Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2
- Thread starter waz
- Start date
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Well, we can't own gun in Oz without a license, it's not like we can;t own guns at all...You can only obtain firearms if you have a geniune reason, like sport shooting or hunting and you will need to be in a club or have emplyment function (like a security guard) to purchase firearms, each firearms require a single permit.
We have 5 types of licenses. A, B, C, D and H, for all intend and purposes. you most likely can get ABCH, even C is hard to get this day. Basically A license is for all your bolt action hunting rifle, shotgun. B License is for non self-loading rifle and shotgun for no more than 5 rounds capacity, C license is for Self-Loading (ie semi auto) rifle and shotgun with 5 rounds magazine, D license is for prohibited self-loading firearms and H is for handgun less than 10 rounds.
I have 3 handguns 1 bolt action rifle and 1 old western shotgun.
To get a license, you need to join a club, pass a background check and then shoot with that firearms you want to purchase, one gun per discipline, I have a Glock for service pistol match, USP for IPSC and a 686 for plinker. Shotgun for clay pigeon and the bolt action rifle for long arms and hunting.
Fun fact, while we can own firearms, we are NOT ALLOW to own toy gun. All toy gun are banned in Australia, that include airsoft, cap guns and imitation firearms (Only Queensland allow Imitation Firearm). Every gun looks-alike object is treated like a real firearm, (again, except Queensland) and you would need a corresponding license to own say an airsoft, since most airsoft have a capacity over 10, most of them are going to be Cat D, thus effectively banning all airsoft and toy gun.
I can own a real Glock 17 or CZ85 here if I go to the range and shoot them 6 times a year, but there are NO WAY i can own an airsoft Glock or Airsoft CZ85...
Last edited:
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Well, I don't teach anymore I quit back in 2020 during COVID and have spend around 4 months terminal leave into 2021....and REID is illegal in Australia. Cop can't do that to you on an interrogation or everything you say under REID will be struck off. I teaches cop how to gather information. And how to phase your question to get the desired answer you want.
Australia is not really like America. You cannot ask open question in Australian Police Interview (Well, NSW in my case). Question like "Where were you on the XYZ date" is not allowed. So, all thes bonding, pressuring and mind game are not allowed in Australia.
It's your job, as a police officer to provide evidence to the suspect, so if I want to ask "where were you on XYZ" I will need to do video canvas and have the suspect on the CCTV and then use it and ask "This vision is taken on XYZ, Is that you on this security vision?" Because open question led to misleading you can literally presure someone to say something that is not true, so a simple "I was there" is not enough, in US, you try to have the suspect confess, you try to get information, you get information FROM the suspect, in Australia, you use the stuff you gathered, and confront the suspect with the truth as in what really had happened. That's the major deviation between AU Police interview and US police interview. We call this technique PEACE
Another major different between US and AU is there are no 4. 5 and 6th Amendment in Australia, asking for a lawyer do jack shit in Australia, they can still talk to you, and use whatever they get from you against you even after you asked for a lawyer. And there is no pleading the 5th either. There are something similar here called "No Comment" but you will have to answer EVERY SINGLE QUESTION with a comment of "No Comment" for them not to be able to use that interview in court.
Last edited:
Meengla
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,735
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
Nobody can be totally sure about who's going to come out ahead in this war. This war has all the elements already in place for the next World War, in which case all bets are off.
But, in case of a geographically limited war, as it has been so far, IMO, China and America come out ahead. I say that because eventually it would be the two rich power-blocks (the EU and Russia) who would be paying for the war in blood and resources. Both America and China are rich enough AND distant enough to send/buy from a distance and make profit and let the stupid Europeans destroy themselves in yet another very bloody, long war.
BHAN85
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2015
- Messages
- 3,711
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
BHAN85
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2015
- Messages
- 3,711
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
Near to mediterranean coast (like Balearic Islands, Ibiza) weather is soft and rarely drops below 0º, but if you go land inside temp gets colder. The most hot weather of Spain mainland is South-Andalusian coast. And the most hot weather of whole country is Canary Islands (very far from mainland Spain, south, next to Africa). I live near to East-Mediterranean coast and in the colder days of winter temp average is around 5º min/18º max, rarely below 0º in the coldest moments.
A.P. Richelieu
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2013
- Messages
- 7,724
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Mongols never reached Sweden, nor Germany. They invaded Poland and Hungary in 1241 and then left. They never ingrained their behaviour by ruling like they did over the Russians.
You are much more likely to have Mongol blood considering the multiple invasions of India.
So, yes - back to school it is.
Last edited:
BHAN85
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2015
- Messages
- 3,711
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
President Xi's article in Russian press: Persistently move forward to joint development of China and Russia
https://rg.ru/2023/03/20/uporno-dvigatsia-vpered-k-novym-perspektivam-druzhby-sotrudnichestva-i-sovmestnogo-razvitiia-kitaia-i-rossii.html https://tass.com/world/1591115 (Google Translate from Russian) Persistently move forward to new prospects of friendship, cooperation and joint development...
defence.pk
Do you smell that? It's fear.
So even pro russian sources now mention a lack of progress on a small city that supposedly would fall in days (a month ago)? Interesting
A.P. Richelieu
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2013
- Messages
- 7,724
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
What reason had Nikita Khrushchev, in 1954, to give Crimea to Ukraine?
In 1954, we celebrated a 300 anniversary of the “re-unification of Ukraine and Russia”. Soviet rulers decided to make it the largest nationwide celebration after the death of Stalin.
Which they did.
Celebration
They unveiled one of the Stalin’s sky scrapers that became a major upscale hotel and gave it the name Hotel Ukraina. In the vicinity of the edifice, they also gave “Ukrainian” names to a couple of major streets and raised a monument to a Ukrainian national poet Taras Shevchenko (whom our Nobel-prize taker in literature Joseph Brodsky considered second-rate, at best). A richly ornamented palace-like subway station was called “Kiyevskaya” in a reference to the Ukrainian capital.
And Crimea was transferred from Russia to Ukraine.
Between brothers
Amazingly, no one in 1954 held the view that the entire Russia nowadays seems to support: there was no Ukraine before Soviet rule.
In the USSR, we lived under the terrible, ignorant, Russophobic misconception that Ukraine was as old as Russia, both being descendants of the same millennium-old Rus civilization. We were taught in Soviet schools that somewhere in the process, we had been torn from each other, which was why our brothers in the west adopted the name of Ukraine for their lands along the Dniepr and Dniestr rivers—and when an occasion arose, we re-united!
Ukraine and Russia, two brother nations forever again!
Ukrainian Crimea, so what?
Neither was there anyone in the 1950s who found the idea of a territorial transfer of Crimea to Ukraine revolting (which is what we and all Russia’s true friends across the world feel now).
What few seem to know, this abomination was a collective decision of Nikita Khrushchev, Georgy Malenkov, Nikolai Bulganin, Lazar Kaganovich and the rest of Stalin’s henchmen. The decision was officially signed off by Stalin’s right hand in military matters Kliment Voroshilov. At the time, he held the title of Soviet Unions “president”.
True reasons
Why all these fine Stalinists decided to give away Crimea to Ukrainians, who really didn’t have any more historical claim to the territory than us? Pure hard-nosed, clear-eyed pragmatical thinking:
All in all, the official Soviet view until 1991 was that Crimea was closer to Ukraine than to Russia. No one tried to challenge that until the collapse of the USSR made it safe to be a Russian nationalist.
Management-wise, this was a pretty effectual move. Ukrainian shaped up the peninsula in a matter of few years. If they hadn’t decided to part ways with us when the USSR keeled over in 1991, they could have continued to enjoy having this marvel of arid rocks and sunny beaches for a few more years.
Below, the Manezhnaya Square in Moscow celebrating in the summer 1954 300 years of Russia and Ukraine being one state. Weirdly for the Russians of the 21st century, no one among the tens of thousands gathered here on the central square of Moscow had ever thought of Ukraine as a “fictional nation”, or found any reason to protest the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine a few months prior to the rally.
In 1954, we celebrated a 300 anniversary of the “re-unification of Ukraine and Russia”. Soviet rulers decided to make it the largest nationwide celebration after the death of Stalin.
Which they did.
Celebration
They unveiled one of the Stalin’s sky scrapers that became a major upscale hotel and gave it the name Hotel Ukraina. In the vicinity of the edifice, they also gave “Ukrainian” names to a couple of major streets and raised a monument to a Ukrainian national poet Taras Shevchenko (whom our Nobel-prize taker in literature Joseph Brodsky considered second-rate, at best). A richly ornamented palace-like subway station was called “Kiyevskaya” in a reference to the Ukrainian capital.
And Crimea was transferred from Russia to Ukraine.
Between brothers
Amazingly, no one in 1954 held the view that the entire Russia nowadays seems to support: there was no Ukraine before Soviet rule.
In the USSR, we lived under the terrible, ignorant, Russophobic misconception that Ukraine was as old as Russia, both being descendants of the same millennium-old Rus civilization. We were taught in Soviet schools that somewhere in the process, we had been torn from each other, which was why our brothers in the west adopted the name of Ukraine for their lands along the Dniepr and Dniestr rivers—and when an occasion arose, we re-united!
Ukraine and Russia, two brother nations forever again!
Ukrainian Crimea, so what?
Neither was there anyone in the 1950s who found the idea of a territorial transfer of Crimea to Ukraine revolting (which is what we and all Russia’s true friends across the world feel now).
What few seem to know, this abomination was a collective decision of Nikita Khrushchev, Georgy Malenkov, Nikolai Bulganin, Lazar Kaganovich and the rest of Stalin’s henchmen. The decision was officially signed off by Stalin’s right hand in military matters Kliment Voroshilov. At the time, he held the title of Soviet Unions “president”.
True reasons
Why all these fine Stalinists decided to give away Crimea to Ukrainians, who really didn’t have any more historical claim to the territory than us? Pure hard-nosed, clear-eyed pragmatical thinking:
- Crimea was totally devastated during WWII.
- Before the Nazis came, Stalin killed and sent to Gulag at least 50.000 ethnic Germans that had settled here on invitation from Ekaterina the Great in 1700s. These Germans managed the most productive parts of local farming.
- At the end of the war, Stalin forcibly deported some 300,000 Tatars, Greeks, Armenians and Bulgars whom he considered collaborators with the German occupants. Large parts of the countryside were virtually deserted
- Stalin tried to repopulate the peninsula by ethnic Russians from the Soviet heartland. But these people didn’t possess the farming skills needed for the local agriculture and Crimea’s climate. New settlers abandoned the plots of land given to them and moved to the cities at the coast. Neither was there anyone who could teach them what to do with this rocky, arid land. By the time of territorial transfer, the semi-abandoned Crimea remained a huge sinkhole for the cash-strapped federal budget.
- it had “common economy” with Ukraine,
- was “close in terms of territorial proximity” to Ukraine and
- had “tight managerial and cultural relations” with Ukraine.
All in all, the official Soviet view until 1991 was that Crimea was closer to Ukraine than to Russia. No one tried to challenge that until the collapse of the USSR made it safe to be a Russian nationalist.
Management-wise, this was a pretty effectual move. Ukrainian shaped up the peninsula in a matter of few years. If they hadn’t decided to part ways with us when the USSR keeled over in 1991, they could have continued to enjoy having this marvel of arid rocks and sunny beaches for a few more years.
Below, the Manezhnaya Square in Moscow celebrating in the summer 1954 300 years of Russia and Ukraine being one state. Weirdly for the Russians of the 21st century, no one among the tens of thousands gathered here on the central square of Moscow had ever thought of Ukraine as a “fictional nation”, or found any reason to protest the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine a few months prior to the rally.
alimobin memon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,504
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Its an established narrative that one with offensive posture has to lose more then the one who is defender. Your narrative is also right we can only discuss the possibilities.
I will try to explain it further. Russians have more losses. To reduce that, instead of going rapidly into bakhmut they are using siege tactics to draw out Ukrainians. While Ukrainians have high zeal and no doubt they are getting the support or partial(Although there are reports that there is very limited support). This also explains that Ukrainians also want bakhmut to be the main focus for Russians to plan their offensive. Better to have full killing war at one side then at multiple fronts. So the Russians and Ukrainian are playing game of chess. Once the mysterious goal is achieved we will see either Russians entirely capturing it or leaving it withdrawing there troops which would only mean it was used as bait or they lost miserably.
My gosh who ever is in the receiving end of artillery fire looks like total wipe out of foot soldiers.
We all can see who is getting popular in Washington DC blink of an eye.
Similar threads
