to be played.

Prime minister Yatsenyuk hs asked parliament to support the Ukraine appealling for becoming a NATO member.

Assuming that the parliament will follow, this will increase the probability for the Ukraine being split. Russia will increase its engagement regarding whatever it wants to achieve.

NATO would be ill-advised to accept such a call under such conditions. It already has costed the EU dearly to accept members who did not bring their things in order before, but wanted the EU to do (and pay for) this.

Several NATO members also are critical of a NATO membership of the ukraine in general, namely Germany. Its no good idea to allow a war formally becoming member of NATO and by that allowing NATO being pulled into war.

Regarding the long.term outlook of Ukraine turning NATO, I can only remind of that the (US_supported) reviving of efforts to bring the Ukraine into the EU and NATO last autumn has just triggered the drastic change in Russian policy and its de facto intervention. Washington always wanted that, to tighten its cordon around Russia even more.

And the Europeans must become aware of that they will have to pay the price for Washington'S polltical paradim on Russia - not the US. Our economy is affected several times as hard than the American, we live closer to Russia than America doers, and it is Europe depending on russian gas - and will, for the forseeable future - not America. Its easy for Obama to call for altogether going in sanctions, like he just did, and with great non-chalance claiming that if that means more problems for Europe'S economy, than Europe just has to face that, period. A weakening of Europe'S economy is in the interest of the American dollar-regime and many American hedge fonds betting against the Euro (currently more than 180 billion from hedge fonds are bet on the collapse of the Eurozone) and the American economy - especially those parts of it that are no longer competitive.

I can only hope that American demands over all this will get blocked by the West-European NATO members, and that the East-European members find no majority for their support of America's view on things.

As said before, the consequence NATO must draw is to beef up its military capacity in the Eastern member states of NATO.

If that is too expensive in today's fiscal troubles (the mean level of Western states' debts now is 40% above the status of before 2007's outbreak of symptoms for the fiscal cataclysm looming, so nobody should say that anything has been learned and that we are better prepared now) - how could one find it a good idea then to accept the fiscal troubles from allowing the ukrainian war into the EU and NATO?

https://31.media.tumblr.com/6f073d81...6v3ao1_400.gif

:O:

I think that Ukraine cannot join NATO with it's existing constitution.

Agreed, I think it would be very unlikely that Ukraine will join NATO while the current crisis is underway. The UK and US would probably vote in favour of it, but France and Germany would veto it.

What would be more telling is what Putin would do about it.

http://i.imgur.com/39unsRg.gif
"Ukraine? What is Ukraine? It only say "Russia" on map where you say is Ukraine."

The issue is not only in the Russian resaction, but also in the fact that (as far as I know) Ukranian constitution forbids them from joining any military political blocks.

Doing so would be commiting yet another anti constitutional act (same as not following the impeachement procedure or taking down the consitutional court). And I am not sure if anyone in the West is interested in befriending a state that cant even follow it's prime law.

ikalugin,

I understand it as that Yasenyuk has asked parliament to back a change of the constitution to give up the national constitutional no-block rule as an opening of the road for NATO membership.

NATo secretary Rassmussen meanwhile said that NATO "respects" the Ukraine'S wish to join nature, whatever that "respect" should mean, but it has the advantage to cost nothing. Slamming the door sounds different. But cheerfully welcoming somebody sounds different, too.

Funny you should say that, it seems that Canada has already declared war :haha::03::

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image..._notcanada.jpg

To Russia shot back with:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...siareplies.jpg

Speaking of the T-72, I just found this on youtube, a good strengths and weaknesses look at the AV variant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFF4Gc9Mb5c