Sure, but the Panther first destroyed one of the american tanks first. @Wenceslaus said it was the Sherman, that might be true, but I don´t remember about that exactly. I just remember one of the tankers leaving the tank without his leg similar to the video I have seen about Syria.
Ours isn’t as formal , it’s more that any foreign aircraft approaching the British and Irish airspace is intercepted in international airspace by the RAF .
That being said . We have recently signed an agreement that allows the RAF to fly armed missions over Irish airspace in the event of a terror hijacking and to intercept Any unidentifiable planes , this due to the Irish not having any planes fast enough for able to climb to the heights to intercept say a Russian jet .
But fucking stupid that they don’t even have a few intercepting aircraft if you ask me. So it’s becoming more of a formal arrangement bit by bit
Really bugging me he’s described him as only "Hilary’s husband "
"Meet barrack ! Michelle’s husband "
IMO it’s because he is too young to remember Bill Clinton as an active president, so for him the “real” politician is Hillary, while Bill is just the husband of hers. That wouldn’t work with Obama.
Thank you, so yes, it was the Sherman.
Yeah. I’d say the Baltics should also pull together and put at least one common squadron up in the air.
On the other hand I understand why they prefer the strategic advantage of having NATO planes there instead.
I know that Slovenia also doesn’t have any jets. Are there more countries with zero air power?
How old is that quote though?
I’m sure they could do better than that. Especially if they’re under imminent threat from Russian invasion.
It honestly wouldn’t take much effort from Eastern European countries to negate Russian air superiority, since most of their jets are quite old.
Just before the referendum.
Why not both . Even with NATO aircraft there if the Russians came across they would have to get top level clearance before shooting down a Russia plane anyway and somewhere like Estonia I wouldn’t imagine lasting very long even with the NATO presence there .
I would have thought any country in that region would want to have a military at least able to hold on until NATO can respond in force . The only thing actually protecting Estonia is the threat of a prolonged war with NATO . In reality Estonia would basically just become no mans land within a few hours
Things change . New markets open and grow . Why tie yourself down to 40% of your market when you can have the potential to have a free trade arrangement with 100% of your market ?
Europe is to big and slow it’s the slowest growing economic zone on the planet
That’s why i have such a hard time taking their supposed fear of a Russian invasion seriously. You would think that they would be buffing up their military hugely if they were legitimately afraid of that.
I think they live in a dream world where they think NATO would actually respond with force within a few hours .
There would be at least a week of NATO basically telling Russia to withdraw and for “both sides to deescalate” because of what would be at stake , possible nuclear war and WW3 and lets be honest a week is more than enough for Russian forces to storm 90% of the countries in that region
Plus then you have to wait for NATO to actually put together a plan and get US forces to Europe which could take a week to position .
So these countries need at least enough power to hold on for a month . Which they don’t fucking have , instead expect us (UK,US) to station a fucking force large enough to do it for them in Eastern Europe .
I’m pretty sure they only reason we included them in NATO was to give the rest of Europe enough time to prepare for a Russian invasion.
I think so too hopefully they get bored by the time they reach the countries that matter like Germany and turn back
You’re going to have slav patrol descend on your head for that comment.
Ooooh i do hope so guess the truth hurts sometimes