Azerbaijan vs Armenia

Well, who do you want to win?

Georgia

Armenia

Lets hope turks help azers so russia removes them all

Написао Evic, 08.04.2016 at 15:09

Lets hope turks help azers so russia removes them all

congratulations, you just started another balkans flame war

Написао Rock Lee, 08.04.2016 at 15:17

Написао Evic, 08.04.2016 at 15:09

Lets hope turks help azers so russia removes them all

congratulations, you just started another balkans flame war

Caucasian flame war*

Написао Zephyrusu, 08.04.2016 at 15:22

Написао Rock Lee, 08.04.2016 at 15:17

Написао Evic, 08.04.2016 at 15:09

Lets hope turks help azers so russia removes them all

congratulations, you just started another balkans flame war

Caucasian flame war*

nah, balkan flame wars are starting here even when we talk about my granma surgeries, he actually said remove kebab, that thread is doomed

I'm down for any option that erases evil useless Kebabs and mini Kebabs from the world map


#FreeKurdistan

#MakeCaucasusRussianAgain

Georgia

Armenia

The Caucasian minority stuff is just annoying.
We can't solve it by adjusting borders because that would result in the worst bordergore since 12th century eastern France.
Let's have them both loose and recreate a Caucasian Federation

Написао Tank116, 08.04.2016 at 17:48

The Caucasian minority stuff is just annoying.
We can't solve it by adjusting borders because that would result in the worst bordergore since 12th century eastern France.
Let's have them both loose and recreate a Caucasian Federation

Not really. Ethnicities are spread quite simply in the Caucasus, with the exception of southeastern Russia, but all those people in southeastern Russia like eachother so they can form a state together. Also no, Caucasian Federation isn't going to work, it's like trying to put a Serb, a Croat and a Bosnian in the same country, You saw how well that worked, and Caucasus would be even worse considering Serbs, Bosnians and Croats are related ethnic groups, while Georgians, Azeris and Armenians are completely distinct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian%E2%80%93Azerbaijani_War

The only way to solve their problems is to recreate USSR, or let them fight a medieval war.

Last time when they had war 100 years ago, Communists stopped it and made peace between them. During Soviet Era they were even friends and helped each other. Azerbaijan was even willing to give Nakhichevan - Azeri populated region - to Armenia because enclace like that was unnecessary when they were in the same country (Soviet Union), Lenin stopped it by the way.

During 90's when USSR died, they again started war and ethnically cleansed their enemy minorities - Armenians from Baku and Azeris from Nagorno-Karabakh. War was stopped by UN and Great Powers but the problem was not solved, just freezed - to be melted in the future and start a new hot war. Maybe on purpose they ignored to address the issues.

Other option is to let them fight without foreign interferance and after that war peace will last forever because the loser will have to surrender unconditionally. But war like that creates many casualties. Proof is Serbia-Bulgaria in WW1, after Serbs beat combined Bulgarian-German-Austrian army in Macedonian Front 1917, and started to march on Sofia(bulgarian capital) Bulgaria surrendered unconditionally and now they don't even think to start a new war.

Написао Skanderbeg, 09.04.2016 at 13:47

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian%E2%80%93Azerbaijani_War

Serbs beat combined Bulgarian-German-Austrian army in Macedonian Front 1917, and started to march on Sofia(bulgarian capital) Bulgaria surrendered unconditionally and now they don't even think to start a new war.

Bulgaria can't even afford a new war even if they wanted lel

Написао Al Fappino, 09.04.2016 at 18:49

Написао Skanderbeg, 09.04.2016 at 13:47

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian%E2%80%93Azerbaijani_War

Serbs beat combined Bulgarian-German-Austrian army in Macedonian Front 1917, and started to march on Sofia(bulgarian capital) Bulgaria surrendered unconditionally and now they don't even think to start a new war.

Bulgaria can't even afford a new war even if they wanted lel

Because they are always on negative side like croatians are.

Написао Al Fappino, 09.04.2016 at 18:49

Bulgaria can't even afford a new war even if they wanted lel

They can actually, they still have Soviet/Bulgarian equipment from Cold War and newly-acquired equipment from USA/Germany for being NATO. They have S-300 and MiG-29, 30 of them i think, which makes them the probably strongest air force in Europe (if they still have rockets for).

Serbia was well equipped during 90's when Yugoslavia died, but reserve was depleted during American invasion, they have no more anti-air missiles and fuel for planes, half of air force was shot down by NATO, tanks were destroyed by order from Washington after surrender, and army reduced to 40,000 - only 13,000 of them with weapons.

That mean Bulgaria is militarily stronger than Serbia, and Bulgarian people are physically strong because 50% of population is rural, where they have healthy life. Makes good infantry combined with high-tech weaponry and 150 years of conscription. But they won't attack Serbia because differences are solved 100 years ago in WW1, their army destroyed and they surrendered before Serbian Army marched into their capital. There would be bad blood if Great Powers stopped Serbia to fight Bulgarians in Macedonian Front, which would make Serbians angry (since they can't fight to liberate Bulgarian-occupied Serbia) and Bulgarians would think they are stronger and victorious.

Same with Armenia-Azerbaijan.

Написао Skanderbeg, 10.04.2016 at 09:10

which makes them the probably strongest air force in Europe (if they still have rockets for).

Lolwhut!! France and Uk have the stronger airforce in Europe with around a 1000 and then Italy, Germany and Greece follow with 600-700.

Написао Khal.eesi, 10.04.2016 at 10:58

Lolwhut!! France and Uk have the stronger airforce in Europe with around a 1000 and then Italy, Germany and Greece follow with 600-700.

These are numbers, not strength. Plus inventory they have is composed of old Panavia Tornado, Corsair II and F-4, with few modern F-16 and Eurofighter (which is European equivalent of American F-35 Lighting... project failure).

p.s.
Not trying to insult, but F-35 and Eurofighter used money to create 5. generation aircraft but ended up with 4. gen. and F-16 is 4. gen. which mean they spent more money on development and procurement instead just purchasing already avaliable and reliable F-16. Maybe project was corrupted, i'm not getting into that, but you can find more information on google.

Lel mfw you think armenia wins, azerbaijan has super dooper tech bought from usa and directly from israel and it's armenians who get most losses and azerbaijani are continouesly take new lands but slowly. and what of armenia ? armenia has teh cbought from russia, an outdated tech even russian biggest base located in armenia has cold war era tech

Написао Skanderbeg, 10.04.2016 at 13:11

p.s.
Not trying to insult, but F-35 and Eurofighter used money to create 5. generation aircraft but ended up with 4. gen. and F-16 is 4. gen. which mean they spent more money on development and procurement instead just purchasing already avaliable and reliable F-16. Maybe project was corrupted, i'm not getting into that, but you can find more information on google.

The F-35 can barely be called 4th gen, the program is a complete failure, that money would have been better used to just buy more F-22s

Написао Guest, 10.04.2016 at 13:15

Lel mfw you think armenia wins, azerbaijan has super dooper tech bought from usa and directly from israel and it's armenians who get most losses and azerbaijani are continouesly take new lands but slowly. and what of armenia ? armenia has teh cbought from russia, an outdated tech even russian biggest base located in armenia has cold war era tech

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War

Написао Guest, 10.04.2016 at 13:15

Lel mfw you think armenia wins, azerbaijan has super dooper tech bought from usa and directly from israel and it's armenians who get most losses and azerbaijani are continouesly take new lands but slowly. and what of armenia ? armenia has teh cbought from russia, an outdated tech even russian biggest base located in armenia has cold war era tech

But Armenia won the war with old soviet tech. 20,000 vs 60,000, they had 6,000 dead, Azerbaijan had 30,000, probably used human waves (ottoman style).

Написао Skanderbeg, 10.04.2016 at 15:05

Написао Guest, 10.04.2016 at 13:15

Lel mfw you think armenia wins, azerbaijan has super dooper tech bought from usa and directly from israel and it's armenians who get most losses and azerbaijani are continouesly take new lands but slowly. and what of armenia ? armenia has teh cbought from russia, an outdated tech even russian biggest base located in armenia has cold war era tech

But Armenia won the war with old soviet tech. 20,000 vs 60,000, they had 6,000 dead, Azerbaijan had 30,000, probably used human waves (ottoman style).

you even into history bro ? back in that time both of them had soviet technology, + russia forced azerbaijan into that treaty

Написао Guest, 10.04.2016 at 15:35

you even into history bro ? back in that time both of them had soviet technology

Turkey and Mujahideen sneaked US tech to Azerbaijan, along with islamic volunteers.

Написао Guest, 10.04.2016 at 15:35

+ russia forced azerbaijan into that treaty

I thought 30,000 dead (50% of total troops) and 50,000 injured (80% of total troops) forced Azerbaijan into treaty.

Human wave attacks definitely best strategy.

Написао Skanderbeg, 10.04.2016 at 15:53

Написао Guest, 10.04.2016 at 15:35

you even into history bro ? back in that time both of them had soviet technology

Turkey and Mujahideen sneaked US tech to Azerbaijan, along with islamic volunteers.

Написао Guest, 10.04.2016 at 15:35

+ russia forced azerbaijan into that treaty

I thought 30,000 dead (50% of total troops) and 50,000 injured (80% of total troops) forced Azerbaijan into treaty.

Human wave attacks definitely best strategy.

1)no there was radical paramilitary turkish organization fightign alongside azerbaijanis they were grey wolves, armed by azerbaijanis, they didn't ahve turkish tech.
2)yeah i didn't say that azerbaijan wouldn't have lost that war i am saying the influence of russia in that war and makiing more territorial demand where azervaijanis were in majority if russia and iran were neutral those 20% of currently nagorno karabakh would remain under azerbaijani control.

Написао Skanderbeg, 10.04.2016 at 13:11

Написао Khal.eesi, 10.04.2016 at 10:58

Lolwhut!! France and Uk have the stronger airforce in Europe with around a 1000 and then Italy, Germany and Greece follow with 600-700.

These are numbers, not strength. Plus inventory they have is composed of old Panavia Tornado, Corsair II and F-4, with few modern F-16 and Eurofighter (which is European equivalent of American F-35 Lighting... project failure).

p.s.
Not trying to insult, but F-35 and Eurofighter used money to create 5. generation aircraft but ended up with 4. gen. and F-16 is 4. gen. which mean they spent more money on development and procurement instead just purchasing already avaliable and reliable F-16. Maybe project was corrupted, i'm not getting into that, but you can find more information on google.

So Bulgaria has better airforce than Europe's finest? Even from France and Uk, who make their own and top all the global firepower rankings? Not to mention combat experience and training, since the five countries i mentioned have actually deployed and taken part in Nato missions. When did Bulgaria ever fly its fighters? (if it even has, sorry didnt bother to click the link you provided!)

Написао Khal.eesi, 10.04.2016 at 16:18

So Bulgaria has better airforce than Europe's finest? Even from France and Uk, who make their own and top all the global firepower rankings? Not to mention combat experience and training, since the five countries i mentioned have actually deployed and taken part in Nato missions. When did Bulgaria ever fly its fighters? (if it even has, sorry didnt bother to click the link you provided!)

Global firepower ranking is like World University ranking - biased. MiG-29 is easier to handle, easier to pilot, easier to learn, it has simple parts, easy to mount(parts, guns), dismount and repair, better aim, stronger radio, better electronics, safer seat. 30 Bulgarian are definitely more efficient in combat than 100 Panavias or F-16.

I don't have time to post links and quotes but half of the world knows this for the last 20 years, google is available to you.

Try to find about Russians taking MiG-29 radio and radars from the Serbs in 1999 when they lost Kosovo and US army arrived. That was on Pristina airport and Americans saw how Russian technicians and mechanics are taking out tech from MiGs nose.. i was there.. Because that tech allow MiGs to find, recognize and aim enemy planes faster than NATO, thus MiG can shoot in range of 80km, F-16 need get close to 60km to aim and shoot.

p.s.
Even other Soviet aeroplanes are better than NATO, for example MiG-25 stolen from USSR and examined by Japan reported it was superior than NATO, faster and cheaper. There are many reports like that, even with tanks like t-55 examined in English embassy in Hungary during 1954 revolution, report it was superior than M48.

You have to dettach yourself from deep-rooted belief that pouring money into military industry equals strong war machines. Point is to create cheap war machines, which you can easy learn, use and repair, like Soviets did.

Написао Skanderbeg, 10.04.2016 at 16:43

30 Bulgarian are definitely more efficient in combat than 100 Panavias or F-16.

Написао Skanderbeg, 10.04.2016 at 16:43

easy learn, use and repair, like Soviets did.

And mass produce*

Написао Skanderbeg, 10.04.2016 at 16:43

Написао Khal.eesi, 10.04.2016 at 16:18

So Bulgaria has better airforce than Europe's finest? Even from France and Uk, who make their own and top all the global firepower rankings? Not to mention combat experience and training, since the five countries i mentioned have actually deployed and taken part in Nato missions. When did Bulgaria ever fly its fighters? (if it even has, sorry didnt bother to click the link you provided!)

Global firepower ranking is like World University ranking - biased. MiG-29 is easier to handle, easier to pilot, easier to learn, it has simple parts, easy to mount(parts, guns), dismount and repair, better aim, stronger radio, better electronics, safer seat. 30 Bulgarian are definitely more efficient in combat than 100 Panavias or F-16.

I don't have time to post links and quotes but half of the world knows this for the last 20 years, google is available to you.

Try to find about Russians taking MiG-29 radio and radars from the Serbs in 1999 when they lost Kosovo and US army arrived. That was on Pristina airport and Americans saw how Russian technicians and mechanics are taking out tech from MiGs nose.. i was there.. Because that tech allow MiGs to find, recognize and aim enemy planes faster than NATO, thus MiG can shoot in range of 80km, F-16 need get close to 60km to aim and shoot.

p.s.
Even other Soviet aeroplanes are better than NATO, for example MiG-25 stolen from USSR and examined by Japan reported it was superior than NATO, faster and cheaper. There are many reports like that, even with tanks like t-55 examined in English embassy in Hungary during 1954 revolution, report it was superior than M48.

You have to dettach yourself from deep-rooted belief that pouring money into military industry equals strong war machines. Point is to create cheap war machines, which you can easy learn, use and repair, like Soviets did.

You are right in your last sentence, Saudi is a good example of this. But not Nato.

Anyway i googled

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2015/04/29/bulgaria-air-force-mig-russia-fighters-service-repair-nato/26594971/
http://www.novinite.com/articles/171220/Bulgaria+Needs+New+Fighter+Jets+-+Air+Force+Chief

Bulgaria has to replace its MIG's cause they suck. Their soviet era airforce is old and not reliable. They will either buy f-16's, eurofighters or swedens gripens. Or they will make the same deal with Nato that Baltic countries made, meaning pay European Nato AF to police their airspace.

How is that the best AF in Europe, for the life of me i dont get it Tito wtf



Checking wikipedia as well, lets just see how Bulgaria fares against Greece, im not even gonna mention UK and France, for obvious reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Air_Force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Air_Force

"The Bulgarian Air Force's inventory numbers around 137 aircraft, including 55-56 combat jets, but only the MiG-29s, about a dozen Su-25s and a few MiG-21s are flight worthy. Personel 6.500 "

"Greece owns 444+ aircraft, of which 318 fighters, 205 of them are modern jets. Around 150 F-16's, most of them advanced type (block 50+).Greece is constantly modernizing its fleet of older Fighters (Mirages and F-4s). Greece most probably operates the most dense air defense system infrastructure among NATO states. Personel 33.000"

** A safe conclusion is that Bulgaria cant even dream of handling their own against Greece, so dont even bother making the comparison with the top 3 European Airforces.