Read the forum code of contact
By: - 29th September 2008 at 16:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Somali pirates hijacked an*Iranian vessel with enriched*uranium from China! See here: http://samsonblinded.org/news/somali-pirates-hijack-iranian-ship-with-chemical-or-radiological-cargo-3525
By: - 29th September 2008 at 16:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This sound like a Salgari’s story on the XXI Century. :D
By: - 29th September 2008 at 17:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
....and the news has it that a Russian Warship Neustrashimy is hurrying there from the Atlantic. What, nothing seaworthy closer than that? Haven't updated their maps with the Suez Canal? Inquiring minds want to know. Or is this just a result of the major cutbacks in the Russian blue water navy?
Piracy in the area has really been out of control for years, and it takes something like this to get international attention. Shows just how well the UN works:eek:
By: - 29th September 2008 at 19:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
....and the news has it that a Russian Warship Neustrashimy is hurrying there from the Atlantic. What, nothing seaworthy closer than that? Haven't updated their maps with the Suez Canal? Inquiring minds want to know. Or is this just a result of the major cutbacks in the Russian blue water navy?
The Neustrashimy was due there since weeks, if not months, and it nothing to do with the recent incident, because, again, the ship is Ukrainian, the tanks are Ukrainian (ex-Sov.), and the deal (probably with South Soudan) is Ukrainian.
By: - 30th September 2008 at 05:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
....and the news has it that a Russian Warship Neustrashimy is hurrying there from the Atlantic. What, nothing seaworthy closer than that? Haven't updated their maps with the Suez Canal? Inquiring minds want to know. Or is this just a result of the major cutbacks in the Russian blue water navy?Piracy in the area has really been out of control for years, and it takes something like this to get international attention. Shows just how well the UN works:eek:
care to explain the relation between the UN and piracy in that area?
By: - 30th September 2008 at 05:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Neustrashimy was due there since weeks, if not months, and it nothing to do with the recent incident, because, again, the ship is Ukrainian, the tanks are Ukrainian (ex-Sov.), and the deal (probably with South Soudan) is Ukrainian.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iBJRGljzO-MrwMKW5CFFMbkUIBVw
Russia seems to be sending the Neustrashimy for support.
By: - 30th September 2008 at 15:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Neustrashimy was due there since weeks, if not months, and it nothing to do with the recent incident, because, again, the ship is Ukrainian, the tanks are Ukrainian (ex-Sov.), and the deal (probably with South Soudan) is Ukrainian.
Did the Russian bid on the deal?
After recent events, and all of the rumblings over Crimean, you have to wonder about Russian intentions?
By: - 30th September 2008 at 16:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Did the Russian bid on the deal?After recent events, and all of the rumblings over Crimean, you have to wonder about Russian intentions?
No they did not. They're actually quite "upset" about this (and demonstrated their goodwill re stability in the region by sending helos to the UN/EU forces in Tchad) and using this to bolster their claim that Ukraine is selling arms to whoever wants wherever there is some bucks to get (which is in some way true, just remember the sale of cruise missiles to Iran). The tanks come from old sov surplus, which Ukraine has loads of. Russia has till now abided by all UN resolutions regarding offensive arms sales in conflict regions (pre-empting possible objections, Iran and Syria are not considered "conflict zones" by the UN).
By: - 30th September 2008 at 18:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No they did not. They're actually quite "upset" about this (and demonstrated their goodwill re stability in the region by sending helos to the UN/EU forces in Tchad) and using this to bolster their claim that Ukraine is selling arms to whoever wants wherever there is some bucks to get (which is in some way true, just remember the sale of cruise missiles to Iran). The tanks come from old sov surplus, which Ukraine has loads of. Russia has till now abided by all UN resolutions regarding offensive arms sales in conflict regions (pre-empting possible objections, Iran and Syria are not considered "conflict zones" by the UN).
Kenya is claiming that the vessels are for their military only before we get too carried away with the Ukraine bashing......the truth has yet to be found.
By: - 30th September 2008 at 18:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No they did not. They're actually quite "upset" about this (and demonstrated their goodwill re stability in the region by sending helos to the UN/EU forces in Tchad) and using this to bolster their claim that Ukraine is selling arms to whoever wants wherever there is some bucks to get (which is in some way true, just remember the sale of cruise missiles to Iran). The tanks come from old sov surplus, which Ukraine has loads of. Russia has till now abided by all UN resolutions regarding offensive arms sales in conflict regions (pre-empting possible objections, Iran and Syria are not considered "conflict zones" by the UN).
What about Russian arms sales to the Sudanese government during the Darfur genocide?
At this point, there are so many levels of conflict and contradiction that it is hard to interpret any Russian action.
It would seem that the Neustrashimy was sent on this unprecedented deployment long before the pirate crisis involving the Ukrainian ship, which begs the question whether the objective was interdicting Somali pirates or a less altruistic intervention?
In short, was the Ukrainian ship the original object of the Russian frigate deployment?
By: - 30th September 2008 at 18:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kenya is claiming that the vessels are for their military only before we get too carried away with the Ukraine bashing......the truth has yet to be found.
It is a bit surprising that Kenya would be making a major arms purchase so soon after the recent ethnic violence and the formation of a divided coalition government.
On the other hand, the there would be tremendous difficulties in transporting T-72 tanks overland to Southern Sudan, where much of the terrain is unsuitable for MBTs, especially in the rainy season.
By: - 30th September 2008 at 18:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is a bit surprising that Kenya would be making a major arms purchase so soon after the recent ethnic violence and the formation of a divided coalition government.On the other hand, the there would be tremendous difficulties in transporting T-72 tanks overland to Southern Sudan, where much of the terrain is unsuitable for MBTs, especially in the rainy season.
Its Africa, since when did defence procurement follow logical thought processes? Anyway Kenya would not be that shocking and this haul is almost certainly second hand and probably sold at near scrap value anyway.
By: - 30th September 2008 at 20:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On the other hand, the there would be tremendous difficulties in transporting T-72 tanks overland to Southern Sudan, where much of the terrain is unsuitable for MBTs, especially in the rainy season.
Assuming the Ugandans would let 'em through, they can go by train as far as Kampala. There is (as of February this year) a sound road from there to a few miles short of Juba. Those few miles have probably been refurbished by now.
If Uganda will not co-operate, they can go on good roads through Kenya to Kapoeta, about 200km east of Juba. From there to Juba the road is in poor condition.
The time taken will depend on the route, & how many transporters are available, & the bad roads may not be passable in bad weather, but they can get there, one way or another, eventually. The wet season should be ending soon,
BTW, it doesn't matter that much of the terrain is unsuitable. What matters is that quite a lot is, for at least half the year, & that the Sudanese army has tanks which it can use, in the large suitable areas, during the dry season. If the tanks have to spend a few months each year greased up & protected from the rain, so what? If they can't move, then neither can anyone elses tanks.
By: - 30th September 2008 at 21:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kenya purchased 77 T-72 tanks from Ukraine in 2007 according to UN arms register. This is just a follow up order.
By: - 30th September 2008 at 21:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kenya purchased 77 T-72 tanks from Ukraine in 2007 according to UN arms register. This is just a follow up order.
It would make sense, these would be dirt cheap and probably ex soviet examples.
By: - 3rd October 2008 at 14:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
110 T 72s is a massive force by african standards. There are quite a few European nations that have far less tanks.
Scrap value or not. If they work, such a force will change the powerbalance in the region.
By: - 3rd October 2008 at 15:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kenya is replacing 78 Vickers Mk 3 tanks. Whether 77 or 110 T-72s replace them, that isn't a great quantitative increase. Nor is it a large force compared to Sudan or Ethiopia.
More important than how many, are maintenance standards & logistical abilities, & these are what usually cripple African armoured forces. Can't get the tanks to the battle, or if they do get there, they don't work.
Rwanda toppled the government of much larger Congo with infantry in the 1990s, despite Congos armour & artillery - because the armour & artillery were never present, & functioning, at the battles. Tanzania successfully invaded Uganda in 1979, despite having less armour, partly because the few tanks the Tanzanians were able to advance with met even fewer functioning Ugandan tanks, but mainly because the Tanzanians were better trained, better disciplined, & better led.
In sub-Saharan Africa, numbers of major weapon systems bought are rarely of much importance, except to budgets.
By: - 4th October 2008 at 08:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
T-72Bs?
The T-72M would probably be susceptible to enemy RPG-7 fire, but the real Soviet version, even without ERA, would probably be a pretty damn good tank.
By: - 7th October 2008 at 10:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Russia rejects use of force to free Somali pirates' hostages
MOSCOW, October 1 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Navy said Wednesday that no force would be used against pirates who seized a Ukrainian ship off the Somali coast last week, a Navy spokesman said.
"The issues of releasing the ship and the crew will be resolved in line with international practice. The use of force is clearly an extreme measure as it could threaten the lives of the multinational crew," Capt. 1st Rank Igor Dygalo told RIA Novosti.
The pirates, who are demanding $20 million for the release of the ship, said earlier they would kill a hostage if an attempt was made to free the hostages by force. Among the hostages are three Russians, 17 Ukrainians and one Latvian.
The ship's captain, Russian Vladimir Kolobkov, earlier died of a heart attack. Three pirates were killed in a shootout onboard, media reported, adding that none of the ship's crew was injured during the shootout.
Russia sent the Neustrashimy (Fearless) warship to the region last Wednesday, but the Russian Navy said the decision had been made long before the seizure of the Faina.
"The Russian Navy has repeatedly maintained that the goal for the Neustrashimy is to arrive in Somalia and protect Russian vessels for an indefinite period of time in areas dangerous for pirate attacks," Dygalo said.
Earlier Wednesday, Somali Ambassador to Russia Mohamed Handule said his country's President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed had authorized Russia's military to fight pirates off Somalia's coast and on land.
"This permission allows the warship to use the whole range of the weapons on board," a Navy official said. The Belize-registered Faina was carrying military equipment including 33 T-72 tanks, reportedly on their way to Kenya.
Pirates are increasingly active in the waters off Somalia, which has no effective government and no navy to police its coastline. The International Maritime Bureau said more than 30 incidents of piracy were registered in the region in 2007. More than 30 attacks have been committed so far this year off the coast of the East African nation.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081001/117373939.html
By: - 9th October 2008 at 15:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I vote for……………..Send in the SBS !
Storm the cargo ship, seize the pirates, evacuate the crew then sink the vessel (the last thing Africa needs is more military hardware being pumped into it). Job done!
Yes, I do live in an over simplistic world….but someone has to!:)
Posts: 586
By: CSheppardholedi - 29th September 2008 at 01:27
An interesting showdown off Somalia with pirates holding a freighter with 33 T-72s, munitions and other arms aboard headed for Kenya. The US Navy has the gun on her and the Russian Navy is scrambling a ship to the scene! Pirates demand millions in ransom or the crew dies and the ship is blown up! Ship has been over flown by unknown aircraft. Who will blink first?
Who writes these wacky movie scripts! Seriously, real life, one crewman reported to have died of a heart attack.
Would not want to be on that ship! Here is a link (one of many) to the news
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz-K3g6EyC2vN8yK10vpCugD93FSFT00