Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine [Archive] - Page 6

Skybird

07-17-14, 03:09 PM

Anyone, have any idea of what type of crisis there will be IF the plane was shot down and the separatist got this SAM from Russia

I'm very bad at guessing

Here's my guess

A deep diplomatic crisis will occur between the West and Russia or the ongoing crisis will be more intense(or what it is called)

Markus
German media report with reference to WH sources that Obama beoleived Outin who called him and assure dhim ti were no forces of the Russian federation foir98ing an authgorized, intentional shot at the plane.

Before the shotdown, the US had announced closer sanctions which led to a panic sale at the Russia stockmarkets.

Earlier this week, Russia and the BRICS states have formed alternative institutions to the IWF and world bank and equipping the with immediately 50 billion, over the next year with 100 billion dollar. Goal is to get rid of the dollar, which is costing all BRIC states immense money that the Us consumes to finances its debts. The BRICS states represent 40% of global population and 20% of the global economic capacity, and compared to IWF and WB these new institutions currently have only a fraction of their financial striking power. But that can and will change. Personally, I think that the dollar within ten years will no longer exist (less likely scenario), or will in no way be the currency and serve the function that it is now (more likely scenario).

Why I mention this? Because it is part of the possible retaliation by Russia, since it gets plenty of support from the other state BRIC states and especially China that also is tired of financing the dollar at its own (immense) costs.

I wonder where the gold price would be if it would not get manipulated by states to stay low. I would expect it to be above 2500 right now, maybe even higher. I expect a gold price that is multiplying by several factors once the paper money crisis explodes in the West and rips its financial system apart, and I expect governments to enforce new gold prohibitions.

There is no escape.

Dread Knot

07-17-14, 03:34 PM

For what's it's worth there is a story going about of an intercepted call between rebel leaders....there's a Ukrainian journalist translating the call and from what she's posting on twitter...you may have a case here of a tragedy resulting from a sophisticated anti aircraft weapon in the hands of cocky amateurs.

CCIP

07-17-14, 07:10 PM

Maybe but it's kind of difficult to shoot down a plane with a missle that doesn't have the range to reach it. Seems to me that Russia has a lot more history for shooting down airliners than Ukraine does.

Wait, let's backtrack here for a second. Where does Russia have a history of shooting down airliners?

Please don't confuse Russia as separate from the Ukraine with the USSR - numerous Ukrainian military personnel were involved in the Soviet airliner shootdowns, of which there were two (though the first of them only had 2 fatalities). I can speak on this with some confidence - my dad actually served in the Soviet army around the time of the KAL 902 incident, working as a radio operator at air defense stations on the Kola peninsula. As in any Soviet army unit, there were numerous Ukrainians, as well as Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Kyrgyz, Georgians, Armenians etc. etc. serving in these forces, in virtually every capacity and up in the chain of command as well. To say Russia shot those down is like blaming Texas for shooting down Iran Air 655.

I'm not aware of any precedent of modern Russia shooting down a civilian airliner - but there is already one from modern Ukraine, tragically and unfortunately. They admitted so in a court of law and paid out compensation to victims. Not to say I'm laying the blame on Ukraine in this new case (too early to lay it on anyone really), but as history goes, Ukraine unfortunately does have a lot more of a history of shooting down airliners than Russia - 0 to 1, to be more precise. It bugs me that the USSR suddenly becomes "Russia", let's get our facts straight here.

August

07-17-14, 10:06 PM

It bugs me that the USSR suddenly becomes "Russia", let's get our facts straight here.

Well no offense to you personally CCIP but the distinctions between the two aren't all that significant in my eyes. Different name and flying a different flag yes but regional power flowed from the Kremlin before and it still does and it is increasingly authoritarian and expansionist.

FWIW I hope that i'm wrong but with ex KGB agent Putin being President for Life (apparently) running things I just can't see how.

Dmitry Markov

07-17-14, 11:09 PM

Wait, let's backtrack here for a second. Where does Russia have a history of shooting down airliners?

I'm not aware of any precedent of modern Russia shooting down a civilian airliner - but there is already one from modern Ukraine, tragically and unfortunately. They admitted so in a court of law and paid out compensation to victims. Not to say I'm laying the blame on Ukraine in this new case (too early to lay it on anyone really), but as history goes, Ukraine unfortunately does have a lot more of a history of shooting down airliners than Russia - 0 to 1, to be more precise. It bugs me that the USSR suddenly becomes "Russia", let's get our facts straight here.

+1 totally !!!

"Authoritarian" and "expansionist" does not matter in this case. I wonder what would "Citadel of Freedom and Democracy" do if foreign plane would fly over their territory without answering dispatch calls to leave it and without reacting to signs that interceptors show? Say " You are welcome to do anything in our air space - White House is to your left, Capitolium is to your right"?

Our plane that was shot down by democratic Ukraine was not even in their air space!

I vote for incompetence of somebody in Ukrainian army - they didn't show much professionalism until present moment. They have BUK systems which can reach a plane on echelone. And they've done it with our plane before. Anyway I don't see much profit for People's Republic of Donetsk or People's Republic of Lugansk to do such stupidity - it won't help them gain much sympathy anywhere.
Another thing - IF PRD and PRL really have a BUK system, IF they have managed to put it into operational status (which we don't know) and IF they've really shot down a plane over their territory - then according to it's speed and range of BUK system it should have fallen on OUR territory and not on Ukrainian or PRD.
On the other hand - if a plane received a salvo from Ukrainian BUK which they have plenty in that area, then it had fallen "right there right now".
And then again - it was following Ukrainian dispatch - and it's according to Ukrainian dispatch commands it have flown right into the conflict area.
Flightpath was lying much to the south from that places on previous days.

Betonov

07-18-14, 12:55 AM

Oberon

07-18-14, 06:01 AM

If it was the Russians, it was not on the orders from Moscow.
But if a Russian screwed up, he's wishing he'd been on that that plane.

Putin's not a psycho. He wouldn't shoot down a passenger airliner for an excuse to invade Ukraine, let alone a passenger airliner from a completely neutral country.

Agreed. It can't be ruled out that it wasn't a Russian missile, but if it was then it was not on orders from Moscow. Most likely it was a pro-Russian seperatist force, but the grey area is how they got the SAM system to shoot it down with, either from Ukraine (entirely possible via defections, they have managed to get a lot of IFVs in this manner) or from Russia.

It is, also quite possible that it was the Ukraine, as CCIP has pointed out, it's not the first time that this has happened, 70 people died last time IIRC.
It's entirely possible we'll never find out for sure.

Oberon

07-18-14, 07:24 AM

https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t1.0-9/10489659_502735929858116_2772103427058097399_n.jpg

eddie

07-18-14, 12:06 PM

Have heard reports that the rebels had captured an Air Defense System facility from the Ukrainian Army earlier in that area. If so, thats where they would have gotten their hands on the missle system.

August

07-18-14, 04:35 PM

Our plane that was shot down by democratic Ukraine was not even in their air space!

Yeah and one hundred miles beyond the range of it's missiles. Pretty neat trick if you ask me.

I vote for incompetence of somebody in Ukrainian army - they didn't show much professionalism until present moment. They have BUK systems which can reach a plane on echelone. And they've done it with our plane before. Anyway I don't see much profit for People's Republic of Donetsk or People's Republic of Lugansk to do such stupidity - it won't help them gain much sympathy anywhere.
Another thing - IF PRD and PRL really have a BUK system, IF they have managed to put it into operational status (which we don't know) and IF they've really shot down a plane over their territory - then according to it's speed and range of BUK system it should have fallen on OUR territory and not on Ukrainian or PRD.
On the other hand - if a plane received a salvo from Ukrainian BUK which they have plenty in that area, then it had fallen "right there right now".
And then again - it was following Ukrainian dispatch - and it's according to Ukrainian dispatch commands it have flown right into the conflict area.
Flightpath was lying much to the south from that places on previous days.I think that's wishful thinking on your part.

Again:

Why would Ukraine shoot at an high flying east bound plane when the rebels they're fighting supposedly do not have any aircraft?

If the rebels do not have AA capability then how did they manage to shoot down several Ukrainian military aircraft already?

And finally why did the rebels boast on twitter that they had downed an aircraft right after the event, then take those tweets down once it became known that it was a civilian aircraft?

I place the blame squarely on Russia's head here. They are arming the separatists with heavy weapons so they bear the responsibility for their mistakes.

August

07-18-14, 04:42 PM

Flightpath was lying much to the south from that places on previous days.

Oh and BTW.

Flight path and where contact with the airliner was lost. Not the location:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/5606572/data/map-shows-the-path-of-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-data.png

eddie

07-18-14, 09:49 PM

Have seen on the news, that the first teams to investigate the site, (from Europe) have arrived, but the rebels are restricting their movements, and they have not been able to locate the Black Box yet. Locals have been walking through the crash site, dead bodies still all over the place. Like the locals are equipped to handle something like this!:nope:

Catfish

07-19-14, 02:26 PM

https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t1.0-9/10489659_502735929858116_2772103427058097399_n.jpg

Oh Lord, anyone remembers this.

Betonov

07-19-14, 03:06 PM

Oh Lord, anyone remembers this.

Yep, I can even remember the tune :)
Whistled it when i the Shambles in York :)

Oberon

07-19-14, 07:39 PM

The opening menu for II was just awesome even without the music.

I really must get the HD version on the next sales, I lost a lot of hours to AoEII whilst creating the perfect defensive castle. :haha:

Betonov

07-20-14, 01:15 AM

The opening menu for II was just awesome even without the music.

The first thing I thought when I saw the Shambles.

Send me a PM when you see a sale. I'll buy it and we can play it online.

CCIP

07-20-14, 03:32 AM

I would still be cautious on jumping into conclusions about where the SAM came from - it's pretty certain at this point that it was launched from predominantly rebel-held territory, but I would be cautious with attributing its origin/operators to Russia just yet. We don't have the whole picture.

As for putting the blame on Russia generally, that's not reasonable in any "hard" definition - to me, this is an example of the broader failure of the "may be an SOB, but our SOB" approach to foreign conflicts and proxy wars, and Russia is hardly the only one responsible for atrocities caused by it. One only has to keep in mind that groups from Taliban to ISIS today were at one point largely armed by the US, both directly and indirectly, and yet most people here wouldn't go around saying the US government and military need to be held directly responsible for the recent massacres in Iraq or Pakistan.

I think the message here should instead be that "our SOB" just doesn't work and EVERYONE needs to quit it as soon as possible. This applies to both sides in the Ukraine, by the way. More to the point, this not only does nothing to reveal Russia's control of the rebels, but quite the opposite - if these groups were under Russia's operational command and part of Russia's military and intelligence infrastructure, arguably this shootdown would have never happened. It shows a rudimentary lack of intelligence-sharing and operational control by Russia of even the rebels' most advanced weapons in the simplest situations. You can't get any simpler than an aircraft that's on radar, on ADS-B, flying a filed and commonly-used flight plan, talking to ATC, etc. etc. This is not a difficult situation for a military force controlled by a state like Russia. The problem is they aren't under Russia's control at all, but are a poorly-organized, poorly-disciplined, and arguably totally out of control and out of bounds of international law, and that's what makes the situation so volatile. The situation in Eastern Ukraine is not a menacing superpower secretly moving pawns and pulling strings - it's medieval politics and warfare with modern weapons.

Jimbuna

07-20-14, 06:08 AM

Jimbuna

08-25-14, 06:49 AM

A second convoy is planned but might this be the 'trojan horse'?

Russia plans to send another humanitarian convoy into eastern Ukraine "in the next few days", Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said.

Mr Lavrov said the humanitarian situation there was "deteriorating".

Ukraine did not authorise the first convoy, which returned to Russia at the weekend, fearing it carried military equipment for pro-Russia separatists

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28924945

Russia's dispatch of a huge convoy of lorries carrying humanitarian aid to east Ukraine has raised suspicions about its intentions, given its support for the rebels fighting the Ukrainian government there.

It is believed the aid is meant primarily for the besieged rebel-held city of Luhansk, home to 425,000 people before the conflict erupted in April and now under government siege.

After waiting more than a week, lorries began crossing the border on 22 August without Ukrainian permission or Red Cross escort, after Russia accused the authorities in Kiev of delaying the convoy's entry unreasonably.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28752878

08-25-14, 10:18 AM

The problem is they aren't under Russia's control at all, but are a poorly-organized, poorly-disciplined, and arguably totally out of control and out of bounds of international law, and that's what makes the situation so volatile. The situation in Eastern Ukraine is not a menacing superpower secretly moving pawns and pulling strings - it's medieval politics and warfare with modern weapons. They did receive a lot of encouragement and also supplies from Russia.
This whole mess was started with unidentified Russian solders taking over some territories in eastern Ukraine and later support of rebels.
So yes , Russia is responsible for this mess... although somebody probably was very upset over the stupidity of the rebels.

http://cdn3.footballtop.ru/sites/default/files/imce/11610/putin_facepalm_epa_photo.jpg

Skybird

08-25-14, 10:31 AM

Considering how much certainty was expressed over claimed reliable information about who shot down the Malaysian Airliner and with what, it has become suspiciously quiet about the examination report - which is said to be already finished at least in a draft, but being withheld by pressure from Washington. It is expected that the Netherlands and Malaysia also already possess hardcopies of the report

Instead, already over three weeks ago, there was this public letter by intel veterans to the POTUS.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/29/obama-should-release-ukraine-evidence/

The Malaysians express growing doubt on the story's solution as being painted by Kiev and the West:

http://www.nst.com.my/node/23569?m=1?d

What that report will be worth after it has been subject to so long time of tailoring and cleaning it of info they do not want to reveal or misinformation that they want to see being spread in the public opinion, remains to be seen. I tend to keep a very tight grab on my trust.

The black boxes have been examined, the results are to be published in a separate report that is planned to be released in early September.

-----

Meanwhile there are more reports on that Ukrainian army getting its butts served to it by the Russians/separatists, and on a silver plate with plenty of dressing. Their losses (the Ukrainians') seem to be extreme.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2235290&postcount=32

CCIP

08-25-14, 05:51 PM

This whole mess was started with unidentified Russian solders taking over some territories in eastern Ukraine and later support of rebels.

(citation needed)?

That's the issue here, I think going as far as saying who started this mess is all conjecture. One thing that's hard to argue is that there weren't legitimate issues many in the East of the Ukraine had. The only way to see this as entirely a "foreign-imposed" problem is to have no clue about the history and politics of the region, which I see many Western sources and politicians as having. And it's very convenient in some problems to see this is a Russia-generated, Putin-branded problem. Nuh-uh. That's denying a real complexity to this situation.

***

On the other hand...

Reports have been circulating in Russian (but obviously anti-Putin-minded sources, rather than official ones) regarding recent unpublicized military funerals that have been taking place lately. Specifically, several soldiers of the 76th Airborne Division were buried in the Pskov area the other day. Interestingly, just a week ago, Putin signed a decree to award the Order of Suvorov to this division. When asked to comment on the reasons for this, the defense minister said that these were given "for cumulative bravery, including actions in the Crimea". However, apparently these latest funerals may not be an isolated incident...

(source in Russian with pictures: http://slon.ru/fast/russia/opublikovany-fotografii-s-mesta-pokhoron-pskovskikh-desantnikov-1147803.xhtml)

Skybird

08-25-14, 06:05 PM

Wowh, this is a substantial and differentiated read on the Ukraine, and Russian, American and German/European positions, I would say, very recommended, by the so-called Security Studies Unit of the University of Tokyo:

LINK - The irreversible crisis of the Ukrainian experiment (http://pari.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eng/unit/ssu/articles/orsi20140507.html)

Highly recommended. Moral of it: the whole issue is quite different from what many people think, so is the origin and root of the present problems.

CCIP

08-25-14, 06:15 PM

Well that's just a sane historical perspective - an informed view that looks at the complex historical picture behind it that stretches a very long time back and is rooted pretty deeply.

Such state-enhanced, experimental Ukrainian identity however appears to be precariously grounded either in the sheer opposition to Russia, or in a rather unproductive victimisation (like all forms of victimisation), or perhaps simply in an insufficiently thick historical background.

There's also an important factor for the construction of this identity in the West as it seems to be today: the Ukrainian diaspora. Prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, there were several waves of emigration from the Ukraine to the West. Three of them - the one after WWI/the civil war, the one in the immediate wake of WWII, and the trickle of political emigres during the 60s-70s - were comprised of quite a few hard-boiled Ukrainian nationalists, or people who (for obvious reasons) were bitter at Russia and the Soviet regime and saw themselves as victims - finding solace in a nationalist identity that opposed it. In the West, they became very organized and founded a lot of Ukrainian community organizations, which - away from the reality of Ukraine - continue to construct this identity, grounded in what's said above rather than present-day Ukrainian affairs. They have done so for generations and most of these organizations are run by 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. generation Ukrainians, not recent emigrants. In fact, most post-Soviet emigrants from the Ukraine left for economic rather than political reasons, grew up identifying with a common Soviet nationality (also constructed, of course), and most have no interest in Ukrainian nationalism and are not involved in these organizations - in fact, the vapid anti-Russian-ness of a lot of Ukrainian heritage groups often drives away new arrivals, who may not like Russian politics and be pro-European, but want no part of Russia-bashing at that level. Many of these organizations are influential - in Canada, which has led the way in anti-Russian sanctions, they are actually an important voting block (there is a long and storied history of Ukrainian farmers in the Canadian prairies, who today happen to be strong supporters of the Conservative party). To a large extent, these people's views - stemming from a constructed cultural identity - become the views of Ukraine and the current crisis voiced in Western media. This is a big factor.

I think it's not too much to ask for these to be taken with a grain of salt.

Skybird

08-26-14, 05:25 AM

Well that's just a sane historical perspective - an informed view that looks at the complex historical picture behind it that stretches a very long time back and is rooted pretty deeply.

There's also an important factor for the construction of this identity in the West as it seems to be today: the Ukrainian diaspora. Prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, there were several waves of emigration from the Ukraine to the West. Three of them - the one after WWI/the civil war, the one in the immediate wake of WWII, and the trickle of political emigres during the 60s-70s - were comprised of quite a few hard-boiled Ukrainian nationalists, or people who (for obvious reasons) were bitter at Russia and the Soviet regime and saw themselves as victims - finding solace in a nationalist identity that opposed it. In the West, they became very organized and founded a lot of Ukrainian community organizations, which - away from the reality of Ukraine - continue to construct this identity, grounded in what's said above rather than present-day Ukrainian affairs. They have done so for generations and most of these organizations are run by 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. generation Ukrainians, not recent emigrants. In fact, most post-Soviet emigrants from the Ukraine left for economic rather than political reasons, grew up identifying with a common Soviet nationality (also constructed, of course), and most have no interest in Ukrainian nationalism and are not involved in these organizations - in fact, the vapid anti-Russian-ness of a lot of Ukrainian heritage groups often drives away new arrivals, who may not like Russian politics and be pro-European, but want no part of Russia-bashing at that level. Many of these organizations are influential - in Canada, which has led the way in anti-Russian sanctions, they are actually an important voting block (there is a long and storied history of Ukrainian farmers in the Canadian prairies, who today happen to be strong supporters of the Conservative party). To a large extent, these people's views - stemming from a constructed cultural identity - become the views of Ukraine and the current crisis voiced in Western media. This is a big factor.

I think it's not too much to ask for these to be taken with a grain of salt.

Interesting, thanks!

Catfish

08-26-14, 07:33 AM

^ If only the CIA knew that :)

Skybird

08-26-14, 07:50 AM

^ They know it. It is their job not to let the public know it. ;) Media control and propaganda is the name of the game.

Intel services are more busy with manipulating the own public than with anything else. ;)

CCIP

08-26-14, 08:06 AM

So...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28934213

Something really weird and fishy is going on - on both sides and certainly on the face of it, there seems to be both a screw-up and a pretty lame Russian effort at covering up going on.

Research dug up on the 98th Airborne Division, which the captured soldiers are from, suggests that they left their base at Kostroma - a solid 1000km from the conflict zone - on August 23rd. The Russian military says they "blundered into Ukrainian territory during a routine patrol", but why are airborne troops patrolling a border 1000km from their home base? And why were they found as much as 15km inside the Ukrainian territory?

On the other hand, the wisdom of sending an isolated, unprepared unit with no orders to fire (and certainly it does seem like the Russian soldiers neither fired nor had been expecting contact with the Ukrainian military) on patrol, let alone deep into Ukrainian territory next day after arriving in theater is also something to ponder. If you ask me, this sounds like some sort of pre-arranged blunder intended to muddy the waters at the Putin-Poroshenko talks today.

At the same time, the Russian journalists who broke the story about the burials of airborne troops in the Pskov region yesterday have apparently been receiving anonymous death threats today.

Jimbuna

08-26-14, 08:28 AM

From the above link:

The BBC's David Stern in Kiev says the summit is under the auspices of the Moscow-led Eurasian Customs Union, which also includes Belarus and Kazakhstan, and that it is still unclear whether Mr Putin and Mr Poroshenko will meet separately.

Truly farcical :nope:

08-26-14, 10:28 AM

LINK - The irreversible crisis of the Ukrainian experiment (http://pari.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eng/unit/ssu/articles/orsi20140507.html)

.

Good read indeed.:up:

It will be interesting which way the cards will fall eventually.

Bilge_Rat

08-26-14, 03:48 PM

Skybird

08-26-14, 04:11 PM

The irony here is that de facto Kiev'S president Poroshenko currently cannot have any interest in a peace deal, while Russia would sit very comfortably with a peace deal. If that is not queer.

Because right now, any peace deal would mean that Kiew gives up claim for what it calls territorial integrity within the old political framework of a non-federalist state of enforced unity and strictly centralised power (formally, practically the Oligarchs are probably the most deciding factor), and its claim to also rule the rebllious Easten provinces. Also, the president would get serious trouble with all those Westukrainians who were willing to go to war and maybe even fight for Kiewv's claims - only to see their ideals beign sold out and the cause of their struggle being given up. The president politically cannot survive that. And finally, let's not forget that the Ukraine de facto is ruled by oligarchs, to whom Poroshenko belongs himself. Those who sided with Kiev's intention to protect their financial and business interests as well as their political influence, will not take it lightly that their cause has been given up. The power struggle could lead to a new wave of violence - this time in Kiev again.

Putin on the other hand would accept such a peace deal any moment, he currently is in a no-fail-possible situation: if Kiev would sign a peace deal, it would be at Russia's conditions, with an enforced federalist structure of the Ukraine that Russia can use via the rebellious Eastern provinces to exploit the federalist framework for keeping Ukraine weak and unstable, and the Crimean is lost for Kiev anyway, no matter how it goes with the other provinces. The eU is not liokely to miove in soon, and especially the threat of NATO moving into the Ukraine and making it a member of the alliance is no longer on the table, I think that is certain for the predictable future. So Putin succeeded in securing what probably have been his main objectives.

So, what could so easily be - will not be in the forseeable future: a peace deal. It would be self-destroying for the current president to agree to one.

Possible however that sooner or later he will need to accept it, no matter what that means for him and the remaining lets call it west-and-central Ukraine.

Reminds me of the Palestinian deadlock in Westjordan, somehow. There the leadership also could not accept to give up on the critical key demands that are unacceptable fore Israel (free return to Israeli territory for minimum 4 million Palestinians), because for Fatah taking them into Westjordan themselves would be suicide.

CCIP

08-26-14, 06:47 PM

something is definitely going on, Rebels and UKR forces are each routinely claiming they are winning, but UKR sources are now saying some of their forces, incuding the "Donbass" Battalion has been encircled by Rebels (and/or Russians?) forces who have also retaken certain villages.

It does look like the Rebels have been heavily reinforced and/or Russian forces are heavily involved.

This is from a normally suspect Russian source, but UKR sources say more or less the same thing:

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/746720

It does look like the Russian invasion may be real this time.

Well, keep in mind too that guys like the Donbass battalion and other pro-government militias have long been complaining about the precariousness of their situation - they say that basically the entire Ukrainian effort is being fought by a division-sized military force made up almost entirely of volunteers, not all of them of the greatest quality, and often with poor coordination. Kiev has been reluctant (or flat-out unable) to commit regular army units, and attrition has been high - little surprise considering the latest round of fighting has focused on heavily built-up areas like Donetsk. Recall Chechnya and Grozny, and that was a separatist city 3 times smaller than Donetsk assaulted by a substantially larger (possibly as much as 10 times larger) and more committed Russian force, and all efforts at a direct assault there failed spectacularly. I doubt one would expect more from the Ukrainians today.

I'm not sure I believe claims on either side, but I do believe that this whole mess is far from over, whatever both sides claim.

Skybird

08-26-14, 07:20 PM

I can just remind of those vids about Ukrainian soldiers just returning from the front who were seriously pissed and said that not just one or three batallions, but three brigades were eaten up and practically seized to exist. They identified them by unit numbers, the 72nd, the 71st, and I think the 38rd. They indicated their losses were extreme. Other reports said that the survivors from what remained of the 72nd, had switched sides and joined the Russians, just to save themselves.

They are definitely not happy with what Kiev gives them in support and orders. I think it is not just bad equipment and lacking troop quality - it is also plenty of military incompetence on the political leader's side. Poroshenko does not give me the impression of a man who just sits and listens to his experts for a matter, but who tries to do things himself. Producing chocolate and raising a big business does not qualify you for commanding a war campaign, I would think.

Three combat brigades, that is almost one division - gone.

No bad resistance from a "bandit force" that Kiev just days ago claimed to stand on the brink of defeat.

And on TV today it was said that the forces trying to close a ring around two big cities, have been broken up and pushed back.

Jimbuna

08-27-14, 07:27 AM

Putinwas quite clever at the meeting yesterday when he said the Russians would do what they could to help along a truce but went on to say that Ukraine were responsible for halting the fighting.

Oberon

08-28-14, 08:24 AM

TarJak

08-28-14, 08:32 AM

Unsurprisingly Poreshenko says it is Russian operated: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-28/petro-poroshenko-says-russian-troops-have-invaded/5704122

Bilge_Rat

08-28-14, 09:04 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d7m_Ua4wFo&feature=youtu.be&t=1m40s

T-72BM allegedly spotted in Ukraine.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28961080

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77206000/jpg/_77206671_tanktank.jpg

Yes, that is one of the "smoking guns", the appearance of T-72Bs in Ukraine is supposed to be undeniable proof that Russians are there and/or supplying the Rebels since Ukraine does not have T-72Bs...

...problem is:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BteVudbIUAA-W5L.jpg

Flamebatter90

08-28-14, 09:22 AM

Yes, that is one of the "smoking guns", the appearance of T-72Bs in Ukraine is supposed to be undeniable proof that Russians are there and/or supplying the Rebels since Ukraine does not have T-72Bs...

...problem is:

Ukraine does have T-72Bs, what Ukraine does not have is T-72BM. That's the "smoking gun".

Oberon

08-28-14, 11:25 AM

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77206000/jpg/_77206671_tanktank.jpg

Yes, that is one of the "smoking guns", the appearance of T-72Bs in Ukraine is supposed to be undeniable proof that Russians are there and/or supplying the Rebels since Ukraine does not have T-72Bs...

...problem is:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BteVudbIUAA-W5L.jpg

Ukraine does have T-72Bs, what Ukraine does not have is T-72BM. That's the "smoking gun".

Indeed, as Flamebatter has correctly pointed out, the two tanks in these pictures are not the same. The top one is a T-72BM, the bottom is a T-72B. Have a look at those slabs on the armour, the Explosive Reactive Armour, you'll note that the B seen in the lower picture has the older Kontakt-5 on it (The BBC screwed up in that article, mixing their ERAs up) whereas the tank in the upper picture has what looks like Relikt on it, like this tank here:

http://www.army-guide.com/images/t72m-relikt_sdlfkj1.jpg

And only the T-72BM has Relikt, and only the Russian army operates the T-72BM. :yep:

Of course, the other question that should be asked is was the footage actually taken in the Ukraine?
However, when you add that to the latest tidbit from SHAPE:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77221000/jpg/_77221029_023659940-1.jpg

I think we're getting to the point now where we can no longer deny that Russian forces are deployed in some manner or form inside Eastern Ukraine, although many (including Moscow) are likely to try.

It's most likely that these forces will be explained away as 'volunteers', like the Flying Tigers, if they are explained at all.

HunterICX

08-28-14, 12:39 PM

Indeed, as Flamebatter has correctly pointed out, the two tanks in these pictures are not the same. The top one is a T-72BM, the bottom is a T-72B. Have a look at those slabs on the armour, the Explosive Reactive Armour, you'll note that the B seen in the lower picture has the older Kontakt-5 on it (The BBC screwed up in that article, mixing their ERAs up) whereas the tank in the upper picture has what looks like Relikt on it, like this tank here:

I don't think the BBC mixed anything up, 2nd Generation of Kontakt 5 is V-shaped which can be found on BM and other variants of the T-72
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/kontakt5.html

mapuc

08-28-14, 12:42 PM

Yesterday I had hope there could be peace after all, today I have very bad feelings about the outcome

Markus

Oberon

08-28-14, 01:05 PM

I don't think the BBC mixed anything up, 2nd Generation of Kontakt 5 is V-shaped which can be found on BM and other variants of the T-72
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/kontakt5.html

Hmmm, good point...

*googles*

Wait a minute, bloody hell, the Beeb aren't getting them mixed up, I am, the T-72B2 has Relikt, but the obr.1989g (the BM2) has Kontakt-5.

:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:

Do you think these chaps have mixed up a T-84 for a T-72? :hmmm: Or is this a 72E?

Oberon

08-28-14, 01:26 PM

Here's a pic of the 72BM (aka the obr.1989g)

http://otvaga2004.ru/wp-content/gallery/f_t72obr1989_xlopotov/otvaga2004_xl_t72b_004.jpg

And here is the tank in the video:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77206000/jpg/_77206671_tanktank.jpg

:hmmm:

Goddamnit Russia...I love the T-72 but why are there so many bloody versions of it?! :dead:

August

08-28-14, 02:31 PM

Reactive armor isn't the only difference.
'
Notice the Lip along the top bow of the T72M
http://otvaga2004.ru/wp-content/gallery/f_t72obr1989_xlopotov/otvaga2004_xl_t72b_004.jpg
whereas the "problem is" picture below has a smooth bow

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BteVudbIUAA-W5L.jpg

There are also differences in the TC hatch shape and the shape of the front fenders.

Mr Quatro

08-28-14, 02:44 PM

What you can't see inside those tanks coming over the border from Russia are actually the much needed relief supplies they unloaded from the, covered in white, trucks the Red Cross was trying to help get into the Ukraine and were denied proper access ...

all they want to do is get these poor pro Russian peoples some food and generators and medical supplies.

as soon as the tanks are unloaded they will return to mother land :D

Jimbuna

08-28-14, 03:27 PM

Skybird

08-28-14, 04:56 PM

Of course he is lying, and he was lying all the time. What did you expect all the time? Lying is part of the strategy, and the strategy is to influence Western public opinion - by conditioning it.

You have to give it to him, he is playing it very clever. Many smoke screens, from claims about troop incursions, rumours about volunteers, little green men, to convoys with mysterious white trucks. Every time there is a healdine. And every time the awareness of the public takes slightly more easily note of it, is more used to it, and slightly less interested.

As a former psychologist I can nothing but aplaude the psychological cleverness of this operation. :) That is old fashoned KGB destabilizing methods - and obviously it is extremely effective. The KGB knew why they rated the impact of psychological ops more important than any other major intelligence agency, maybe with the exception of the CIA, and I think in the old days even the CIA could learn some tricks from it.

What the Russians are now doing is establishing a land corridor to the Crimean, which they desperately need over the next years before any alternative logistical supply routes over to-be-build streets and bridges or ferry lines could be completed. Also, the goal may be to establish supply lines via reliably controlled land corridors to Moldavia/Transnistria.

I cannot help it, but how Putin succeedes in making Western oh so clever politicians look like stupid schoolboys and chases them around to his liking, makes me grinning over the event taken for itself. I am sure he read Machiavelli carefully. The cause can be debated, but the execution, even where it took improvisations, is really nice.

As I said, old-fashioned KGB operations school.

What should Europe do? NOT intervening in the Ukraine, not sendign forces, not sending military goods. The Ukraine is a failed political experiment, and an infinite black hole to throw oney into that we do not really have (all nations de facto live in a status of delayed filing of insolvency). The Ukraine has nothing that is of interest for us, is just another wide open mouth that wants to get fed like there already are so many others in the EU. But NATO should massively beef up the defence capacities in NATO's Eastern borderstates. And by that I do not mean any acts meant as political signals only, but very robust and solid military measures. That would break several treaties of NATO with Russia over the East-enlargement of NATO in the last decade and the demilitarised areas there that Russia was promised, but NATO has not been shy to break other promises to the Russians before, and the current crisis shows that the rules of the game have changed anyway, and irreversibly. Sticking unilaterally to the old rules, means to take huge risks. While reinforcing NATO capacities in the East, also takes risks.

Welcome to the end of the policy of détente. Live with it. Or get chased around by Russia next time - once again.

Oberon

08-28-14, 06:14 PM

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t72_series/t72bm/t72bm.html

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t72_series/t72-series.html

TarJak

08-28-14, 08:54 PM

I'd like to see more photos from satellites etc. posted all over the world media and then the UN, the west, the US or everyone even can confront Putin publicly with definitive proof.

I'm not suggesting it would have any effect on Putin but it would show once and for all how he is lying.
You mean like these ones? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-29/nato-satellite-images-show-russian-troops-operating-in-ukraine/5704550

ikalugin

08-28-14, 11:16 PM

Declaimer - sadly I did not read the previous part of the thread.

It is not difinitive, as Ukranian armed forces have Msta-S as well (and on the immagery we do not see something that would prove Russian participation, such as numers larger than those in Ukranian inventory).

A simpler way would be to find a rare and obscure system, such as Nona-B and providing the photos where Separatists field more guns than there were in Ukranian inventory (ie more than 2 I think).

As to the T72B mods - Ukraine is known to produce many advanced versions of the T72B for export. At the same time the so called Counter Terrorism Operation Forces are well known to mobilise the equipment of varios defense industries. Thus it is possible that the tank appeared that way and deeper investigation is reqired.

TarJak

08-29-14, 12:21 AM

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.

BossMark

08-29-14, 02:14 AM

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee374/rothwellwhite1/bear-vs-putin_zpscedc1fec.jpg

Jimbuna

08-29-14, 05:01 AM

You mean like these ones? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-29/nato-satellite-images-show-russian-troops-operating-in-ukraine/5704550

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.

Oberon

08-29-14, 05:23 AM

As to the T72B mods - Ukraine is known to produce many advanced versions of the T72B for export. At the same time the so called Counter Terrorism Operation Forces are well known to mobilise the equipment of varios defense industries. Thus it is possible that the tank appeared that way and deeper investigation is reqired.

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/tango-numbers-su/t72_series/t72mp/t72mp_009.jpg
T-72MP

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t72_series/banan/banan_001.jpg
T-72AM 'Banan'

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t72_series/t72ag/t72ag_007.jpg
T-72AG

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t72_series/t72amg/t72amg_003.jpg
T-72AMG

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t72_series/t72-120/t72120_004.jpg
T-72-120

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t72_series/bmt-72/bmt72_007.jpgBMT-72

http://media.desura.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/T-72B_with_Kontakt_ERA_reactive_armour_Ukraine_Ukrai nian_Defence_Industry_Military_Technolog.jpg
And the T-72E

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

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77206000/jpg/_77206671_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/tango-numbers-su/t72_series/t72bm/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:

08-29-14, 05:36 AM

You have to give it to him, he is playing it very clever. Many smoke screens, from claims about troop incursions, rumours about volunteers, little green men, to convoys with mysterious white trucks. Every time there is a healdine. And every time the awareness of the public takes slightly more easily note of it, is more used to it, and slightly less interested.

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.

Skybird

08-29-14, 05:37 AM

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?

Oberon

08-29-14, 07:18 AM

https://31.media.tumblr.com/6f073d8176ab39584fe45a43707a45da/tumblr_mwqkkiwDWf1qk6v3ao1_400.gif

:O:

ikalugin

08-29-14, 07:53 AM

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

Oberon

08-29-14, 08:09 AM

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.

Jimbuna

08-29-14, 08:20 AM

Flamebatter90

08-29-14, 08:28 AM

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."

ikalugin

08-29-14, 08:45 AM

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.

Skybird

08-29-14, 09:54 AM

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.

Oberon

08-29-14, 10:37 AM

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

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

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77206000/jpg/_77206732_notcanada.jpg

To Russia shot back with:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77241000/jpg/_77241027_russiareplies.jpg

Oberon

08-29-14, 10:57 AM

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

Flamebatter90

08-29-14, 11:02 AM

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

"Sorry!" -Canada

ikalugin

08-29-14, 11:17 AM

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

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77206000/jpg/_77206732_notcanada.jpg

What happened to Kaliningrad Oblast? And Crimea ofcourse.

nikimcbee

08-29-14, 02:27 PM

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.

Funny you should post this. I heard a theory on the radio this morning, that Putin's ultimate goal is to fracture NATO. Ukraine is lost, but it's game on if Russia makes a move on the Baltic States (who are NATO members).

So, lets say this happens, Russia goes to protect persecuted Russians in [insert Baltic Nation here] and invades. Read NATO charter

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Raise your hands, Who wants to pick a fight with Russia?

Anybody?
Anybody?
Bueller?

I guess it's kinda ironic that it's been a 100 years since our last treaty disaster.

Putin 2: NATO 0 ?
:hmmm:

I really hope Putin's interest doesn't go beyond Eastern Ukraine.

Catfish

08-29-14, 02:35 PM

... I guess it's kinda ironic that it's been a 100 years since our last treaty disaster.

Putin 2: NATO 0 ?
:hmmm:
I really hope Putin's interest doesn't go beyond Eastern Ukraine.

Pah, we will let him invade Europe, and then deal with our bureaucrats :O:

B.t.w. is there real hard evidence of russian troops and tanks ?
After all we all get fed via our trusted media, and journalists .. i'd never say that Putin would not do it, i just wonder where his intentions lie.

ikalugin

08-29-14, 02:40 PM

nikimcbee

08-29-14, 02:46 PM

Pah, we will let him invade Europe, and then deal with our bureaucrats :O:

B.t.w. is there real hard evidence of russian troops and tanks ?
After all we all get fed via our trusted media, and journalists .. i'd never say that Putin would not do it, i just wonder where his intentions lie.

:haha: Putin hits Western Europe and needs to buy emission permits for all for the tanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsU

Welcome to Germany, can you show me your tank registration papers? Please fill out these forms and attach your check to the front.

I'm sorry, your tanks aren't green enough to operate on German roads, please fill out this paper work and pay the non-green compliant fee.

Oberon

08-29-14, 02:47 PM

While there is no rock hard evidence (such as tracing back the serial numbers of captured/destroyed vehicles) one could assume from the current information that there is some degree of support from Russian Federation heavy arms wise as well as volonteers.

How far it goes, how decisive it is - hard to say, as we do not know what proportion of their heavy weapons is from Russia and which is captured from the Kiev loyalists.

However so far I have not seen any conclusive evidence of actual decisive direct intervention, such as been claimed recently in the coastal areas (this is b/c there has been ongoing development in that direction in the recent days, not a surprise crossing of Russian troops in mass as some claim).

It makes sense to try for a land corridor from Russia to Crimea, as Skybird suggested earlier, if there is a Russian agenda in the region in regards to territorial gains then it's likely to be something like that...however, something so overt would not fly well in the international community so the best bet is to try to push Ukraine into a position where it has to opt for a two state ceasefire solution after prolonged bloodshed.
Unfortunately, it's a Catch-22 situation, the Donbass Peoples Milita can't prolong the conflict without Russian assistance, however the chances of a negotiated two state ceasefire are greatly reduced everytime Russian involvement is either suspected or displayed.
It's getting close to a period where Putin will either need to put his cards on the table, or back off, because at some point there will be irrefutable proof that Russian forces are involved in Ukraine, and this is going to put pressure on Russia to either go full on or back off.

In regards to the tweet, blame Canada. :03:

ikalugin

08-29-14, 02:49 PM

Dont worry, we would bring our bureaucrats. And trust me, after they pass through there will be no Germany.

Skybird

08-29-14, 02:50 PM

nikimcbee,

I do not think so currently, but I cannot rule out that it is like what your sources assume. It is surprising that it is so often ingored - or just escaqpes people'S attention - that the often quoted article 5, usually interpreted to be an automatism, features a backdoor for escape routes for NATO member not willing to join a NATO operaitojn based on article 5, and that escape option is hidden in the words "such action as it deems necessary".

In the context in which that quote is embedded, it is said then that every member can and will decide individually in what way it wants to react to an attack the alliance found one member being a victim of. Say, Marocco attacks Spain, that would be a case of article 5. But Denmark maybe does not want to cintribute militarily, even when agreeing that article 5 is valid. It then can argue that it does not think military replies are the proper reaction, and while all others can disagree on that, Denmark nevertheless could point to article 5 and say: we do not think that military force is needed or the proper way to deal with this crisis, we instead will start an airlift to secure the constant supply with chocolate bars. Because we think this is the proper reaction and this is what we can contribute.

Lawyers can turn the whole treaty upside down over article 5. And that possibly was the intention why it was formulated the way it had been done. I sometimes wonder whether the treaty ever would have turned into a reality if any such escape option for members would not have been included, nations usually HATE to give up their right for sovereign decision making, and any automatism to have them sliding into a war caused by an attack on somebody else indeed must be perceived as a provocation and putting in question of a state's and government's sovereignity.

Catfish

08-29-14, 02:50 PM

I just asked because of 'evidence', because looking at Google with the words "ukraine russian tanks +evidence" brings up not one real case!
Maybe Facebook .... ? :D

One of it being:
"Has Blackwater been deployed to Ukraine? Notorious U.S. mercenaries 'seen on the streets of flashpoint city' as Russia claims 300 hired guns have arrived in country"

https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ukraine+russian+tanks+%2Bevidence

Shouting "Blackwater!" ? Hmm :03:

Skybird

08-29-14, 02:51 PM

Dont worry, we would bring our bureaucrats. And trust me, after they pass through there will be no Germany.

Ah, we had them, thanks. And we are still here while they are gone. ;)

We now have the EU bureaucrats. Whether we survive them is in serious doubt, however.

Skybird

08-29-14, 02:52 PM

I just asked because of 'evidence', because looking at Google with the words "ukraine russian tanks +evidence" brings up not one real case.

One of it being:
"Has Blackwater been deployed to Ukraine? Notorious U.S. mercenaries 'seen on the streets of flashpoint city' as Russia claims 300 hired guns have arrived in country"

https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ukraine+russian+tanks+%2Bevidence

Shouting "Blackwater!" ? Hmm :03:

Hasn't Blackwater been renamed years ago...?!

nikimcbee

08-29-14, 02:53 PM

Dont worry, we would bring our bureaucrats. And trust me, after they pass through there will be no Germany.

Especially if it is lunch break time!:har:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGlwN-Xr6d8

ikalugin

08-29-14, 02:55 PM

Oberon

08-29-14, 03:01 PM

Dont worry, we would bring our bureaucrats. And trust me, after they pass through there will be no Germany.

This is true, I've seen the footage:

http://bashny.net/uploads/images/00/00/13/2013/05/02/c820855704.jpg

Oberon

08-29-14, 03:16 PM

The geopolitical picture (and this is my own private opinion) is both more and less complex.

Ie, the objective of the separatist forces is simple:
- wait for the winter. When winter comes the lack of heating and general economical collapse would make the general population somewhat unhappy. This also would lead to probable collapse of Ukranian Armed forces, as they already have issues with drafting more people as well as the equipment/supply shortages (not to mention shortage of proffesional soldiers and officers).

For that they need to preclude any offensive operations by the Ukranian Armed Forces, such as the ones that happened straight after the well known plane crash. This is so because such operations can (in theory) lead to critical situations, such as the near blockade of the Donetsk and Lugansk cities.

This is why they have conducted several attacks in the direction that was not covered by the Ukranian Armed Forces and thus forced the later to commit their last coherent reserves there. It also had an additional benefit of controling more border crossing sites and thus better conditions for the flow of the volonteers and supplies.

That makes sense, and is strangely familiar in its context of waiting for winter. :03: I read a few days ago that the Ukraine is likely to implement full scale conscription shortly, and there's not a great deal that's more damaging for civilian morale in areas not affected by the war than to have husbands, sons and fathers march off to potential death. Of course, with the 'Russia is invading us' propaganda line they can probably negate that a little, but the longer it goes on the worse its going to get.
However, a new factor to consider is NATO propping up the Ukrainian army, there's already talk of NATO opening up a fund-raiser for supporting the Ukrainian army, I suppose they figure turnabout is fair play, and it's only a matter of time before western equipment makes its way into Ukrainian hands, and then we have another war by proxy, like Korea and Vietnam.

What's that they say about history repeating? :nope:

TarJak

08-29-14, 04:46 PM

Is Kissinger right? :hmmm: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-29/dal-santo-we-must-heed-kissingers-prophecy/5704704

I certainly agree that NATO and the US appear to have forgotten how to play the longer game and attach more credence to their short term domestic political aims.

Oberon

08-29-14, 05:00 PM

Can't disagree with what he's been quoted on there. The Kosovan war was a major dump on Russias back yard, and the encroachment of NATO into former PACT nations has no doubt been seen as a threatening gesture, especially with some of the more hawkish comments coming from the likes of the UK and US in regards to foreign policy.
Putin is not one to miss an opportunity for political point scoring, and this plays perfectly into his hands, IIRC his approval rating at the moment is somewhere in the 70% region, compared to Obamas 48%. Of course, the political system and point scoring is somewhat different but the point still remains that, like lil Kim, all Putin has to do is point to NATO interventionist actions since 2001 and paint them as the unstable force in global affairs in order to boost his popularity as a man standing up for Russias interests in a NATO dominated world.

mapuc

08-29-14, 05:30 PM

A unnecessary post Sorry

Markus

Skybird

08-29-14, 06:31 PM

Not to have the long breath and vision, I criticised the West first for over its confrontation with Islam. That the West lacks real patience, I next criticised it for when comparing it to the Chinese raise boosted by policies thinking in decades. And later I called Europe and America shortsighted powers that simply do not care for even the direct and most imminent consequences of their present actions.

Kissinger is right.

And America - never was satisfied with having "won" the cold war. When russia was weak during the Yeltzin years, America did its very best to exploit the weakness ruthlessly, both geopolitically and economically and financially. And Putin was seated in the first row to witness what was being done. After a short phase when he became president for the first time and still seemed to orientate Russia more towards Europe, he again was delivered dissappointments and examples of how haughtily Western powers thought they could just bypass Russian interests and even vital interests, if they wanted that. And they did.

Well, it seems at some time Putin drew his conclusions.

Nothing of how Russia has turned under Putin, and not much in the change in Putin compared to him 15-20 years ago, can really be surprising. Except one is the West: being shortsighted, lacking strategic thinking and patience, mistaking own selfish demand with a vision. That is why the West cannot deal with Islam and takes an infantile position towards it. And that is why it got surprised by the Kremlin, and has ignored all warning whistles in the past couple of years.

Yes indeed: Kissinger is so damn right as he has been only a few times in his life.

Dont take from that that I like the man. I dispise him very much. Too much blood on his hands. But his intellect has had its moments.

Onkel Neal

08-29-14, 06:54 PM

Moscow doesn't want or intend to wade into any "large-scale conflicts," Putin insisted at a youth forum, state-run Itar-Tass reported. A few breaths later, he made the point that Russia is "strengthening our nuclear deterrence forces and our armed forces," making them more efficient and modernized.

"I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations," the President said. "This is a reality, not just words."

He later warned, "We must always be ready to repel any aggression against Russia and (potential enemies) should be aware ... it is better not to come against Russia as regards a possible armed conflict."

A far more serious person, the dissident Russian analyst Andrei Piontkovsky, has recently published an article arguing, along lines that echo Zhirinovsky’s threats, that Putin really is weighing the possibility of limited nuclear strikes—perhaps against one of the Baltic capitals, perhaps a Polish city—to prove that NATO is a hollow, meaningless entity that won’t dare strike back for fear of a greater catastrophe. Indeed, in military exercises in 2009 and 2013, the Russian army openly “practiced” a nuclear attack on Warsaw.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/08/vladimir_putin_s_troops_have_invaded_ukraine_shoul d_we_prepare_for_war_with.html

Way to go!

Is all of this nothing more than the raving of lunatics? Maybe. And maybe Putin is too weak to do any of this, and maybe it’s just scare tactics, and maybe his oligarchs will stop him. But Mein Kampf also seemed hysterical to Western and German audiences in 1933. Stalin’s orders to “liquidate” whole classes and social groups within the Soviet Union would have seemed equally insane to us at the time, if we had been able to hear them.

Well, I hope the new Mad Max movie comes out before we get the real thing.

TarJak

08-29-14, 08:11 PM

Not to have the long breath and vision, I criticised the West first for over its confrontation with Islam...

That is why the West cannot deal with Islam and takes an infantile position towards it.
:har::har:I'm afraid this is like saying China cannot deal with Christianity. You are punching at the wind.

Oberon

08-29-14, 09:14 PM

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/08/vladimir_putin_s_troops_have_invaded_ukraine_shoul d_we_prepare_for_war_with.html

Way to go!

Well, I hope the new Mad Max movie comes out before we get the real thing.

To be fair, we openly practiced a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in 1983...and very nearly caused a real war. :haha:

Empty words, Russia won't fire nuclear weapons unless directly threatened by imminent invasion, a Barbarossa style event.
Firing a nuke at Warsaw will just encourage the whole of Eastern Europe to declare war on Russia which will drag the rest of Europe and then America with it. Sure, Germany and France might opt out, but the UK and US definitely will not, we're the hawks of NATO at the moment, and to be honest I think any nation that rolled over if Warsaw went up in smoke would be damned in history books forever more, if there's anyone around to write them.
Nuclear escalation at this point is incredibly unlikely, and the media is just whipping up a 'reds under the bed' scenario to encourage people to take a more cold war approach towards Russia because that's where we're going back unless something dramatically changes in the next couple of years.

Mr Quatro

08-29-14, 09:59 PM

Empty words, Russia won't fire nuclear weapons unless directly threatened by imminent invasion, a Barbarossa style event.

I disagree ... Russia would launch a first strike nuclear all out war if and I say if they thought they could get away with it. They would launch and demand our immediate surrender or they will finish the job of launching the rest of the missile carrying submarines nuclear warheads at the USA.

Plus the mobile launchers will be held till the last volley, plus the Russians alone have the capability of reloading their missile silos and the USA doesn't.

Putin would be on the phones saying to all countries this is just between Russia and the USA all other parties stay out.

If this were to happen in the next two years and four and half months our present Commander in Chief President Obama would receive the first hot line phone call to surrender or face the rest of their fury and wrath.

You can guess the out come of this scenario ... if President Obama orders the military to stand down then the USA is left with cleaning up the mess and burying 100 million lost or dying souls.

Putin and Obama look special but I thought that guy with the birth mark on his forehead was special too ... so what I think is tainted :yep:

But don't think they (Russia) wouldn't pull the trigger so to speak have you ever heard of a mountain in Russia named Yamantau?

google: yamantau (means evil mountain) they built three cities to build the underground storage bunker.

Oberon

08-29-14, 10:22 PM

Um...and you think the US doesn't have its own Yamantau? :hmmm:

Cheyenne Mountain may not be up to scratch any more, but what about Looking Glass and the whole system set up to insure continuity of command during the Cold War?

Remind me where the President was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11?

Remind me what is in the briefcase that is carried by this guy?

http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/nation/images/050505nuke_football.jpg

If you think the US would surrender just because of some fantasy dislike of the current President, then I think you are allowing your political inclinations to cloud the practical picture.

Long story short, they can't get away with it, they have not been able to get away with it since 1945 and they're not likely to be able to get away with it any time in the future.

:dead:

Skybird

08-30-14, 02:47 AM

I disagree ... Russia would launch a first strike nuclear all out war if and I say if they thought they could get away with it.

No, most likely no. What they would do is launch a preemptive nuclear strike if for some other reason they would have decided to go to an all-out conventional world war against NATO. There is no such thing like a purely conventional all out war between Russia and NATO.

Many people until today seem to think that in case of the cold war having turned hot, there would have been an escalation ladder, from special commandos infiltrating NATO bases, to preparatory air raids, to the huge ground offensive, until finally NATO would have fallen back to nuclear tactical weapons and then the strategic reply would follow by the soviets and then the Americans' big nuclear strike simultaneously being launched.

That is nonsense, it makes no sense at all to have all your conventional forces being mauled - by air power for example - in a conventional war: and when you cannot push the offensive anymore because your conventional forces are battered and broken down - then you launch nuclear strikes. What really would have been happened is the opening with nuclear strikes to reduce the enemy's air and ground forces, and THEN moving one's own conventional forces in. If one got away with the nuclear first strike, which necessarily must have been a decapitation strike not only taking out NATO air power, but its ability to retaliate nuclear as well.

The false ICBM launch alarm from 1983 also showed that Soviet officers after all also were human beings who were not really eager to start turning Earth into a radiating hellhole for a reason that sounded not reasonable.

Jimbuna

08-30-14, 05:19 AM

Oberon

08-30-14, 06:15 AM

Many people until today seem to think that in case of the cold war having turned hot, there would have been an escalation ladder, from special commandos infiltrating NATO bases, to preparatory air raids, to the huge ground offensive, until finally NATO would have fallen back to nuclear tactical weapons and then the strategic reply would follow by the soviets and then the Americans' big nuclear strike simultaneously being launched.

That is nonsense, it makes no sense at all to have all your conventional forces being mauled - by air power for example - in a conventional war: and when you cannot push the offensive anymore because your conventional forces are battered and broken down - then you launch nuclear strikes. What really would have been happened is the opening with nuclear strikes to reduce the enemy's air and ground forces, and THEN moving one's own conventional forces in. If one got away with the nuclear first strike, which necessarily must have been a decapitation strike not only taking out NATO air power, but its ability to retaliate nuclear as well.

The false ICBM launch alarm from 1983 also showed that Soviet officers after all also were human beings who were not really eager to start turning Earth into a radiating hellhole for a reason that sounded not reasonable.

I think books like Red Storm Rising, and The Third World War have probably helped in furthering the conventional war opinion, that and the fact that it's hard for people to consider that all the military hardware crammed into East and West Germany would mean squat underneath an exploding TBM.
Sadly for all the excellent novels written during and post Cold War, declassified documents have shown that it was most likely that any war would have opened with a nuclear exchange at a theatre level rather than end with one. Of course, from theatre level it's a short quick jaunt to strategic level and then we're the road warrior.

Alternatively, in the event that it did not open with nuclear weapons, then it would have very quickly gone to low yield weapons used to halt the Soviet advance, likely through Atomic Demolition Munitions, then chemical weapons would have been deployed in order to assist in breaking through NATO positions, NATO would have retaliated with their own chemical weapons, then likely shortly after with theatre nuclear weapons, the Soviets would have been temporarily stunned and then responded swiftly with their own theatre nuclear weapons, the exchanges would have escalated in size and intensity from there, until either a cease-fire is called or the ladder reaches strategic exchanges of nuclear weapons.
I believe most estimates put it at three to four days before any conventional war went nuclear.

The Parallel History Project has a good collection of Cold War Plans and interviews, it's worth checking out:
http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/

There's also this which is worth a read:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/field-mess/1053-acig-thread-wwwiii-e-88-germany-czechoslovakia-austria.html

Mostly though, you notice a gradual change in thinking between the two sides from an offensive to defensive structuring as the 1950s move into the 1970s, as the structure and reliability of Mutually Assured Destruction becomes more robust, it was seen by both sides more and more unlikely that either side could get in a decapitating first strike, the Soviets developed the 'Dead Hand' system while the Americans created an entire system dedicated to the continuity of government, ensuring that even if the President was killed in the opening moves, someone would still be around to give the orders to retaliate.

http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic1677608.jpg

Skybird

08-30-14, 10:21 AM

Reading a German opinion piece on how impossible to calculate and thus how dangerous it would be to deliver modern weapons to Ukraine with its unproven, instabile and so far badly manouvering government (not to mention the provocation this would unavoidably mean for Russia, it would be as if Russia would form a military alliance against America with Canada or Mexico), I read a quote by John McCain.

Two decades ago, during the Munich conference for security in that year, he was asked what kind of alliance support an attacked NATO member could expect if article 5 would be declared as valid, and what range of reactions by the individual alliance members would be possible. He answered: "Anything - from a nuclear response to a postcard with regrets."

Underlines nicely what I tried to explain about article 5 above: even if article 5 gets called, this in no way means that all members necessarily must and would participate in any military endavour, or would even indirectly need to support that. While some countries might decide to react militarily, others are left free to excuse themselves by claiming they see no need for a military reaction, and doing something different. Sending chocolate bars, for example, if that is what they claim to be appropriate to adress the crisis.

Jimbuna

08-30-14, 12:19 PM

So how far exactly will the EU up the anti?

It appears to me that there is plenty of hot air being emitted from each EU member but they all have the economic wellbeing of their respective countries at the forefront of their minds.

EU leaders are meeting in Brussels to discuss the crisis in Ukraine, threatening to impose fresh sanctions against Russia.

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton accused Russia of "direct aggression" in eastern Ukraine.

Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite said Russia was "practically in a war against Europe".

Russia denies that its forces are backing rebels, who have been gaining ground on Ukrainian forces.

Baroness Ashton said there was "deep concern" over "direct aggression by Russian forces". She called on Russia to stop the flow of arms, equipment and personnel into Ukraine.

As she arrived at the talks in Brussels, Ms Grybauskaite said: "We need to support Ukraine, and send military materials to help Ukraine defend itself. Today Ukraine is fighting a war on behalf of all Europe."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28993873

Oberon

08-30-14, 12:47 PM

There's only so far they can go before they're cutting off their nose to spite their face, it's already have an effect on the German economy.
Honestly, the EU is running out of effective sanctions. :hmmm:

ikalugin

08-30-14, 01:42 PM

I do not think that supplying NATO style arms to the Ukraine would help it, as there are only 3 months to the Winter, a time completely inadequate for the armed forces to adapt towards a new system of weapons. That said deliveries of old Soviet style weapons (such as T72A tanks) from NATO states are already under way but they do not help much.

In general I do not think there is anything anyone could do to help the Ukranian armed forces short of providing entire ready combat formations, which I doupt would happen any time soon.

About WW3 scenarios - the usage of nuclear weapons is only likely when there is a threat of en mass invasion against Russia or it's close allies (such as Belorussia), ie the kind that would threaten the physical existance of Russia or it's critical allies.

RSR has been mentioned here, and the chemical weapons topic. The chemical weapons use was unlikely, as it decreases operational level tempo of the offense. The usage of the nuclear weapons (pre Ogarkov) would have been immidiate and en mass, down to the destruction of individual company sized strong points.

For the further readings I suggest reading about Zapad77 (pre Ogarkov exercise, but the shift towards conventional warfare already has began) and "The Red Army" by Ralph Peters, as RSR is horrible/bad a describing conventional WW3 in the Germany.

Catfish

08-30-14, 02:02 PM

Sometimes, when i look at the leaders of nations, i think i am surrounded by lunatics.

France and Germany are the driving force of Europe, and its economy. France is ruining itself with M. Hollande, but no one seems to care.

Still those two countries are the driving force of a unified Europe, that Mr. Cameron in London sure would like to revert.

For all i care let England finally leave the EU, they have always hindered, breaked, delayed and sabotaged. They do not want a Europe. They ignore that they are economically dependent, and they do not see that the rest of the region is a bit concerned about how they behave. But wth let them GO.

We could already have a common european defence system, exceeding this so-called Weimar triangle consisting of France, Poland and Germany, but unfortunately Britain is only aligned with the USA.

It is a bit short-sighted to blame the lack of a decent plan for the Ukraine crisis or others, on the continental Europe, when the biggest accuser on its isle has done all he could to undemine and destroy any constructive build-up since decades.

And have you all missed to see what this ukrainian Jazenjuk was about?
He had no legitimation at all when he asked for an ukrainian entry, into the NATO. It was the worst hypocrisy of the West, to support just of all him !

Jaszenuk is a man of the US secret service, in a way the CIA in person. There is so much targeted desinformation, unfortunately being parroted in the german media. All anchormen are members of the "Transatlantikbruecke" with their "young leaders", in bed with the US of course.
There is never a hint that the ukrainian regime was being led by the USA all the time.

Civilian flight MH 17 was shot down by an ukrainian pilot, but it did not help Russia.
http://my.firedoglake.com/ohiogringo/2014/08/09/malaysian-press-ukrainian-fighter-jets-shot-down-flight-mh-17/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/evidence-now-conclusive-2-ukrainian-government-fighter-jets-shoot-malaysian-airliner-buk-missile-ground-shot.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/First-Examination-of-Malay-by-Eric-Zuesse-Activism-Anti-War_Obama-Administration_Peace_War_President-Barack-Obama-POTUS-140731-170.html
http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/

From one of the links:
"If this is true, and it may well be, it would seem that the fascistic government in Kiev, installed by a coup backed by both Washington and Berlin, was so desperate for military support from the West that it murdered an airliner full of innocent neutrals in order to paint the Russians as really, Really BAD PEOPLE. It doesn’t really matter whose idea it was or, at this point, even if it was a mistake. That’s how the whole incident has been spun.
Well, one thing’s for sure. The current regime in Kiev really, really doesn’t deserve my, your, or anyone else’s support."

What should Putin do ? He is basically in a defensive position, no joke.

Also Russia should be regarded as a whole, not only its european part.
Putin's planned Eurasian unification could have been a competition to the US, but it was initially planned to politically consolidate Asia. When Afghanistan falls to the Taliban, this uprise can easily spark similar protests in Usbekistan, Tshadchikistan and the other former soviet republics.

Russia does not want to be elbowed out of Europe because of the Ukraine, which was exactly what we/the west promised them, after 1989.
Only that we broke our promise :-?

And, b.t.w., the Ukraine is no real nation. The outline of the Ukraine has been created on a drawing table in 1917, by the german general staff.
Sharp tongues say the Ukraine was a german idea, to weaken Russia. And it will not forget that, not even if the CIA installs itself personally, in Kiew. :shifty:

Also b.t.w.: No evidence for russian interference in the Ukraine:
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2014/08/28/analyse-der-nato-bilder-kein-beweis-fuer-einen-vorstoss-der-russen-in-die-ukraine/

But just of all western war mongers and hawks are at it, again.

Oberon

08-30-14, 03:14 PM

I also recommend Red Army, good book. I also recommend the 'Effect' trilogy, 'Red Effect', 'Blue Effect' and 'Black Effect' although I think the ending was a bit weak. Also 'Chieftains' (probably the better one of them all tbh), Team Yankee and The Third World War: An Untold Story (Team Yankee is based on the timeline established in An Untold Story, which I think again, has a pretty poor ending).

Too many of the Red Storm Rising-esque novels have a tendency to end it with the Soviet Union falling apart, so the Politburo is couped while the Warsaw Pact rebels against Moscow. Red Army is nice in that it flips the coin and has the FDR capitulate before nuclear weapons are used, but again I think that it would have likely have gone more in the way of Chieftains in which the book ends rather abruptly when a Scud missile detonates a nuclear weapon over the titular tank and its crew.
Likewise in the 'Effect' series, despite both sides having deployed battlefield nuclear weapons, the story still ends with the Warsaw Pact rebelling at the thought of nuclear warfare and the whole war grinding to a halt as a coup over throws the Soviet leadership. Personally I would have ended it with a full escalation and nuclear exchange...but I guess that would have been too depressing for the readers...

Skybird

08-30-14, 04:33 PM

Catfish

08-30-14, 04:45 PM

@Oberon^ I think you paint a picture of the cold war Russia, that was not anything like it is described in those books.

After 1989 the truth surfaced: Russia would never have attacked the West, so no Fulda gap and no other scenario. Indeed they were anxious about a western attack all the time. If you read US reports boasting about breaking russian territorial waters with their nukes all the time, they had a reason to be afraid.
Even their Alfas were there to attack a western invasion force, they had not enough endurance.
They could not keep up with the arms race, and their military hardware was mainly scrap. They have been in the defensive all along. Bitter to hear, especially for the western arms industry.

What picture is this industry painting now, about the evil Russians ?
And, what is more, why do they hate Russia so badly. Could it be the NATO desperately seeks a justification for its existence?
"Nothing personal, you are no commies anymore, but we HAVE to kill someone"? :hmm2:

@Skybird This is not about the EU. The EU surely is not what it could (and should) be, but to to parrot british paranoid right-wingers has only medieval merit. I also think even most of the most british right-wings will loathe anyone calling them "libertarian". I'm afraid you read too much of Ayn Rand without challenging her ideas. A notion that certainly is typical, for germans.

Oberon

08-30-14, 05:38 PM

@Oberon^ I think you paint a picture of the cold war Russia, that was not anything like it is described in those books.

After 1989 the truth surfaced: Russia would never have attacked the West, so no Fulda gap and no other scenario.

The Soviet Union only went into a purely defensive mindset from the mid 1980s. Before then it was a case of pre-emptively engaging the enemy, if aggressive moves were detected from NATO which looked like the beginnings of a NATO attack on the Warsaw Pact then the Pact would have invaded West Germany to engage the enemy on their own soil. After 1984/85 the plan changed into fighting a defensive war across Eastern Germany.
But yes, a deliberate Soviet attack was completely unlikely, however an accidental one entirely possible, there were a couple of times from the 1950s to the 1990s where NATO and the Warsaw Pact almost came to blows by accident.
When one looks at the books I mentioned though, aside from the 'Effect' series all of them were written before the Berlin wall came down so they can be forgiven for presuming that the Soviets would attack first, just as the Soviets thought NATO would attack first. It was a game that neither side wanted to play and yet neither of them knew this, and so they both had to presume that the other would attack at a sign of weakness.
I have little doubt that we're heading back to that sort of mindset in the near future, and for many it will be a welcome relief to go back to an enemy that has a uniform (even if they remove the insignia frequently...) and operates proper military equipment instead of blowing up markets with suicide vests.

Honestly though, NATO would justify its existence even if the Russians were all choir boys and nuns, there's always someone or something somewhere that can be used as a reason for war, because there's always someone out there who is going to hate the US and/or Europe, be it in the Middle East, Africa or the Arctic. Failing that I guess Europe probably would have torn itself apart again, it's long overdue for it.

Still, it's better than all of the EU nations trying to challenge Russian military spending by themselves and bankrupting themselves in the process, at least this way there's some co-ordination...which is about the only thing that Europe can agree on these days.

Skybird

08-30-14, 05:56 PM

@Skybird This is not about the EU. The EU surely is not what it could (and should) be, but to to parrot british paranoid right-wingers has only medieval merit. I also think even most of the most british right-wings will loathe anyone calling them "libertarian". I'm afraid you read too much of Ayn Rand without challenging her ideas. A notion that certainly is typical, for germans.

Actually I am basing less on Rand'S books than you seem to assume. The only one I really care for, is Atlas Shrugged. Her non-fictional writings I never thoroughly examined, nor do I plan to. Ayn Rand for me means: Atlas, and maybe Fountainhead, nothing else. Save me the cultists coming after her, I don't care for that.

And whats more, liberal tradition in the UK bases already in let say the 17th century. The great scottish moral philosophers, and economic front thinkers amongst them. I would not label Ayn Rand as a foundign figure of liberalism/libertarianism, but John Locke is to be named, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Jean Baptiste Say, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Gustav Le Bon, and close to our present finally Ludwig von Mises, Hayek, maybe also Röpke and Willgerodt, and in our imminent present: Murray Rothbard, in a suporting role Hans-Herrmann Hoppe and then there is the German grand voice of liberalism, Roland Baader, unfortunately already dead.

And you are also wrong when saying this is not about the EU. The EUrocrats themselves claim time and again that they represent "Europe" and the European vision. But Europe alway shas implied the plural, an d a cooperating europe I only want to imagine and see as a liberl, free Europe not tyrannised by a monopolised central governing authority that copies the Soviet mechanism of governmental power and administration. But the EU show stunning parallels to the USSR already, and its reality-disconnected "elites" obviously act and behave by a feudal, aristocratic self-understanding. The EU is a free Europe'S worst enemy, because the EU's vision of Europe destroys people's personal freedom and liberty, leads them into dependency from EU paternalism, and as we see with the Euro expropriates the people to growing amounts and not decreases but increases the conflicts between different regions in Europe.

I am confident that this engineering experiment in Europe will collapse sooner or later, and will collapse in flames, and when that happens, I will not move even my small finger to defend this EU-Europe, for by all criteria by which I judge it it is worth to fall. Assuming that fall will not mean conquest from the outside by another foreign power, may it be Russia, may it be Islam, , the EU's collapse one day will be remembered as "liberation day". You - and me anyway - maybe will not live to see it, but it will happen. The EU will collapse by its own tumor-ridden body and immense fat.

Either it is liberty, or it is not liberty. The EU is liberty NOT, but it's destroyer - silently, underhandedly.

I recommend you the many books by Roland Baader. There is no more eloquent German libertarian (and Austrian economist as well). You will hate him. "Totgedacht" and "Kreide für den Wolf" are good starters. "Geldsozialismus" also is an angry, full broadside in book form.

Some quotes from his homepage:

Den Wesenskern des Klassischen Liberalismus trifft nicht der Satz „Ohne Herren keine Knechte“, sondern die alte Weisheit “Ohne Knechte keine Herren“. — Roland Baader
Liberalismus ist keine Religion, keine Weltanschauung, keine Sonderinteressen-Partei. Liberalismus ist einfach die Lehre von der friedlichen Entwicklung der Menschen in einer freien Gesellschaft. — Roland Baader
Das größte Unglück in der Menschheitsgeschichte? Das Staatsmonopol für das Geldangebot. Alle anderen Desaster sind Folgen davon. — Roland Baader
Wer von Politik vernünftige Entscheidungen erwartet, hat nicht begriffen, dass der Wille zur Macht stärker ist als jede Vernunft. — Roland Baader
Wer die Sicherheit der Freiheit vorzieht, wird immer in der Unfreiheit landen – und damit in der schlimmsten Unsicherheit, die dem Menschen widerfahren kann. — Roland Baader
Die politische Kaste muss ihre Existenzberechtigung beweisen, indem sie etwas macht. Weil aber alles, was sie macht, alles viel schlimmer macht, muss sie ständig Reformen machen, das heißt, sie muss etwas machen, weil sie etwas gemacht hat. Sie müsste nichts machen, wenn sie nichts gemacht hätte. Wenn man nur wüsste, was man machen kann, damit sie nichts mehr macht. — Roland Baader

And of course this, known in German as "Mein Traum"

Ich träume von einem vollbesetzten Bundestag (wohl nur bei Abstimmung über Diäten-Erhöhung möglich). Plötzlich erhebt sich einer der Abgeordneten, allen anderen als aufrechtes Mannsbild bekannt, und tritt ans Mikrofon. Lange schaut er schweigend ins Hohe Haus, bis gespannte Stille eingetreten ist. Dann sagt er:

"Meine Damen und Herren: Ich bin ein glühender Anhänger des demokratischen Rechtsstaats; ich bekenne mich zur freiheitlichen, individualistischen und christlichen Kultur, Tradition und Zivilisation des Abendlandes und der freien westlichen Welt. Und genau aus diesem ernsten Grund sage ich allen hier versammelten Volksvertretern, allen Parteien, Politikern und Regierungsmitgliedern: Ich brauche Euere Subventionen und Transferzahlungen nicht; ich will nicht Euer Kinder-, Mutterschafts- und Sterbegeld, nicht Eure tausend Almosen und milden Gaben, die Ihr mir vorher aus der Tasche gezogen habt – und mir und meinen Kindern noch in fünfzig Jahren aus der Tasche ziehen werdet. Ich brauche keine subventionierte Butter, kein Quoten-Rindfleisch und keine preisgarantierte Milch, keine EG-genormten Planwirtschafts-Erbsen und keine ministergelisteten Medikamente; ich brauche keinen Schwerbeschädigten-Ausweis für meine Plattfüße und keinen Almosen-Freibetrag für meine pflegebedürftige Großmutter, auch keine Kilometerpauschale und keinen Kantinen-Essensbon über eine Markdreißig. All' Euere Wahlfang-Pfennige und -Scheine könnt Ihr Euch an den Hut stecken. Aber: Laßt mich dafür auch in Frieden. Ich bin nicht Euer Buchhalter, Statistiker und Belegsammler, der die Hälfte seiner Lebenszeit damit zubringt, Euere Schnüffel-Bürokratie zu befriedigen, der von einem Paragraphen-Knäuel zum anderen taumelt und sich wie eine gehetzte Ratte durch alle Kanalwindungen Euerer kranken Steuergehirne windet. Schickt Euer Millionenheer von Faulärschen und parasitären Umverteilern nach Hause, Euere Vor- und Nachdenker moderner Wegelagerei und Strauchdiebeskunst, Euere Bataillone von Steuerfilz-Produzenten, Labyrinth-Pfadfindern und Paragraphen-Desperados, Euere Funktionärs-Brigaden von Verordnungs-Guerilleros und Stempelfuchsern, all' die nutzlosen Formularzähler und Arbeitsverhinderungs-Fürsten. Laßt mich einen festen, eindeutigen und ein-für-alle-mal fixierten Steuersatz zahlen, und bezahlt damit eine angemessene Verteidigungs-Armee und ein verläßliches Rechtswesen, aber haltet Euch ansonsten heraus aus meinem Leben. Dies ist mein Leben; ich habe nur eines, und dieses eine soll mir gehören. Ich bin niemandes Sklave, niemandes Kriecher und niemandes Liebediener. Ich bin ein freier Mann, der für sein Schicksal selbst und allein verantwortlich ist, der sich in die Gemeinschaft einfügt und die Rechte anderer genauso respektiert wie er seinen eigenen Pflichten nachkommt, der aber keine selbsternannten Ammen und scheinheilige Gute Onkels, keine ausbeuterischen Wohltäter und von mir bezahlte Paradiesverkünder braucht. Was ich brauche, das sind: Freunde, Familie und rechtschaffene Christenmenschen, in guten und in schlechten Zeiten; und ich bin Freund, Familienglied und Christ, auch dann, wenn es anderen schlecht geht; aber dazu brauche ich keine Funktionäre und Schmarotzer, keine bezahlten Schergen und staatsversorgte Wohltäter. Dazu brauch ich nur die mir Nahestehenden und den Herrgott. Hier stehe ich. Gott helfe mir! Ich kann nicht anders!“

Onkel Neal

08-30-14, 10:59 PM

Sometimes, when i look at the leaders of nations, i think i am surrounded by lunatics.

There is never a hint that the ukrainian regime was being led by the USA all the time.

Civilian flight MH 17 was shot down by an ukrainian pilot, but it did not help Russia.
http://my.firedoglake.com/ohiogringo/2014/08/09/malaysian-press-ukrainian-fighter-jets-shot-down-flight-mh-17/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/evidence-now-conclusive-2-ukrainian-government-fighter-jets-shoot-malaysian-airliner-buk-missile-ground-shot.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/First-Examination-of-Malay-by-Eric-Zuesse-Activism-Anti-War_Obama-Administration_Peace_War_President-Barack-Obama-POTUS-140731-170.html
http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/

From one of the links:
"If this is true, and it may well be, it would seem that the fascistic government in Kiev, installed by a coup backed by both Washington and Berlin, was so desperate for military support from the West that it murdered an airliner full of innocent neutrals in order to paint the Russians as really, Really BAD PEOPLE. It doesn’t really matter whose idea it was or, at this point, even if it was a mistake. That’s how the whole incident has been spun.
Well, one thing’s for sure. The current regime in Kiev really, really doesn’t deserve my, your, or anyone else’s support."

Malaysian Press: Ukrainian Fighter Jets Shot Down Flight MH 17
By: Ohio Barbarian Saturday August 9, 2014 7:09 am

But just of all western war mongers and hawks are at it, again.

Wait, what? So if some Joe somewhere blogs something, it becomes a real, factual news article? I didn't know it was that easy.

Catfish

08-31-14, 04:54 AM

I am saying you should not believe the stuff your are fed via certain media, i do not know the truth but this is worth thinking about:

" ... report dated Aug 3, headlined “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts”, Associated Press reporter Robert Parry said “some US intelligence sources had concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame”."
US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft (http://www.nst.com.my/node/20925)

Another analysis pointing in that direction (bullet entry and exit holes from several sides in the cockpit area indicating two jets firing) has been done by malaysian flight experts examining parts of the wreck, and this new revelation was posted on GlobalResearch, an independent research and media organisation. A Mr. Parry and a retired german pilot who visited the crash site and took photos said basically the same. If those photos are a fraud - well ok.

And Kievs' tower tapes are "suddenly missing".
Make of that what you will. All is not really sure, but i sincerely doubt what especially our media say about it.

"Of course it’s all Russia’s fault for having created the conditions.." ?? :hmm2:
Again.. what about Jazenjuk ?

Skybird

08-31-14, 05:55 AM

Wait, what? So if some Joe somewhere blogs something, it becomes a real, factual news article? I didn't know it was that easy.

Maybe focus less on the messenger and more on the content of the message - what you put into question above, could be said about the mainstream media as well who hang on the drip of both "anti-terror" :D legislation and needing to remain good relations to the political establishment, if they still want to get invited to press events and high callibre "interview" partners, and so on. Not to mention laws before and after 9/11 that in principle are partially criminalising investigative journalism and research to some degree.

I said it before, and I do not mean it as a joke, never did, but bloody serious: the most important job of intelligence agencies is to deceive our own public and to make sure the main media all march in lockstep. The difference between CNN and FOX that you may believe to perceive - is the difference between lipstick and mascara.

BTW, I linked the German pilot's observations that Catfish refers to in another thread (relinked below), plus a video by an official OSCE observer send to the crash site. Counter what they say, if you can. You can also see a high-res photo of cockpit wreckage there, and if you take some time you can see that many of the media expert's claims about shrapnels cannot be right. Only the exit openings vary widely in size and geometry - the apparent entry openings all are in the same tiny size range and of comparable geometry. Today they claim on the media that both types of openings are wildly mixed, that there were various shrapnels entering and exiting, and that this would prove the use of a warhead with shrapnels. That cannot be the explanation. Trust your own eyes, man, don't trust paid media warriors and establishment propagandists and politicians having an agenda of blaming Russia at all costs. That OSCE observer and that pilot - there is no hysteria in their statements, but they speak with sober reason and self-restraint - sensationalism you will seek in vein.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2231954&postcount=136

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2236395&postcount=1259

Note that even veterans of your own American intel community question the administration's handling of the evidence issue!

08-31-14, 09:46 AM

the exit openings vary widely in size and geometry - the apparent entry openings all are in the same tiny size range and of comparable geometry Exactly how it should be.
We are not talking about some home made warhead here right?
Also the two plane theory shooting at the cockpit makes no sense at all.
We have also the one about air to air missile and then two planes shooting the cockpit...more nonsense it seems.

Wait, what? So if some Joe somewhere blogs something, it becomes a real, factual news article? I didn't know it was that easy.

As long as it involves cover ups and CIA in it why not.....

Jimbuna

08-31-14, 10:06 AM

So the EU have given Russia a week to pull out of the Ukraine or further sanctions will ensue :hmmm:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29002125

I don't know how Putin can sleep at night thinking of the potential consequences :doh:

Putin 'urges talks on statehood for east Ukraine'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29003116

CHECKMATE!!

ikalugin

08-31-14, 10:20 AM

Skybird

08-31-14, 10:31 AM

Exactly how it should be.
We are not talking about some home made warhead here right?
Also the two plane theory shooting at the cockpit makes no sense at all.
We have also the one about air to air missile and then two planes shooting the cockpit...more nonsense it seems.

As long as it involves cover ups and CIA in it why not.....
A fragmentation warhead is not to be compared to a shotgun cartridge filled with 20 tiny bullets all of the same size and with, but the fragmentation pattern and size of fragmentation of the solid warhead cannot be predicted, like in an exploding handgrenaded. At best you have assembled it in such a way that there are wanted rated break points, but even then you have a random generation of unpredictability to which degree each fragment follows that wanted breaking line, or is shorter or larger.

Huge variety in entry openings thus speaks for a fragmentation warhead exploding outside, less variety speaks for individual projectiles.

The huge variety speaking for randomly formed fragments you see in the exit openings.

Conclusion: projectiles entered the cockpit from the outside. In the cockpit stuff exploded. Fragments from the blast existed the cockpit.

Also, a fragmentation warhead exploding should have showered more parts of the aircraft with shrapnels and fragments, not just the cockpit. And how is it that there are shrapnels from TWO sides entering the cockpit - because on both sides of the cockpit they said the metal walls shows entry openings (I do not mean the two sides of one sheet of metal, but the walls of the cockpit, the left wall and the right wall). Thea also said that the rest of the plane'S framework does in no way show a comparable amount of destruction from outside force. With a cannon you can aim at certain subsections of a plane, like for example the cockpit. With a ground-controlled long distance SAM - you cannot, you just aim for a blip on a screen and hope the best.

Skybird

08-31-14, 10:52 AM

Ukraine is a critical interest of Russia. Pressuring Russia to abandon it using economical measures would not help, it only shows hostile intent, which pressures Russian authorities to take more extreme measures to secure Russian critical national interests.

As to the USSR - the "defensive" posture has been taken in 1988. Previously (70s-80s) USSR was looking into the preemtive attacks, as to avoid the 1941 like disaster. This is why Soviets (pre 1988) were for example expanding their tank divisions into corps, to act as OMGs for the Army level formations.
The Sovjets learned against the Wehrmacht that they were only winning battles when they were attacking and took the offensive. When they defended, they got mauled. And that was what happened time and again especially in the first half of the war. This explains the later offensive doctrine after WWII: defending by attacking first, so to speak.

On sanctions, Russia already is looking for how to replace the food import that broke away after it banned many of them in retaliation against EU exporters. Brasil stands on guard, Faroer Islands (fish), Turkey (while the Greek were locke dout by the Kremlin), and some others, but also dubious allies like China and Belarus. This so far is hushed and done in a hurry, and will take time to be tuned into better efficiency. However, the longer the sanction regime is in place and retaliation will be in place as well, the more the statuzs shifts from contemprtaqry deals and impovised trade relations into stabile, fully suppported trade relations - and once the latter is established Russia will see little reasoin to give them up again at a later time to move back to an older trading with Western suppliers. Why should it want that then? The Wetsenr attempt of fiscal retaliatioin by targetting the money sector and the banks, also most likely will backfire. while foreiogn investors may flee and their money with them,. this will only increase the ambition by Krenmlin to topple the dollar regime in the Eastern part of the world. Diufferent to China Russia has diversified its reserves much more than China that is holding trillions in toxic US state bonds - and that cost China extreely high losses when the dollar weakens. China has beocme aware of that problem and tries to get away from that by buying old like crazy. So does Russia since 2007 at the latest, having doubled its gold reserves since 2007, and having added additonal 10% of its volume in the first 6-7 months of this year, and still buying.

I think this confrontation now more or less directly will formally introduce the opening of the big currency world war that is about to begin. As a matter of fact it already has begun many years ago, but it will win in pace and drive due to the Ukraine war. As long as the Western governments remain successful in manipulating the gold price (ironically probably in cooperation whith Gold-buying China and Russia) to keep it low and the public unalarmed about the state of things, the public in the West will not really care. But the Euro will break Europe's neck, and the dollar has lasted for the longest time for sure. What will come after the Euro, is uncertain, most likely a return to national paper (credit) currencies, and the dollar: most likely also already sees stockpiled new dollarnotes secretly hidden away in some hidden location in the US, a Dollar II, so to speak. So in the West, after the current papermoney probably another papermoney will be enforced on the people. Whether China and Russia will follow that and would accept these new currencies - is a completey different question. I say they will not.

Regarding the currencies, those people indeed are right who claim that world war three already is raging.

08-31-14, 11:24 AM

A fragmentation warhead is not to be compared like a shotgun filled with 20 tiny bullets of the same size, but the fragmentation pattern and size of fragmentation cannot be predicted, like in an exploding handgrenaded. At best you have assembled it such a way that there are wanted rated break points, but even then you have a random generation of unpredictability to which degree each fragment follows that wanted breaking line, or is shorter or larger.

Fragmentation warheads explode in quite predictable pattern.
In particular in anti aircraft missiles...a lot of rocket science goes into that to make those weapons effective at intercepting warplanes .
We have seen some little bits a pieces.

A radar guided missile fired at airplane on relatively constant course would lead it by design and possibly explode in the front - which is also ideal by design.
Un aware passenger jet is ideal target.
from what I seen on some reconstruction pictures most of the damage is under on lower side of the jet and also wing , it makes sense.
Now ..you have the airplane disintegrating , sheet metal tearing , bits and pieces turning into splinters and all this eventually impacting the ground.
You not necessarily need see exit hole from exploding shells unless you really have to.

This two plane theory about and exit holes next to entry ones ...was the plane shot down by blue angels?

Skybird

08-31-14, 12:26 PM

This two plane theory about and exit holes next to entry ones ...was the plane shot down by blue angels?
No, but an Su-25 that was confirmed to be extremely close to it, with originally another flight apparently underway and maybe also close to it, too. And regarding the technical specs that plane type matches the scenario. It could fly that high, and it has the armament as suggested in the theory.

Read that original text that I linked too for yourself, I just have re-linked it again, haven't I. Not mine, but that pilot's report, and also the OSCE-observer in that video who was on location and commented on what his team by then was able to see (holes from what the man called "very very heavy machine gun fire") - and what not (indices pointing at a SAM hit). And when you're at it, read the doubt voiced by the Malaysians, and then the American intelligence officers as well who have fired questions at their own US government over its poor handling of the issue of evidences Washington claimed to have - two more links I have just provided once again above. Why is it that in this time when the West takes any ammo it gets to fire it against Russia in the ongoing propaganda battle, why is it that the West and namely Washington has become so completely silent about the whole story? Any guesses? :hmmm: Summer holidays, maybe? Power blackpout in the white house?

The preliminary report is ready since a longer time, several countries already have it, the Netherlands, Malaysia, the US, maybe more. And they hold it back since weeks. Why? Keep the assumptions simple, use Occam's razor: their findings are not what they hoped they would find, but what they actually found they do not want to be known. Easiest explanation there is. They need time to write a report that they can give to the public without standing on stage with lowered trousers.

Anyhow, as I said already when I posted that pilot'S piece for the first time: I do not say it was like that. All I say is, it is the one theory with by far the best explanation model for all info that was avialable to the global public, and that it now needs and deserve further verification or falsification effort. The governments and their depending services are not trustworthy to do that. Just saying "it was a SAM, they are all wrong", is not working on this, for such a simplistic attempt the theory is far too strongly founded and supported by several people whose expertise cannot just be cleaned off the table.

I also remind of that obviously previously available photographic evidence has been cleaned off the web, and that technical info on the SU-25 after the incident all of a sudden got forged in several public sources and replaced with wrong technical data (to rule out any participation of one or more SU-25s), and that one radar operator has suddenly gone amiss, and that several radar recordings by the Ukraine that put the official explanation of a SAM into doubt, all of a sudden have disappeared.

That are far too many opportunistic coincidences for my taste as if I buy "random chance" as an explanation.

ikalugin

08-31-14, 12:40 PM

So, what happened to those mech corps in 1941? Basically not only you mix up strategic and operational levels here, but also completely misunderstood the whole point I was making. Which was that on strategic level, due to the "1941 Barbarossa" syndrome Soviet leadership had, Soviets would pre empt an agression against the Soviet Union or it's allies.

Post 1988 this changed to a strategic "defensive" stance, which lead to changes in OOBs (of individual units and formations) and the Group of Forces (various) composition/deployement, as well as a number of other things.

Sorry for the offtopic.

08-31-14, 01:10 PM

I have red some of the links.

Keep the assumptions simple, use Occam's razor: their findings are not what they hoped they would find, but what they actually found they do not want to be known. Easiest explanation there is. ... or maybe they don't want to add fuel to the fire .. keeping the report currently under the wraps makes it easer to reach some reasonable solutions without any side getting too much demonized or media having a lynch feast.
That is if the report is really ready with all the factual evidence.

Skybird

09-01-14, 01:31 AM

... or maybe they don't want to add fuel to the fire .. keeping the report currently under the wraps makes it easer to reach some reasonable solutions without any side getting too much demonized or media having a lynch feast.
That'S why the media stirr the propaganda war whereever they can, American senators demand weapons being immediately delivered, Easteuropean NATO members demand NATO intervention, five new NATO bases get build in the East, Russia gets compared to Nazi Germany - its all about avoiding to add fuel to the fire. ;)

That is if the report is really ready with all the factual evidence.Sure, they were just fantasizing its completion, and the Malaysians got intentionally misinformed about it, too.

Weaselweasel drives a Diesel always turning in circles... :woot:

Sbygneus

09-01-14, 03:38 AM

Why Russia is doing what it is doing in Ukraine? Because democratic Ukraine in EU is a threat to their Empire feelings, Democracy could possible radiate into Russia and it would be a problem for Russian non Democratic Government.

Some Russia lovers would claim Russia to be good civilised democratic country with free media etc. Just ask yourself: why Russian rich people don't keep money in Russian banks but in the West? How many Westerners would like to live in Russia? And how many Russians live in the West?
And why so many Russians live in the West? Because its evil? No , because it is civilisation and democracy.

whoever thinks different is either drunk or Russian

Russian rulers never gave up power. They will rather kill you and themselves at the funeral pyre then let you win.

I am mostly dissapointed with most of Russian inteligence who backs up Putin policy. I thought there were Russians who wish to develope democracy. Now I got a feeling they dont want any democracy. Instead they wish others to be affraid of Russia.

But they are not scary. Just pathetic thieves who stole Crimea.
But let me tell you something dear Russians: despite your military might you lost the hearts of Ukrainians and will possibly never get them back.
you are just to rude for this, and you cant do it with tanks.

ikalugin

09-01-14, 11:04 AM

Do you actually have anything to contribute?

Jimbuna

09-01-14, 11:38 AM

I believe they have contributed an opinion/viewpoint...one no worse than others already posted in this thread.

Alex

09-01-14, 06:20 PM

Do you actually have anything to contribute?
As it's been said here and there, the West now crippling under its debt is doing everything it's able to create a new cold war, and the media in all the West is doing its best to make its citizen feel Putin is just wrong, of course. No need to worry too much.

Other than that, this one (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/08/28/washington-piles-lie-upon-lie-paul-craig-roberts/) from the good Paul Craig Roberts is worth checking, as well as this one (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/08/13/washington-chokes-truth-lies-paul-craig-roberts/) :salute:. Not to forget Mr Cunningham (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/10/362070/world-war-ii-continues-against-russia/) too who's making more sense than the fossilized anti-russian propaganda a few in the West don't even notice they swallow without wondering if they do right (http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/367156.html).

Also, one must not confuse the Europeans we are :hmm2:, and the European Union.
The European Union was created by the United States of America, so of course the EU works very well, since it made the US of A able to force European countries to take decisions going against their self-interest (either for armaments - crucial for France - or in the oil and gas sector, crucial for all European major oil companies, or banking of course) and the ones of business communities. Is there any interest in exchanging sanctions between European nations and Russia, like is there any entity other than the US of A that's going to take advantage of that ? No, something that needs to be understood is that impoverishing Russia is just extremely harmful to European nations, since they just require Russia to be rich so that Russia is able to purchase their manufactured goods - specifically Germany, France and Italy - and it would definitely be counterproductive for them to fall in that bloody US trap aiming to both weaken the EU and Russia - particularly when it comes to the Mistral class (amphibious assault ships) purchased from France by Rosoboronexport. France is now supposed to decline to sell them just because "the US of A are concerned about that". These days France needs to be withdrawn from NATO command once again - De Gaulle did that in his day -, since the US's goal in that is to 1. prevent Russia from getting those projection ships (while this country has already been building and so already owns many ships of this kind :doh:), and 2. to destroy the french military-industrial complex :hmm2:.

But well, getting back to Ukraine now, these days, who's taking decisions following that mess... It's always better when a guy makes it all clearer to his own people in his own language (http://youtu.be/F0Mj8ZLpb0o?t=50s). :yeah:
Thank you, Mr Rodney Martin.

Buddahaid

09-01-14, 06:27 PM

Sorry, I don't buy it that that US forced the EU into existence. If you don't like the EU you have only the leaders of those nations and the people who backed them to blame.

ikalugin

09-01-14, 10:44 PM

Buddahaid

09-02-14, 12:02 AM

Are you saying that the differences go all the way back to the fall of the Roman Empire and following split of the Christian Church?

Oberon

09-02-14, 12:24 AM

You know that's probably not that far off, in fact it probably goes back more to the dying days of the Empire when it split into Eastern and Western sections with the Orthodox Church in what became the Byzantine Empire, and the Catholic Church in the Eastern Roman Empire which then fell into ruins.
Of course, the Byzantine Empire being kicked over by the Islamic hordes (tm) meant that Orthodoxism went north into the Rusland which was more pagan at that time IIRC.

Bear in mind I'm taking a lot of this from Crusader Kings II so I'm not exactly a professor on the subject.

The thing is Russia has a mentality that the west will never understand, it's not quite European, it's not quite Asian, it's a place all of its own, and as such will not behave in a manner we expect it to, unfortunately we westerners have made that mistake many times and tried to apply our cultural standards to Russia and been disappointed when they've not stuck. Obviously some things have taken, but some things have not or they have been modified to suit Russia.
Either which way, even though they may not have the same mind-set as us, they are not suicidal (unless the existence of their nation is at stake then watch out!) and will not want to get themselves into a position where war with NATO is inevitable, at the moment there is still quite a bit of leeway to wiggle around in, so both sides are going to take full advantage of that.

ikalugin

09-02-14, 04:28 AM

I don't think that NATO would escalate the conflict by participating in it openly.

Skybird

09-02-14, 05:58 AM

I think the story here is simpler and more complex at the same time.

When the cold war has ended the West has assumed that:
- the looser would behave as a looser should (as it was assumed that "Russia" lost the cold war).
- that Russia would soon follow the Western rules of the game and would be succeptable to the Western mentality.
- would quitely grow and would never fully recover.

This is not what happened. The reasons for this are many, the obvious ones are that Russia has viewed the results of the cold war differently and that Russia has a very different, eastern christian mentality/cultural heritage. If you are interested in further reading you can use this article:
http://pozneronline.ru/2014/03/7200/
It is writen by an independent journalist and was originally published in the opposition's media outlet (the Echo of Moscow radiostation).

So many wrong misassumptions were made when the cold war ended.

That the world would be safer in general.

That the end of history had come (Fukuyama).

That socialism would be dead. - It is more openly rampaging throughout Europe than ever before, turning the EU states into states mdoelled after sovjet example.

That democracy would spread everywhere now and that it would be the beginning of an American century. - Democracy is in decline everywhere, eroding in the west, pushed back by autocracy and religious dogmatism.

That Russia would become America's poodle.

That China would endlessly play by the dollar rules and only be our export market, not our rival dictating the rules.

That the "tectonic" inner tensions of this entity that got to huge parts artificially created on the map named Ukraine could be iognored and would ease all by themselves. In the early 90s I was still stuyind and a young man not knopwing too much. But even then already I got into arguments with other students when I said that this strange birth-thing hardly could last for longer time in the form it then had.

In general, it was a shift from less to more complexity and from more stability to less stability, and from less to greater vulnerability.

=======

Random find: a German interview with British historian Catherine Merridale about the symbolic meaning, architecture, destructions and re-buildings and theatre-function of the Kremlin. I found it interesting.

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/putins-machtsitz-der-kreml-ist-das-zentrum-eines-staates/v_print/10638084.html?p=

Skybird

09-02-14, 06:00 AM

I don't think that NATO would escalate the conflict by participating in it openly.
But they will and probably already do in secrecy deliver weapons and intel information. At least countries like Britain and the US, some others as well maybe, Poland for example. The hea dof the CIA was in Kiewv earlier this year - I think it was short before there show turned really hot on the Maidan.

ikalugin

09-02-14, 06:14 AM

Well NATO countries (namely Hungary) already do sell weapons to the Ukraine. However this is very different from sending active units to participate in the actual war.

Jimbuna

09-02-14, 06:45 AM

Angela seems to give the impression Germany are a major player in Europe (certainly economically) but I'm wondering what she can or will do of a military nature, after all, the French are still going to supply those two warships to Russia. :hmmm:

ikalugin

09-02-14, 08:35 AM

Well about half of our naval establishment doesn't see any need in those overpriced militarised civilian ferries :trollface:

In general most people doubt the need of Russian navy in such ships, especially to the apparently overinflated price we have to pay for them.

Jimbuna

09-02-14, 09:44 AM

Quality always comes at a price...or so they tell me.

ikalugin

09-02-14, 10:26 AM

Apparently when compared to its piers the Mistral class does not offer much, while costing more.

Skybird

09-02-14, 10:35 AM

Oberon

09-02-14, 10:47 AM

Ah, but the age old question is quality vs quantity. After all...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/TigerITankTunis.jpg
Quality

http://www.battletanks.com/images/T34-85-2.jpg
Quantity

(Although to be honest, that's a gross oversimplification as the T-34 was a high quality tank of its own, however the design and engineering was geared more towards quantity than quality, which was where Germany came late into the fight, trying to switch over to quantity in production of the Panther but too little too late)

That being said, those helicopter carriers will be useful for power projection in the Arctic region which is probably what they are intended for, otherwise most of Russias sphere of influence is within land locked regions.

Oberon

09-02-14, 11:14 AM

Merkel has a very strong socialist family background, her father was socialist by conviction, and a Protestant priest who brought his family from Westgermany back into the GDR. She made her vcareer in the FDJ up to chief swcecretary for propaganda, responsible for universities and the Academy of Science. So, by socialisation is quite friendly towards Russia. However she also is a merciless opportunist and master of empty, meaningless phrases, she makes plenty of words by which she does say nothing - but that with determination. She learned the business of propaganda from scratch, you see.

Clearly Germany needs the return of the socialist king:

http://www.hdg.de/lemo/objekte/pict/BiographieHoneckerErich_photoHoneckerErich/index.jpg

:haha:

Even she seems to slightly shift against Putin now, and now demands tougher snacitons althoiugh no other country in the world will pay a tougher financial - and social - price for them, than Germany. Even more, with Germany being expected to pay for this Euro disaster as well, and the EU mulling a European unemployment insurance for which again the Germans have to pay, eroding one important business pillar of Germany's already stuttering economy could come at even greater costs to all Europe. Not to mention that Germany still depends on Russian gas, to a significant degree.As is often said, one has to look at where the money goes. Germany is the unofficial head of the EU, and if one was to look at the EUs top export market, one would find that 16.6% of EU exports go to the US for a trade balance of E91,998m, out of all the nations trading with the EU, the US has the biggest trade share. So it's natural that the EU will do what it can to keep that. The import difference between Russia and the US is 1.3%, so if the US makes up that import difference then the EU will be only to glad to follow the Washington line.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_122530.pdf

Really, Europe will in the near future become a tug of war between Russia and America as each vye for spherical control, Russia has started off on the back foot, but it won't give up just yet, especially where its former non-NATO partners are concerned (Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus).

As far as Russia is conerned, the longer the sancions last, the more antipathy the sanctions will cause in ordinary Russian people, playing into Putin's hands again. Also, improvised deals with China, Belarus, Turkey and others that currently replace import losses from EU countries, could turn into solid and unlimitedly settled business arrangements so that if there will ever be a return possible to the former diplomatic status between Russia and the EU, Russia will see no need at all to return to its contract arrangements with EU suppliers. China really is the ultimate winner here, it's going to see increased trade from both Russia and the EU as each seek to avoid the other, heck I wouldn't be surprised to see sanction defying dodges being used where trade from Russia is routed through China to the EU.
Basically in the long run it'll just result in the current entrenched positions being dug deeper.

As far as I can analyse it all, I think the relations between East and West have crossed the point of no return. The peaceful post-cold-war order of the world in the Northern hemisphere, is history. And Russia is doing a dangeorus balance between imperial posturing, trying to establish a post-dollar regime together with china, and possibly getting trapped in its own collapsing fiscal system. The West mulls Russia's exclusion from the SWIFT system. Sadly I think you're correct, there was a chance for detente but we were too busy congratulating ourselves in defeating the Soviets that we missed it. While I can understand the wish of nations such as Poland to enter NATO in order to escape any potential re-establishment of the Warsaw Pact in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union, I can also clearly see how this would have been seen as a great encroachment of the west towards Russias borders, and a threat to Moscow. That stupid bloody ABM radar system of Bush II really didn't help matters much either. Obama tried to reverse the damage of that, but it was just too little, too late.

The war already is lost for Kiev, NATO officials gets quoted with. We'll see what winter brings, but it is not looking good for Kiev, that much I think we can agree on.

In the end, the problems today are just the consequence of the folly done over two decades ago. The Ukraine never should have been founded as a state with borders like these. The same mistake - drawing borders on maps randomly and in ignorrance of cultural, historic and ethnic realities on the ground (forcing together what doe snot match, ripping apart what belongs together) - has been made in the ME as well, repeatedly. And nothing than conflicts have come from that. That essential geopolitical interests of a major global power sitting in that region were thought of that one could simply ignore them, did not make it better. I agree and disagree, I mean taking away land from the Ukrainian SSR would not have ended well for the weakened Soviet Union in 1990, especially since it wanted to get its nuclear weapons back. So it was a bit of a no-win scenario, the USSR either had to give the whole of the Ukrainian SSR to the independent government or risk a nuclear armed anti-Moscow state on its doorstep. Political power flows from the barrel of a gun as Mao said, and there's not much bigger a gun than a nuclear explosive.

And Washington should have been overruled by European alliance members regarding pushing NATO eastward.At the very least the eastern NATO members should have been allowed in as partnership members with a view to making them full members if Russia had decided to re-engage Warsaw Pact mode. Honestly you can't deny that the shadow of events like the Prague Spring, and Hungarian uprising did not still hang over Eastern Europe when the wall fell. I can understand the desire of Eastern Europe to seek protection against a potential return of the Soviet Union, but equally, ignoring Russias spheres of influence was only ever going to result in an annoyed Russia. We made hay while the sun shined, but now its becoming overcast again.

Catfish

09-02-14, 12:13 PM

... but I'm wondering what she can or will do of a military nature, after all, the French are still going to supply those two warships to Russia. :hmmm:

For all the french cars i owned or drove, we should not fear. There is some certain french hadware that will break down in any decisive moment. :03:

Skybird

09-02-14, 12:25 PM

Oberon, the Americans promised the Russians that NATO would not be moved eastward and closer to their borders, and that the former Sovjet satellite states would remain somewhat neutral. And the Russians, for a moment, were naive enough to believe that. That promsie were the price they demanded for a peaceful transfering of things into the post cold war order. Maybe they could have not prevented it anyway - but they would have tried to set up troubles and fights.

Later, after Washington had managed to move NATO into these places nevertheless, although with kind of demilitarized rules, they arrogantly snubbed the Russians and told them: "What do you want? Have you any signed treaty on that we would not move NATO in there? No, you haven't. So shut t.f. up, will ya, stupid Ivan."

And this arrogant reaction maybe pissed the Russians even more than the fact that NATO had been moved into these countries, because it illustrated even more to them that they were not even taken serious enough anymore as that one would see the need to at least keep the appearance (=den Anschein wahren), when one already was cheating them. For a country with a traditionally imperial self-understanding of being a powerful cultural sphere in itself, this was even greater a humiliation. Many in the military and political establishment took that extremely queer.

Winning a standoff, a rivalry, a conflict, is one thing. But then starting to mock and humiliating the losing side, is something different. And it boils hostile emotions, necessarily, it can spoil - and in this case has spoiled - the fruits of success, evben more swince it was not the onyl way where America ruthlessly demonstrated to Russia that it does not mean to take care for Russian'S views anymore. Russia was "defeated", wasn't it, and it was expected to behave like a loser. America is extremely incompetent in seeing things from the other's POV, from a non-American POV in general. "Our way or no way" seems to have become it's motto. After all, they even declared this the American century, didn't they. Well, we'll see. I have serious doubts.

Mittelwaechter

09-02-14, 12:33 PM

FYI - http://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/01/warning-merkel-on-russian-invasion-intel/

Catfish

09-02-14, 01:26 PM

FYI - http://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/01/warning-merkel-on-russian-invasion-intel/

"MEMORANDUM FOR: Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Ukraine and NATO
We the undersigned are long-time veterans of U.S. intelligence. We take the unusual step of writing this open letter to you to ensure that you have an opportunity to be briefed on our views prior to the NATO summit on Sept. 4-5.
You need to know, for example, that accusations of a major Russian “invasion” of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the “intelligence” seems to be of the same dubious, politically “fixed” kind used 12 years ago to “justify” the U.S.-led attack on Iraq
[...]"

:rotfl2: Priceless

^^ @Skybird, well this kind of prosa does not cause any response here, does it ?
We the NATO are the good, that's all you need to know.
Otherwise you are a communist non-patriot !!

ikalugin

09-02-14, 01:45 PM

On Russo-Sino trade relations. As far as I am aware in relation to high tech products we already have shifted to China. This was the truly signifiant part of that "oil" deal, not the energy(though that was very important ofcourse) but sighning a great deal of other contracts. Those deals are not makeshift or in any other way temporary, they are there to stay, as any sensible organisation cannot deal with the potential risks offered by the politisation of free trade in critical goods and services. However this is all I can say about this, I hope other members of this forum would understand.

Indeed I (and the article I have linked above) do agree with Oberon on the post Cold War settlement. What I think was done wrong with recent crisis was the rapid and decisive push by the Western parties during the Maidan crisis (namely it's radicalisation).

The West should have understood that Ukraine (and number of other ex Soviet states) are critical to Russian interest and enroachment there would be met with utmost resistance. I guess it was the last call, during which the last illusions of Cold War results (ie that Russia would do as told) have failed.

That said, depending on the results of negotiation, I think it is possible to go back to the situation closer to the pre Maidan one, ie should Ukraine be quaranteed to be military neutral and politically/economically friendly (within a reason) it could keep most of it's territories with exception of Crimea and Donetsk/Lugansk areas.

On the dissolution of the USSR - this was (in part) due to the how elites of the Soviet Republics felt at the time. Thus it was not really possible to split the existing Republics in any way, with exception maybe to the Autonomous Republics, which one could negotiate about. Another such possible exception were the Cities of Union Importance (such as Sevastopol).

Skybird

09-02-14, 03:20 PM

ikalugin,

you underestimate the personal missionary spirit that probabaly now drives Putin as well. There are Russian "zones of ionterest" already in Moldavia, and around Odessa (I wonder why Odessa gets so little recogntiion her ein the Wetsenr media). Also, Putin repeatedly mentioned in last speeches the idea or conception of "Nova Russia". This is a terriotiry that has precedneces in history leading back to the time of Katarina. Here is a map.

http://img.welt.de/img/geschichte/origs131825578/1619728083-w900-h600/DWO-Neurussland1812-Vergleich-Aufm1.jpg

That territory bites quite a huge bit out of the Ukraine, the complete south and east, and of course access to the sea would be blcoked for the rest of Ukraine as well. It closes the löand connection from Russia to the Crimean, to Odessa - and borders to the conflict zone of Transnistria/Moldavia.

If that is what Putin aims at, the n we still have quite a big conflict before us.

The sanctions will drive a sting into Russia, no illusions about that. Whether they make Putin change his policies, is something different. He has driven himself so far ahead that I think he even could nto move back jnow anbym ore even if he wanted to do so. It wouold weaken himsaelf at home, damage his public reputation, and foster dissatisfaction with the conservative elites.

Tpo prevent the Uk,raine turning into a NAT= meber, to prevent NATO navy units stationed in Sevastopol, to finally get beyond the notorious conflicts with Kiev since the orange revolution, and to enforce a change of the Ukraine into a political entity where Russia directly or indirectly could interfere and keep the ukraine within Russia'S sphere of influence (divide et impera by federalism and an autonomous East), as well as getting the Crimean, I think were minimum objectives of the Russian reaction sinc elast autumn.

Whether it will be left to this - or will become a bidding for a Nova Russia, we will see soon enough.

Skybird

09-02-14, 03:26 PM

"MEMORANDUM FOR: Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Ukraine and NATO
We the undersigned are long-time veterans of U.S. intelligence. We take the unusual step of writing this open letter to you to ensure that you have an opportunity to be briefed on our views prior to the NATO summit on Sept. 4-5.
You need to know, for example, that accusations of a major Russian “invasion” of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the “intelligence” seems to be of the same dubious, politically “fixed” kind used 12 years ago to “justify” the U.S.-led attack on Iraq
[...]"

:rotfl2: Priceless

^^ @Skybird, well this kind of prosa does not cause any response here, does it ?
We the NATO are the good, that's all you need to know.
Otherwise you are a communist non-patriot !!

Trekkies use to compare the Wwest to the good Federation and the Russians to the Klingons. My comparison is different. The West is the Ferengi, and the Russians is the Romulans, and Islam is the Klingons. The Federation is an utopic ideal that everybody wants to claim (maybe not the klingons...) for his cause - to dress his own egocentrism into it nicely and give it a friendly appearance. :D

I forgot in the posting before to link to the German essay I found the map in, it is in German and sheds some light again on this history of Nova Russia.

http://www.welt.de/geschichte/article131825585/Was-Putin-meint-wenn-er-Neurussland-sagt.html

mapuc

09-02-14, 03:30 PM

NATO is NOT going to do anything whatsoever

That is what some of you told me in one of my thread

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=215042

Markus

Catfish

09-02-14, 03:43 PM

... I forgot in the posting before to link to the German essay I found the map in, it is in German and sheds some light again on this history of Nova Russia.

http://www.welt.de/geschichte/article131825585/Was-Putin-meint-wenn-er-Neurussland-sagt.html

As i posted further north in this thread:
"The outline of the Ukraine has been created on a drawing table in 1917, by the german general staff.
Sharp tongues say the Ukraine was a german idea, to weaken Russia. And it will not forget that, not even if the CIA installs itself personally, in Kiew."

We will see, but from those essays it seems Putin wants either all of the Ukraine, or it is at least partially NATO propaganda.

I am beginning to dislike Putin's role in this, but why is there no official direct evidence for Russia's involvement ? I mean if they are engaged there MUST be some provable intelligence about it ?
In that case maybe some geste like the Truman doctrine back then would put a stop to it ?

Bilge_Rat

09-02-14, 04:25 PM

I am beginning to dislike Putin's role in this, but why is there no official direct evidence for Russia's involvement ? I mean if they are engaged there MUST be some provable intelligence about it ?
In that case maybe some geste like the Truman doctrine back then would put a stop to it ?

The problem is you have no one on the ground who can independently verify what is going on, so you have a lot of circumstancial evidence and conjecture.

What we can glean so far:

-Russia has been supplying the Rebels with weapons, at first they were careful to only provide weapons that could plausibly be captured from the Ukrainians, but that has pretty much gone out the window, since the Rebels seem to have latest gen AT weapons, Tanks, including T-72s, artillery, BMPs;

-Many Russian "volonteers" have shown up, although whether they constitute a majority or minority of fighters among the Rebels is debatable. No direct link to the Kremlin has been shown, but there is indirect evidence they are financed by nationalist Russian Oligarchs. To me it is doubtful this could happen without the green light from Putin;

What is less clear:

-Whether Russian SAM systems/artillery were/are present in Ukraine and/or being used from Russian territory. To me the evidence is pretty clear, but again no direct "smoking gun", AFAIK;

-The number/types of Russian units in Ukraine. It seems pretty clear the special forces have been involved since the beginning and that the appearance of regular Russian units is a more recent phenomenon. A friend of mine who follows this very closely says he has indentified 4 different Russian units in Ukraine. The capture of the 10 Russian paratroopers, funerals in Pskov and the fact that the military situation has reversed so quickly against the Ukrainians would seem to indicate that Russian troops have arrived in sizable numbers, but again no clear "smoking gun";

However, to a large extent, whether proof is there or not is academic, the real question is what will the US/NATO/EU do about it. So far, we see a lot of talk, but not much action.

Skybird

09-02-14, 06:34 PM

Not much can be done. Not much should be done. War with Russia is out of the question. Pushing sanctions too far may hurt Russia. But Europe and the EU at least as much if not more, in the long run, namely the German paymaster.

Indeed I have wondered since a few days whether maybe Putin by all this doing even tries to provoke a crisis in financial relations, to use that as some kind of catalyst to speed up the wanted attack on the global dollar and euro regime. I have not figure however how that link, if it exists, may work, so it is just a working hypothesis I keep on the desktop for possible further examination. Launching such a strike at a time when the helplessness of the exhausted central banks in the West is obvious and so is the vulnerability of the established paper money, is only logical - if such a possibility exists.

If it is true, then the silent support of and secret coordination with china can be taken as a certainty, for Russia alone could not be successful with that against the will of the Chinese. And that possibility of China collaborating in that currency war is what would make this scenario so extremely dangerous for the West.

Such a strike will come sooner or later, its only a question of when.

Oberon

09-02-14, 06:46 PM

Trekkies use to compare the Wwest to the good Federation and the Russians to the Klingons. My comparison is different. The West is the Ferengi, and the Russians is the Romulans, and Islam is the Klingons. The Federation is an utopic ideal that everybody wants to claim (maybe not the klingons...) for his cause - to dress his own egocentrism into it nicely and give it a friendly appearance. :D

I forgot in the posting before to link to the German essay I found the map in, it is in German and sheds some light again on this history of Nova Russia.

http://www.welt.de/geschichte/article131825585/Was-Putin-meint-wenn-er-Neurussland-sagt.html

Does that make China the Breen? :hmmm:

ikalugin

09-02-14, 11:08 PM

On Novorussia concept and its place of policy - you have clearly have not been following the Russian policy closely, it has underwent several very important changes:

Phase 1) - Crimea. During this time Crimea has been annexed, and weak, mainly private support has been offered to the self proclaimed republics. At that time Putin indeed does get his "Novorussia" rhetoric out and group A) is being assighned to monitor the developments and control Russian participation in the events.

Phase 2) - We don't know nothing. During this period Putin's rhetoric undergoes a change - he asks the separatists to wait a bit longer with their referendums, as well accepting the newly elected president. The group A)'s people in the Novorussia do not develop local forces in the Donetsk and Lugansk (less in Lugansk, more so in Donetsk), contrary to the Strelkov in Slavyansk. There is even unconfirmed stuff that the group A) plans to abandon the Novorussia due to the high political costs (sanctions) of the operation.

Phase 3) - Lets do it. And now, after the Strelkov's return from the Slavyansk the politics change yet again. Now it is group B) that controls the Ukraine crisis related policy and this group expands all sorts of support, more recently it even changes the leadership to a more military proffesional, local (as in Ukranian) crew.

The borders of the Novorussia depend largerly on the negotiations and the future Ukranian stasus. Though obviously now we cannot abandon Lugansk and Donetsk oblast regions (and even more obviously Crimea, which is non negotiable) - the other region's status is yet to be determined by the diplomatic means.

The "big" Novorussia can be seen here:
http://cassad.net/img/591b1aef7d66d5d6c84792e2419b9705.jpg

Oberon

09-02-14, 11:18 PM

Those borders look about what I'd expect the Russians to go for if push comes to shove. The key is taking and holding it, winter will go far for this, but unless some sort of ceasefire can be put forward then Kiev will rearm and reload from the west and just keep banging its head into the wall until it gets itself overthrown in another popular uprising.

Strelkov/Strelok...oh dear...can you say 'Get out of here' (http://stalker.wikia.com/wiki/Strelok)? :03:

ikalugin

09-03-14, 12:52 AM

Well only if push comes to shove. Otherwise there is no need for this, as it would be hard to develop those depressive regions for Russia.

Strelkov (aka Girkin) was one of the prominent separatist's leaders. He is known to be a "Whites" fan, before the crisis he was very big on reconstructing the events of Civil War in Ukraine.

Sbygneus

09-03-14, 01:43 AM

ikalugin

09-03-14, 02:10 AM

You have completely misunderstood my point. Which was that US (and collective West in general) has assumed that Russia would conform to their own (US/Western) actions that go against Russian national interests (and what Russian perceives as common good), that Russia would soon follow the US lead and do as it is told to, that Russia would never recover from it's independence.

This was not to be as history shows us, for the good or bad. This misconception, as well as the Russian misconception that US/collective West would follow the rules of the game and treat Russian interests with respect (should Russia conform to the general US/Western policy) lead to the apparent conflict between the parties, which in turn turned into the Ukranian conflict as the result.

As to the "principle rules", they do not exist, as the primary international players (namely US itself) do not abide by them or twist them to suit their needs.

p.s. as to the Ukraine itself - should it join common economical space with the EU, then it cannot have free trade space with Russia (for obvious reasons of one way customs free flow of goods from EU to Russia), which would lead to the death of the industry (as it is reliant on the Russian/CIS markets and cheap energy to survive). Would the agricultural sector take up the slack? It wont due to quotas, read the assosiation documentation. Ukraine joining NATO is not only bad for Russia (for obvious reasons of a hostile alliance blocking all western approaches) but also against Ukranian constitution (which is bad)

Sbygneus

09-03-14, 02:36 AM

[QUOTE=ikalugin;2238998]
as to the Ukraine itself - should it join common economical space with the EU, then it cannot have free trade space with Russia (for obvious reasons of one way customs free flow of goods from EU to Russia), which would lead to the death of the industry (as it is reliant on the Russian/CIS markets and cheap energy to survive). QUOTE]

Agreed. And Shouldn't Ukraine decide its trading partners itself? Even if it meens their economic demise? I always thought it is called freedom of choice.

Sorry mate, I just dont buy talking about US being cause of all the wrong in the world (though I am not an American myself). US is good in SO many areas, and its good to be with the better, isnt it? I wish I always had the right to chose my friends.

And I am able to see there is at least one "principle rule" in politics - the rule of the jungle.

ikalugin

09-03-14, 02:44 AM

It could, however it does not do so. And please reserve the fairy tale stories about how Ukranian people have rationally and freely chosen the assosiation with the EU without any external influence.

You should be, as I am not yours mate. Or pal for that matter. This is not to be taken offensively, I just do not see any grounds so far on which we can be friendly. As to the matter at hand - where did I claim that "US being cause of all the wrong in the world"? I have merely pointed out that the universal rules you have talked about do not exist because major players (such as the US) do not follow them. Thus asking another party (such as Russia) to follow them would be wrong.

Then why do you even argue about the morals of Russian participation in Ukranian crisis?

Sbygneus

09-03-14, 03:17 AM

Ofcourse we are influenced everyday and by many things - that does not rule out our free choice. For example, we are asked to drink alkohol by group of friends, but It is our choice if we do it or not. At least if one of them is not threating us with a knife do drink.

Please dont be fussy about "pals" and "mates". I didnt want to insult you in this way. If I did I apologize.

As to the argument about morals of Russian participation in Ukrainian crisis: "the rule of the jungle" I spoke of was irony. I dont agree with this "rule" and I hope you do not either.

ikalugin

09-03-14, 04:07 AM

On the contrary, there is no true freedom of choice, as the choices are made (should the person even be rational in his decision making) based on the previous experience and available information. Thus there are only degrees of freedom in any ones decision making based on the degree of access to information and capability to process it rationally.

Thus your example is invalid - the parties in question (at least I assume so) understand the mild damage the moderate alcohol intake may incur, while in Ukranian case the local population did not understand the severe damage EU association would bring. Nor is there any reliable proof that this was indeed a legal majority choice for this matter.

No problem here.

I do agree that there is a need for fair and universal rules of play, however, sadly, they do not exist.

Sbygneus

09-03-14, 04:35 AM

I believe there is in fact freedom of choice. If not for other reason then simply because its your act of will. The key word is "act". You are making a choice. Right or wrong. If anyone forces you to chose, its not an act of will of yours. It doesnt allow you to act at all.

Well I learned (as a Christian) that maybe there are only two things in existence: the God and your choices. But I am probably naive.

my example may be valid if a person drinks and drives for example :)

Please tell me one thing. Why Russia doesnt just join EU and NATO? It would be dream come true. Imagine

ikalugin

09-03-14, 04:44 AM

If it is your belief, then there is nothing to argue about or discuss here as beliefs and tastes are individual.

We asked for it in the 90s if I remember it right. We were refused. The reasons for this are fairly obvious, especially on the NATO side of things.

That said there is something I would need to clarify - joining NATO (or EU) is a complex process, especially considering how different countries get different rights within those organisations. Thus while joining EU/NATO may be a sound proposition, the conditions of such joining could be critical (ie setting very low quotas for our primary exports) as depending on them the damage from such association would out weight the benefits of the same.

Sbygneus

09-03-14, 06:10 AM

Still I think that no country has the right to decide Ukrainian future but themselves.

Thanks for interesting chat. It was...educating.

Skybird

09-03-14, 06:31 AM

We asked for it in the 90s if I remember it right. We were refused. The reasons for this are fairly obvious, especially on the NATO side of things.

Reference, please? Because what you say is a 180° reversed version of how I remember it. Russia never asked to joing EU or NATO, but it was envisioned by EU polticians that Russia one day would join the EU, which already Yeltzin denied, before him was denied by Gorbatchev (insisting that Russia is a Russia for itself), and later was denied by Putin again, claiming that it would not be in Russian interest. Wetsern dieas of Russia joining NATO always have been rejected by Russia, obviously, since that would have meant to accept a degree of American dominance (NATO is severly dominated by the US) that was and is disproportioned to Russian self-understandinf of being a big major player by itself, not just some minor part of a bigger entity like NATO.

Also, if Russia would have asked by itself to join NATO, it would have been pointless to insist on the former Sovjet satellite states to stay neutral and demilitarised. With the Americans ignoring their former promise son that, Russia was even less tempted to ask for NATO membership.

Jimbuna

09-03-14, 06:40 AM

Have they or haven't they?....will they or won't they? :doh:

Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko says he has agreed with Russian President Putin by phone on a "ceasefire process" for the east.

His office initially reported that a "permanent ceasefire" had been agreed but later revised its statement.

The Kremlin stressed Mr Putin had not agreed to a ceasefire as Russia was not party to the conflict.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29042561

Skybird

09-03-14, 06:44 AM

Still I think that no country has the right to decide Ukrainian future but themselves.

Thanks for interesting chat. It was...educating.
The tragedy of parts of the Ukrainian people - those who want to move towards the EU - is that morals, rights and treaties are not the same like being strong and powerful. Russia plays its game because it can and because it wants to. Rights or treaties unfortunately have little to do with it. The disaster today could have been prevented if being more reflective already over 20 years ago: about history and Russian geopolitical interests. That they would never allow the Crimean to fall to NATO and all of Ukraine becoming part of the EU, was to be forseen already back then. Maybe a state of Ukraine smaller than what it was made, excluding the east-southern areas and the Crimean, may have been more realistic, though economically un-doable. The way the borders were drawn, they forced together what could not match forever.

Anothe rreaosn is that the Ukraine has failed to become a successful state indepednet from others. The governments always were corrupt and dominated by oligarchs and links to organsied crime. The country was abused, the economy thus never developed, the hpoes pf the ordinary people for a better fututre necessarily were dissappointed. One cpould argue maybe that the organse revolution made things even worse, after all Tymochenko is no saint herself - not at all, but is one of those oligarchs herself, so is Porochenko now. The political elite betrayed the Ukrainians since the state was founded. In a way, it is a stillbirth, like Kosovo. It will not be truly sovereign and never has been, and it will not be independent and never has been - not in the forseeable future of all realistic scenarios we now can predict. Becasue soverignty needs the strength to defend sovereignty. Where you depend on the good will of the other to respect your sovereignty, you are not sovereign - but weak.

Sorry for putting it this harsh. But feeding illusions is not my thing.

Skybird

09-03-14, 06:46 AM

Have they or haven't they?....will they or won't they? :doh:

As if that would mean anything!

ikalugin

09-03-14, 08:22 AM

I would look into the 90s stuff, sadly I was rather young back then (I was born around the same time Russian Federation was).

Skybird

09-03-14, 11:19 AM

Poroshenko has refused Putin's 7-points-plan, which is no surprise, since several of those points were de facto declarations of defeat if Kiev would have accepted them. So, no surprise, it was to be expected.

Meanwhile NATO announced that in mid-september it will hold a manouver inside Westukraine.

I could have understood if they would have done that in the Baltic states or Poland. I can understand to cancel the NATO-Russia cooperation treaty. I can understand to build new military bases in these states as trip wires, and to form new units meant to operate in that region, and to no longer obey the treaty that limits NATO's right to keep these states free of military presence from non regional NATO members. All that were valid and reasonable options in reaction to Russia's moves, if chosen.

What I cannot understand is that NATO runs manouvers inside a non-member state that is locked in a war. Idiots. Stupid idiots, they still have no clue on what is happening - and why. This is pure provocation, and Russia will react to it as that. In other words: things will shift from bad to worse.

This manouver shows the course NATO plans to follow nowe - to bring the Ukraine into NATO at all costs. Russia's reaction is clear, it will shift its ambitions from possibly only a federal structure of the Ukraine (so that it must not maintain and pay for the East, but still can interfere with Ukraine politics, towards gaining more ground and territory as a buffering against the now to be expected constant stationing of NATO troops in the Ukraine, which from today on is just a question of time.

I forsee that NATO also will change or violate its own statutes in order to bring the Ukraine into NATO, again no matter what. After all that is what Washington wanted since always, and why Yanukovich was urged so hard last autumn to finally move into the EU, as a preparatory step for NATO membership next.

But what to expect of the Eastern states in NATO, whom can be assumed to be the driving powers behind this move. Since they entered NATO, they immediately started to balk and provoke Russia unnecessarily in a bid of setting old bills from history while being protected by NATO's umbrella.

NATO should have stuck to its borders and focus on bolstering its defences there, and reestablishing a believable military deterrence again (haven't they just recently admitted that NATO would be unable to defend these countries if Russia would decide to attack them in an aggressive war?) Instead they move out into the Ukraine. Stupid.

Alex

09-03-14, 11:59 AM

Sorry, I don't buy it that that US forced the EU into existence. If you don't like the EU you have only the leaders of those nations and the people who backed them to blame.

I expected this kind of reply, hehe. :yep:

Yes the US created the EU.
Who is its founding father ?
Robert Schuman (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-E-9NI9fndLw/UY0FPAes2ZI/AAAAAAAAC7E/hexE4mggwnw/s1600/la+face+cach%C3%A9e+de+Robert+Schuman.png), the guy who's known these days for being an agent of American services (since the defence-secret documents of the US State Department (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html) have been declassified in summer 2000). The famous Schuman declaration (1950) can be assigned to this man.

It is known too that this declaration was written in Dean Acheson (American secretary of state at the time)'s services during Truman's presidence, at the end of the 50ies, and was then transmitted to Schuman by Jean Monnet.

Also (and here I really would like to catch your attention :hmm2:), Walter Hallstein (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-F004665-0003,_Walter_Hallstein.jpg/220px-Bundesarchiv_B_145_Bild-F004665-0003,_Walter_Hallstein.jpg) was the 1st president of the European commission, from 1958 to 1967, a man who has a long history.
Hallstein was born at the beginning of the twentieth century, he was a german jurist, a nazi jurist (who's been in fact professor and dean at the university of Rostock, in 1936, after proving his credentials to all nazi authorities :hmm2:). In 1938, when Hitler visited Italy, W.H. has got to be in agreement with Mussolini, and was for the building of "the new Europe" project, "das Neues Europa", as they say in German. :-?

In june 1938, A. Hitler asked W.H. for preparing the draft project of that European construction. This project, that so-called new Europe - that was sold to the French while they were under German occupation :o - instigated the major exhibition related to "the European France", an exhibition that took place in 1941 in Paris in the Grand Palais (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Paris_-_Grand_Palais.jpg). The exhibition was inaugurated by Pétain's representative on one side, and by nazi occupation authorities on the other (http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/25479140a2.jpg).
Walter Hallstein, once a nazi officer, was arrested at the end of the 2nd world war, following the Cherbourg battle.
Then, he's been incorporated in American (!) authorities (:hmm2: :hmm2: !).
In 1951, he was close to Konrad Adenauer, and indeed became the secretary of state for foreign affairs in Konrad Adenauer's government in Germany. He's the one who's got to prepare that project for a new Europe which he created for Hitler and Mussolini - and that led to the Treaty of Rome, which he signed on 25 March 1957, next to the German chancellor Konrad Adenauer (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-27107-0001,_Paris,_NATO-Konferenz,_Walter_Hallstein.jpg). :doh:
Then he's been the promoter of the Hallstein plan in 1965, anticipating the creation of a federal Europe (exactly what we have today ! :doh:), this plan being no less than the core of De Gaulle's refusal when Charles De Gaulle just said "stop", deciding not to send a representative any more at the European commission in Bruxelles, thus adopting the policy of the empty chair, because the president of the french republic, founder of Free France, Charles de Gaulle, knew very well where to stand when it comes to Walter Hallstein : 1. a nazi 2. working for American services 3. to achieve the destruction of European nations placed under the authority of a dictatorial empire : the US of A. :)
Yes, well, this is the way we see you from here, you know. Not you people, but your country.

And that analysis makes sense, no matter from where you look at it. ;)
But well, of course that is not the kind of thing you will ever to hear about at school and stuff, lol.
I admit I didn't figure this out by myself, I mean, all people you can find all around are just willing to believe everything they've got to learn by heart at school, just as if what you get to learn at school was the pure and plain truth, hehe.

But I'm not asking you for believing what I say just like that. Take all the time you need to figure it out for yourself, for Christ's sake ! :up:

[/Off-topic]

mapuc

09-03-14, 12:49 PM

Yesterday one of our former Minister for Foreign Affairs Uffe Ellemann-Jensen

Said in a article

There's war in Europe for the first time in 70 years(have he forgot former Yugoslavia ?)

And what Russia is doing is nothing but an invasion of Ukraine.

Markus

Oberon

09-03-14, 12:59 PM

Meanwhile NATO announced that in mid-september it will hold a manouver inside Westukraine.

Do you mean Operation Rapid Trident? The same exercise they've been holding in Ukraine since at least 2010? Normally they'd also hold one in Russia but sadly that was cancelled.

This is nothing new, but there's no doubt that there will be a coded message from NATO to Russia, but certainly it's not a major attempt to escalate matters. It's really tit for tat, Russia has sent forces into Ukraine, so NATO will follow suit. They're not going to actively hunt for Russians, it will be a fortnight of exercises and then it'll be over, just like last year and the year before that.

Will West Ukraine go into NATO, very likely, very likely indeed, and I really don't blame them. They want to be free of Russia and the only way they can guarantee that is to seek refuge in the one organisation possesses the same military might as Russia, if any of us were in the boots of the people of Kiev we would do exactly the same thing. My enemies enemy is my friend, as the saying goes.

Of course the Eastern European nations are going to be wary of Russia, I mean look, remember this?

http://adst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/1956-tanks-budapest_56_06.jpg

http://www.aworldtowin.net/images/images570/PragueSpring2.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/iiSefKJ.jpg

I'm sorry, but after 50 years of having their every move directed from Moscow can you really blame the leaders of the former Warsaw Pact nations in taking steps to ensure that should Russia reawaken from its disorganised state and seek to regain the power it once held over them that they would have protection from any potential Russian political or military manoeuvres?
For NATO and the US it was all their Christmases come at once, the Soviet Union had fallen over, victory was NATOs and they would now get a ton of extra space between the borders of Western Europe and Russia, space = time, and time = more forces in Europe. It was win-win for them, but lose-lose for Russia, however in the 1990s-2000s Russia was really in no position to do much but send some tanks into Pristina and protest quietly.
Now Russia is back on the scene and it's pushing back, and really one cannot blame it, however neither NATO or Russia will seek war with each other, they will maneuver, they will bluster and they will perhaps break Ukraine up between them, like East and West Germany (as I have reckoned would happen all along) but they will not shoot at each other. East and West Germany spent several years divided with NATO troops staring down NVA and USSR troops and yet neither side declared war on each other, shots were occasionally traded, defections handled, border incidents occurred but war did not take place.

EDIT: It's just been reported that the French warship sale to Russia has been halted.

Skybird

09-03-14, 02:55 PM

Oberon, what I want is that NATO refocusses on its core reasons why it was founded, and the Ukraine is none of that core reasons, nor is it a Ukrainian membership. Other state simply do not have any right to demand becoming members of NATO. They can ask, and NATO can decide whether it says yes or no, but the ye sin no way is mandatory: not morally and not legally. The whole practice of holding manouvers with the Ukraine since years, imo is questionable and was part of an ongoing effort to push against russia and bringing the ukraine into the EU and NATO. Nobody cares for what a highly questionable and dubious candidate Ukraine is. And that is very bad, that nobody looks closer.

I also question that more provocation of the kind that already has made the Russians switching into higher gear sinc elast autumn will help to defuse the situation now. Its more likely that the Russians will react even tougher and determined, and now will seek more territorial control than initially they maybe wanted. And lets have no illusions there: the Russian determination to get their will over the ukraine - whatever that will finally will be shown to have been - is stronger than the west'S determination to go to war over it. The West seem to think it can bluff and get away with it. I have serious doubts on that.

What the Eastern new NATO members concerns, Russia has honoured its treaties with them and with NATO so far, and the NATO-Russia treaty from 1997 has not been violated by them. What made me raising the eyebrows already years ago was that as soon as Poland had entered NATO, it immediately started to poke Russia in the eye with unnecessary diplomatic rethoric and diplomatic demands it surely knew would not improve relations between brussel and Moscow. In the first time after becoming NATO mmeber, it clearly abused that membership to rethorically pay back some old bills. And nobody called them to order.

NATO is a defence alliance for the member states. NATO has no business to do in the Ukraine. Nor anywhere else outside the members' countries and the North Atlantic's logistic lines. However, to make that also clear, its members are to be protected by all others if they get attacked (without having provoked the attack first), even if art. 5 allows to weasel out of that, as i have earlier explained. A Russian attack on the Baltic states, a destabilizing methiod like we see in the Ukraine, should make all NATO members declaring a state of war against Russia - immediately, unconditionally. A syrian attack against Turkey however, back then when Erdoghan time and again tried to provoke the Syrians by entering Syrian airspace and so forth, would not be allowed to qualify for art.5 imo. The Turks started the mess back then. It maybe would be argued nevertheless that this is an art. 5 case, but I would strictly oppose that.

And I simply do not forget about all these wallowing emotions currently going high in the West, all the propaganda from all sides and the pathos, that while we allow to get drawn into this swamp over a failed and deeply corrupt state led by organised crime - that I personally do not see to be capable to exist by its own means and by its own power and thus is neither independent nor really sovereign - , our engagement this or that way costs money: enormous, much, plenty of money. Billions and billions, if we accept their EU and NATO membership, follow-on costs and indirect consequences not even counted. Money for which we get no returns, no compensations than just more wallowing emotions. May I remind you that our states, all of them, live in conditions of delayed insolvency, something for which you and me would be jailed in prison if we would try that as private people? That our money system is about to collapse, our debts are out of control? We are de facto bancrupt, and have very different and much more serious concerns and problems to face than inviting just another hungry mouth to our table that expects to get endlessly fed at our cost. We already save Wetsenr banks wioth loot from Wetsern tax victims. Must we now spend tax loot from Wetsern vicitms to save Ukrainian oligarchs and organised crime?

Sorry for being so unsentimental about it. But that are the facts. We have no horses in this race. We should stay out. Completely. Wallowing emotions do not pay bills.

Too many people forget what NATO's original duty is. And that is not to spring to help non-members - and worse, non-members who will never compensate or pay for that and do give us only additional problems, no geostrategic advantages. We shoudl want the ukraine as much as we should want Georgia and the Caucasus: not at all. Nothing but instability, problems and costs, no returns. Let the Russians deal with it. That way you can hurt them much more, but get increased stability nevertheless.

How to deal with IS and what it means for the stability - and loss of - in the ME: that is of a hundred times more concern and importance for us Europeans and Americans, than the Ukraine. We should set priorities for our resources allocation. Wiser priorities than wanting to score cheap but then pay long when bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.

Oberon

09-03-14, 03:03 PM

NATO was indeed founded as a defence organisation, but from whom? :03:

The problem with IS is the legacy from the Iraq war, and most of Europe is loathe to get involved in a lengthy battle against IS, especially when no-one actually knows how to defeat IS, but that's another thread entirely.

Oh, and in regards to maneuvers in Ukraine, they were a part of an exercise that also took place in Russia.

Skybird

09-03-14, 03:12 PM

NATO was indeed founded as a defence organisation, but from whom? :03:

From any aggressor attacking a member, unprovoked. What is your point? The treaty does not say that NATO has to protect even NATO non-members from any or from a Russian aggressor.

The problem with IS is the legacy from the Iraq war, and most of Europe is loathe to get involved in a lengthy battle against IS, especially when no-one actually knows how to defeat IS, but that's another thread entirely.

Oh, and in regards to maneuvers in Ukraine, they were a part of an exercise that also took place in Russia.
We can take it that the privileged security partnership between NATO and Russia - boy, only diplomats can imagine such empty phrases - is a thing of the past. So no more maneuvers with Russia, I fear.

Oberon

09-03-14, 05:29 PM

From any aggressor attacking a member, unprovoked. What is your point? The treaty does not say that NATO has to protect even NATO non-members from any or from a Russian aggressor.

The point is that NATO was originally set up to defend Western Europe from an aggressor which was de jure the Soviet Union. Now, Russia moved briefly out of the aggressor role but has still been there in the background in the eyes of NATO nations.
Now, remind me of the conventional warfare doctrine of NATO forces in the Cold War...a contradiction in terms I'm aware as any warfare would have gone nuclear incredibly quickly. But in conventional terms the idea was to trade space for time. Initiating REFORGER to bring US forces across the Atlantic while the existing European forces engage and retreat across West Germany.
Now take the engage and retreat area and extend it to the entirety of Poland, that gives you more time to bring forces into France and reinforce the hold line.
Space for time...meat-shields if you want a more primitive term. That's pretty much what the former WP nations are. That's why they were brought into NATO, and because they felt threatened by Russia and went into the arms of the Soviet Unions adversary.
It really is the simple case of 'My enemies enemy is my friend'.

We can take it that the privileged security partnership between NATO and Russia - boy, only diplomats can imagine such empty phrases - is a thing of the past. So no more maneuvers with Russia, I fear.

Aye, I suspect so too, but anything is possible.

Skybird

09-03-14, 05:59 PM

The point is that NATO was originally set up to defend Western Europe from an aggressor which was de jure the Soviet Union. Now, Russia moved briefly out of the aggressor role but has still been there in the background in the eyes of NATO nations.
Now, remind me of the conventional warfare doctrine of NATO forces in the Cold War...a contradiction in terms I'm aware as any warfare would have gone nuclear incredibly quickly. But in conventional terms the idea was to trade space for time. Initiating REFORGER to bring US forces across the Atlantic while the existing European forces engage and retreat across West Germany.
Now take the engage and retreat area and extend it to the entirety of Poland, that gives you more time to bring forces into France and reinforce the hold line.
Space for time...meat-shields if you want a more primitive term. That's pretty much what the former WP nations are. That's why they were brought into NATO, and because they felt threatened by Russia and went into the arms of the Soviet Unions adversary.
It really is the simple case of 'My enemies enemy is my friend'.

Aye, I suspect so too, but anything is possible.

The first general secretary of NATO put it in these words in 1949: "to keep the Russians out, to keep the Americans in, and to keep the Germans down."

What you say makes tacical sense. But it does not chnage the fact that Russia has a big and understandable interest in the Ukraine not becoming NATO'S playground, for a long list of reasons. That NATO wants the Ukraine doe snot make it automatcially a clever option to bring it in. And Washington has an agenda of minimisj ngRussia since the end of the cold war anyway, and establishing a closer and vcloser ring of bases around it. The arrogance went even so far that severla warnign signals the Russians sent in the past years, from their role on the Balkans and later Georgia, over their stubborn support for Syria, to increasingly louder growling and warning on the diplomatic stage since a longer time now. A Washington that became deaf from its own arrogance, and a Europe that was drunk by its blind daydreaming for peaceful partnership with Russia, ignored all these warning signals, and thought they could afford to bypass them, assuming that Russia would and/or could not do anything anyway. It climaxed in the renewed initiative last year that in autumn finally led to revived attenpots to talk Yanukovich into joining the EU and by that: NATO. That was the last drop that made the Russian water-barrel flowing over - they reacted, and in strength.

That additionally it allowed Putin to launch a big distraction show to distract people at home from the big innerpolitical problems and the non-reforming economy, made it even easier for him to chose for this path.

However, it should be clear that the NATO treaty applies not to all of Europe per se, but to NATO member states. Which France for some time has not been in full, and Sweden also stayed out, Switzerland, and so on.

Just because NATO would like to have manouvering space in case of war, this does not mean that it can claim territories not covered by the treaty, means: nations who are not members.

An American recce plane getting extremely close to Russian airspace borders recently was hunted by Russian interceptors and violated Swedish airspace in a bid to escape, which pissed the Swedes indeed. They were pissed even more when the Americans claimed the "right" to use Swedish air space in the future and to their liking and without asking should they be again chased by Russian interceptors. If the Americans would mean it serious with respecting Swedish sovereignity, they would plan their flight routes in a way that any needed evasion and get-out manouvering would not violate Swedish air space, or leaves them enough time to ask for permission (and run alternative routes if permission is denied). Possible that then certain approach routes over the Baltic would be needed to be skipped and replaced with others, for example from the North and via the North Cape - where there may be no sovereign air space available that could be abused for getting quick cover in case one gets hunted by Russian interceptors.

Oberon

09-03-14, 06:35 PM

The first general secretary of NATO put it in these words in 1949: "to keep the Russians out, to keep the Americans in, and to keep the Germans down."

I've heard that quote too and it's pretty much spot on. I think it was also used in 'Yes, Minister' or 'Yes, Prime Minister' which if you haven't watched already, I recommend it, not the new series but the original one.

What you say makes tacical sense. But it does not chnage the fact that Russia has a big and understandable interest in the Ukraine not becoming NATO'S playground, for a long list of reasons. That NATO wants the Ukraine doe snot make it automatcially a clever option to bring it in. And Washington has an agenda of minimisj ngRussia since the end of the cold war anyway, and establishing a closer and vcloser ring of bases around it.

Exactly, which is one of the reasons that this whole shebang started in the first place, same with Georgia, the government of the nation involved expressed an interest in moving towards NATO and/or the EU, and away from Russia, drifting out of Russias sphere of influence to use a term, and since there was leeway for Russia to act (since neither were NATO members) then Russia acted. I must admit I did not expect the overt action of annexing Crimea, and I think that retrospectively that may have proven to be a mistake for Putin to have acted as overtly as that. It might have been better to have agitated over a prolonged period and then stepped in to divide the nation up in a ceasefire/peace-treaty process. After all, there's nothing that makes your enemy look worse than proposing a decent peace treaty which they then ignore. Of course the trick is in the wording, but Putin is smart enough to leave it deliberately vague.

The arrogance went even so far that severla warnign signals the Russians sent in the past years, from their role on the Balkans and later Georgia, over their stubborn support for Syria, to increasingly louder growling and warning on the diplomatic stage since a longer time now.

I can recall the first warning shot, I caught it on the 10pm BBC news before I went to bed one school night in 1999, Russian tanks in the dozens streaming through Serbia on their way to Kosovo. I can still remember it as clear as a bell to this day.
NATO and the west have spent the last two decades kicking around a technologically inferior enemy, we enjoyed 'victories' in Iraq and Afghanistan, we caught Saddam and eventually Bin Laden. We have, indeed, gotten arrogant and a little complacent. Our military spending shows that, we are equipped to fight third world nations who use terrorists and assymetrical warfare...
It's sods law really (the only constant in the universe) that NATO has only just managed to adjust to fight assymetrical warfare, and now we've got to adjust again back to standard green-field warfare.

A Washington that became deaf from its own arrogance, and a Europe that was drunk by its blind daydreaming for peaceful partnership with Russia, ignored all these warning signals, and thought they could afford to bypass them, assuming that Russia would and/or could not do anything anyway. It climaxed in the renewed initiative last year that in autumn finally led to revived attenpots to talk Yanukovich into joining the EU and by that: NATO. That was the last drop that made the Russian water-barrel flowing over - they reacted, and in strength.

As they have the right to, if I had to compare the current situation to anything, I would compare it to Cuba in 1961, or perhaps Urgent Fury or Just Cause, but mostly Cuba in 1961.

That additionally it allowed Putin to launch a big distraction show to distract people at home from the big innerpolitical problems and the non-reforming economy, made it even easier for him to chose for this path.

Yup, it's done wonders for his approval ratings. Maggie would be proud. :03: :haha:

However, it should be clear that the NATO treaty applies not to all of Europe per se, but to NATO member states. Which France for some time has not been in full, and Sweden also stayed out, Switzerland, and so on.

Yup, but I think any attack would be through the central route rather than via the north, same as in the old days. The terrain is more favourable and the supply routes would be easier. Not that it's likely to happen but if it did then most of the action would probably take place in the Baltics, Poland and Romania. Of course the big unknown at the moment is Belarus, typically it's pro-Russian leaning but the dictator in charge has had strong words with Moscow over the past decade. It's a toss up between Belarus and Transdneister where the next NATO/Russia crisis will flare up.

Just because NATO would like to have manouvering space in case of war, this does not mean that it can claim territories not covered by the treaty, means: nations who are not members.

Indeed, NATO would have to be invited by the host nation to station troops on its soil, a bit like how NATO has been using Middle Eastern nations to forward base for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I really don't think that the Ukraine is going to not ask NATO to station troops in it once this has calmed down a little...heck, it might even ask before hand, but I don't think it'll get it...but when this has calmed down and in the likely even that east and west Ukraine get divided then even if Ukraine is not brought immediately into NATO it will request NATO forces...probably under the guise of helping it to rebuild after the civil war, and it will get all the help it needs between NATO and the EU, to become the next phase line in the NATO 'defence' against Russia.

An American recce plane getting extremely close to Russian airspace borders recently was hunted by Russian interceptors and violated Swedish airspace in a bid to escape, which pissed the Swedes indeed. They were pissed even more when the Americans claimed the "right" to use Swedish air space in the future and to their liking and without asking should they be again chased by Russian interceptors.

One has to feel sorry for the Swedes, and the Finns for that matter, their territory is rarely respected by either side. There was a lot of submarine activity around Sweden in the Cold War, and to this day they still haven't found out who was doing it, but one particular incident was thought to likely be NATO forces judging by the way that the high command swiftly shut down the investigation into it. Furthermore, to add insult to injury, there is a rumour that if the Cold War had gone hot then Finland and likely Sweden too would have been targeted by both sides to prevent the other from using it.

If the Americans would mean it serious with respecting Swedish sovereignity, they would plan their flight routes in a way that any needed evasion and get-out manouvering would not violate Swedish air space, or leaves them enough time to ask for permission (and run alternative routes if permission is denied). Possible that then certain approach routes over the Baltic would be needed to be skipped and replaced with others, for example from the North and via the North Cape - where there may be no sovereign air space available that could be abused for getting quick cover in case one gets hunted by Russian interceptors.

Neither side has much respect for sovereignty when it comes to the possibility of gaining intelligence. Whilst Russia hasn't penetrated airspace in a while, it still sends the old Bear out for a gentle stroll around the North Sea from time to time, probably to sniff up radar signals, which is probably what the US spyplane has been up to.
Still, at least it's not as bad as when U2s were actively strolling across the Soviet Union with only the odd flying telegraph pole to stop them.

Oberon

09-03-14, 06:49 PM

http://0.tqn.com/d/goeasteurope/1/S/Z/L/-/-/EasternEuropeMap.jpg

Actually, looking at it geographically, I'm not quite so sure that NATO will be quite as eager to base in Ukraine, if Russia takes the bits of Ukraine indicated by ikalugin, then unless Belarus is brought onto NATOs side that leaves a rather large portion of Ukraine sticking into a potential Russian encompassing movement. Any attack could come up through Moldova, and down from Belarus to isolate any forces in western Ukraine from reinforcements.
Having the Ukraine as a neutral territory would be better, or at the very least give Ukraine assurances that NATO will stay and fight but down tools and run back to Romania/Slovakia and Poland if it happened, because that is just too much of a salient to be tactically useful.

Of course, Russia has a similar problem with that Kaliningrad oblast, I think that'll probably wind up being abandoned or perhaps used as a diversionary area to tie up NATO resources while they fight to reduce it rather than just encircling and ignoring it. :hmmm:

Of course, get Belarus on side and you're laughing...

So watch that space... :hmmm:

Skybird

09-03-14, 06:52 PM

I've heard that quote too and it's pretty much spot on. I think it was also used in 'Yes, Minister' or 'Yes, Prime Minister' which if you haven't watched already, I recommend it, not the new series but the original one.
Oh yes, I know it all too well! :D They managed to do a really fantastic German dubbing job on that one back in the 80s. Whole family sat by the TV, wetting pants and seats.

It might have been better to have agitated over a prolonged period and then stepped in to divide the nation up in a ceasefire/peace-treaty process. After all, there's nothing that makes your enemy look worse than proposing a decent peace treaty which they then ignore. Of course the trick is in the wording, but Putin is smart enough to leave it deliberately vague.Crimea is special to Russia, not just because of Sevastopol. To bring that back to ol' mother Russia, was non-negotiable. Not just regional autonomy in an Ukrainian federation. Its more about emotions than any other aspect of the crisis is.

A place that often is overlooked but I predict will attract attention too, is Odessa.

I can recall the first warning shot, I caught it on the 10pm BBC news before I went to bed one school night in 1999, Russian tanks in the dozens streaming through Serbia on their way to Kosovo. I can still remember it as clear as a bell to this day.
NATO and the west have spent the last two decades kicking around a technologically inferior enemy, we enjoyed 'victories' in Iraq and Afghanistan, we caught Saddam and eventually Bin Laden. We have, indeed, gotten arrogant and a little complacent. Our military spending shows that, we are equipped to fight third world nations who use terrorists and assymetrical warfare...
It's sods law really (the only constant in the universe) that NATO has only just managed to adjust to fight assymetrical warfare, and now we've got to adjust again back to standard green-field warfare. Watching at it from the point of view of a SBP player, its not that bad at all. :D All those light armoured vehicles they recently released became extremely irritating. :D

As they have the right to, if I had to compare the current situation to anything, I would compare it to Cuba in 1961, or perhaps Urgent Fury or Just Cause, but mostly Cuba in 1961. Like Cuba...? Not by huge margin. More like Argentina invading the Falklands. Cuba was a clear and present danger, a knife held at the throat of the US. Ukraine is not that, in no way.

Oberon

09-03-14, 07:31 PM

Crimea is special to Russia, not just because of Sevastopol. To bring that back to ol' mother Russia, was non-negotiable. Not just regional autonomy in an Ukrainian federation. Its more about emotions than any other aspect of the crisis is.

A place that often is overlooked but I predict will attract attention too, is Odessa.

The most recent push does definitely seem to be towards that area. I expect that it will become contested later this year or early next year if the conflict continues.

Watching at it from the point of view of a SBP player, its not that bad at all. :D All those light armoured vehicles they recently released became extremely irritating. :D

:haha: I can sympathise, for us of the Cold War generation, assymetrical warfare will never be quite understandable. :03:

Like Cuba...? Not by huge margin. More like Argentina invading the Falklands. Cuba was a clear and present danger, a knife held at the throat of the US. Ukraine is not that, in no way.

I meant that the Ukraine is Russias Cuba, and I also put a date on it, '61, before the IRBMs went in, back in the Bay of Pigs era. Cuba got a pro-Soviet government, the US saw this as a threat to their security and so tried to remove it. Russia sees NATO in the Ukraine as a threat to its security and is trying to arrange the situation to ease this threat.

ikalugin

09-03-14, 11:34 PM

How does NATO treat applications for membership of states with border disputes?

P.s. We never sent tanks to Prishtina I think, only BTRs.

Sbygneus

09-04-14, 02:22 AM

What the Eastern new NATO members concerns, Russia has honoured its treaties with them and with NATO so far, and the NATO-Russia treaty from 1997 has not been violated by them. What made me raising the eyebrows already years ago was that as soon as Poland had entered NATO, it immediately started to poke Russia in the eye with unnecessary diplomatic rethoric and diplomatic demands it surely knew would not improve relations between brussel and Moscow. In the first time after becoming NATO mmeber, it clearly abused that membership to rethorically pay back some old bills. And nobody called them to order.

You seem forget Berlin Wall and live in a posthistoric dreamworld. Now you are poking Poland in the eye and you do it because it is weaker. Yes Poland has so many reasons to love Russia - sadly I can't remember a single one.
(And please dont tell me Soviets liberated us because war started in 1939 after some pact-remember?) Its sad for me to read your post. You see, I have the feeling Poles started to really like Germans, sincerely. Please try not to spoil it.:yep:

Betonov

09-04-14, 03:16 AM

Slovene export to Russia dropped by 200 million euros because of the crisis.
Great.

If we'd just stayed out of it the export drop would be minimal, but no, let's be of good little doggies be of laying backside to our Brussel/DC masters and be loosing of many monez :/\\!!

ikalugin

09-04-14, 03:17 AM

I think Polish should get over the fact that their nation never became (because of Russia and Sweden) and (probably) never would be a Great Power in Europe.:cool:

Sbygneus

09-04-14, 03:35 AM

I think Polish should get over the fact that their nation never became (because of Russia and Sweden) and (probably) never would be a Great Power in Europe.:cool:

I cant speak for all the Poles, but for me I dont have power ambitions. Believe me, I know Russia, US, and China are in power, and thats fine for me. I just dont want any country ever invade us any more. We are in Poland tired of wars, we didnt chose our neighbours. But we have basic sense of honor, laugh if you wish.
If I could I would exchange our teritory for some Island of the same size in the Atlantic Ocean and let Russians and Germans do their "business"
Dont drag us in your power games. Our idol is John Paul II and who is yours?

ikalugin

09-04-14, 03:52 AM

Offending your big neighbour is a bad plan then.

Sbygneus

09-04-14, 04:05 AM

Offending your big neighbour is a bad plan then.
Ok I think I have heard enough.

ikalugin

09-04-14, 04:38 AM

Ok, however I still have to give you a clarification:

If you want good relations with neighbours regardless of your common past, you should act with good faith towards them. Considering that Russia was fairly close to discarding it's Soviet past this would be a good thing to do (from your national interests point of view).

P.s. do you think that Soviets were worse than (NAZI) Germans (post 1939)?

Sbygneus

09-04-14, 04:45 AM

P.s. do you think that Soviets were worse than (NAZI) Germans (post 1939)?

No, I dont think so

Skybird

09-04-14, 05:24 AM

You seem forget Berlin Wall and live in a posthistoric dreamworld. Now you are poking Poland in the eye and you do it because it is weaker. Yes Poland has so many reasons to love Russia - sadly I can't remember a single one.
(And please dont tell me Soviets liberated us because war started in 1939 after some pact-remember?) Its sad for me to read your post. You see, I have the feeling Poles started to really like Germans, sincerely. Please try not to spoil it.:yep:
Sbygneus, I was referring to the treaties between West and Russia since the cold war ended, and the Russian position regarding the Baltic states' and Poland's and the former CSSR's NATO membership. The treaty with NATO they signed in 1997, on the NATO-Russian Council. It is fact that these things have not been threatened by them so far, they have not moved against the Eastern NATO memberstates so far. Nor has there been any preparatory moves indicating they plan to start setting up destabilization measures, to put it that way.

That is the reason why Germany is so extremely hesitent to agree to stationing NATO combat troops in these countries. Because that would be a violation of treaties for sure. And thus my argument, owing to the principle that control is better than trust: we need to cancel this tretay, and station troops there. And not just a symbolic amount, but an amount that can hold out and stop any Russian incursion. at the same time it should not have the capacity to threaten Russia in terms of a war of attack. Becasue the Russians will react to NAOT troops in the baltic and in Poland, no doubt. And the more threatened they feel by these combat forces, the more intense their reaction will be. What I want is a red line drawn at the Baltric and Polsih eastern border, a red line that is beyond all doubt andthat makes clear that the tactic they use in the Ukraine will not work against any NATO member states without getting a major war with all of NATO. It'S a diplomatic and military balancing act, and if we rush forward too rude, we will get what we want the least.

Militarily, under normal conditions Russia cannot win a major conventional war with NATO anymore. But it may be tempted to bet on the effect of surprise, and to bet on the political indifference of poltical leaders in the West, hesitating and acting cowardly. This is to be avoided.

BTW, I have lived ten years in West-Berlin, my parents for over twenty years. ;) But did you know that even during the Cuba crisis the Russians honoured all their trading agreements with Europe, Germany, even America? They bought what by contracts they were obligated to buy, they delivered what they were obligated by contracts to deliver. ;) They never allowed the door to shut completely.

The Polish behavior is a fact, and has little to do with me wanting to poke them in their eyes. I also remiand of the Kazcynski brothers and their nationalistic and underhanded agitation agaiunst current Germany being a Nazi state and Merkel being Hitler, and all that political con0riaiton theory ofn hteir sby which they attracted quite a lot of voters. Sionce the one brother is dead and th eother has beocme less nboisy oin polticvs, the relations with the new govenrment have significtantly relaxed, and German views of Poland have gained in sympathy again. But who was poking whom in the eye back then: Germany poking Poland - or wasn't it the other way around: again and again, and again? ;)

Despite the sympathizers of the Kaczynskis, I think the private relations between Poles and Germans since longer time have improved and are quite relaxed by now. I have been with Polish friends during university years in the 90s, and had collagues at various jobs. For the most, I liked them, we got along with each other well, and two I called friends for some time. Along the German-Polish border, trafficking of residents from both sides of the border seems to inicate that there are little resentiments especially amongst the young. On government levels, the post-Kaczynski governments hekped tremedoeusly to imrpove dip0llamtic climate so that even political disagreements now cannot have lasting poisoning effects anymore.

IUt may not always be like tis. But that is how it seems to be for the time beeing, and I think that is good.

And please finally note that I support a NATO reaction by cancleling the treaty of 1997 and by stationing sinfigicacnt combat forces in your coutnry and the Baltic states. On many opportunities by now I said that the defence of NATo memberstates is non-negotiable. But the Ukraine is no member of NATO, and if you Poles want to engage the Russians there, then you do it at your own cost - and please do not expect other NATO states then to help you pout, because if you act like this, you are no longer the victim of an attack and thus cannot claim article 5.

Understand what I actual write. Your emotional reply before is caused by interpreting into my words some things that I did not say or meant.

:shucks:

Skybird

09-04-14, 05:51 AM

Good German comment.

http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article131898724/Und-wenn-Putins-Kurs-mehr-ist-als-ein-boeser-Traum.html

For too long Europe believed what it wanted to believe, he concludes.

How often have I said somethign similar, on a wide range of topics, but mainly Islam, economy and finances, the Germany "Energiewende"...

Europe is a continent of naive daydreamers. Meaning it well, is already taken as evidence for qualification. Needs and wishes are taken as basis for announcing "rights". Turning infantile, has become a virtue. Sense of realism and sober objectivity is needed - but dilettantism rules.

Sbygneus

09-04-14, 06:23 AM

Jimbuna

09-04-14, 06:35 AM

Offending your big neighbour is a bad plan then.

Ok I think I have heard enough.

Well I've just about read enough so let us not go down the route of trading insults if you would both be so kind.

Alex

09-04-14, 08:26 AM

Definitely ashamed of french elites following NATO like good servants, but so proud of those few volunteers making use of their own brains (http://youtu.be/U1SPc8jxAEM) !

And that happens so rarely I just need to say it now : Here I'm proud to be french ! :)

http://b8.eu.icdn.ru/c/compdrag/8/39101568OCo.jpg

Jimbuna

09-04-14, 09:36 AM

I saw what you did :know:

Skybird

09-04-14, 09:39 AM

Thank you for your reply Skybird. I think I got the point. I really dont wish to die for Ukraine. On the other hand I dont have any reason to like Putin's policy.
I have respect for Ukraine rights, and wish them well. Country borders are borders. No one should change them any more. Whats the point?
If Putin was really smart and imaginative he could keep economic influence in Ukraine other way and nobody would even blame him, including Ukrainians.
Just like Poland buys most of its gas from Russia and is in EU. Wouldnt Ukraine do the same?

Ukraine buys Russian gas - althozgh it is so failed an economy that it could only afford that by buying it for one third of the ordinary market price, a special offer that Moscow meanwhile has cancelled, of course. Moscow lended them both hands since years and years, at Moscow's financial cost. ;) What does it tell you that after over two decades still criminal elites and oligarchs run politics in the Ukraine and became richer and richer while the national economy is still in principle the pitiful mess that it was when the ukraine declared it's "sovereignity"? The ordinary people still are where they have been 25 years ago. What a successful experiment, what a proud, wonderful state! Ha...! It has not lived by its own means and abilities for even a single year so far! Since over 20 years they do not get their acts together. No comparison to what you Poles have achieved in Poland after the fall of the USSR. Heck, they have stolen gas from the pipelines from Russia to the EU, at the EU states and Russia's costs (the Ukraine, not Poland... :) )

And liking Putin - do you think I like him? Haven'T I said often enough that I do not like him at all? I nevertheless pay respect to his tactical cleverness and high level of prepardness by which he runs the routines in his political office. It s not a question of liking his policy or not, or liking the man or not - that simply is not relevant. It's the match he sets up that makes him an opponent we find difficult to come to term with. Its to realise how competently he runs his game and bluffs where he has deficits and acts with detemrination where he sees the oppoiretunity. That is what make shim this strong opponent that caught both America and Europe off guard althoigh he had given wanrings time and again, since years.

If I want to win at chess, it is unimportant whether I like my opponent or not. That I learn how his mind is ticking, that I forsee his plans, and that I outsmart hiom somehow, no matter how strong he is - that is what counts. I can respect the skill and dangerousness of my opponent - and still not like him. I can still chose to crush him if possible, even if I would like him personally.

So far, the EU and NATO and Washington are no matches for him in this running chess game, he always seems to be two moves ahead.

Have you ever done any kind of martial arts, combat sports? There the importance of having a solid, well-balanced stand usually gets prioritized. NATO allowed itself to get distracted over the past two decades, it started to chant and dfance and to tapdance like a clown. Thats why we got caught while having no solid stand. Having no solid stand is why we canot do anyiothing on the Ukraine without taking risks that cannot be calculated. I am strictly against blind hooray-to-the-attack! rushing of things. I hate hasty attacks. I believe in good preparation. This and the fact that Ukraine gives and promises us nothing but costs, is the reason why I say we have to fall back from our demands on the Ukraine. We messed up that part of the game already, its lost. We need to make two or three steps back to the line where it is about defending NATO countries themselves. By making these steps backwards I mean we need to consolidate our stand, we need to regain our balance again - and from that basis on establishing a much tougher defence line again, a line that is represented by the borderlines that the Baltic states and Poland have with Russia. I want that defence line being build stronger and tougher, I want our scarce resources invested there - not in a hushed wishy-washy business inside the Ukraine. If you strike out and rush from a position of having no solid stand, no basis, no grounding so to speak, you likely will fail, and only take a beating. Better two steps back to win space and time to regain balance, and a good stand.

He who wants to defend all and everything, will lose all and everything. Sun Tzu.

I just remind of that culturally and historically, Russians have a very strong and vlaid interest in those places now being disputed. Ther historic dimension has been outlined before, and I linked to a very competent analysis of all that some days ago, from a guy at the university of Tokyo. You may want to have a look at that. The cause of the Ukraine in its current format imo is much less a valid reason than usually is taken for granted in the West. And I also do not think it is clever that we in the West notoriously expect the russians to act and decide to their own disadvantage and against their own self-understanding and self-interest. That we did that for twenty years or so, and took that as natural expectation, is part of the explanation why things escalated the way they have. Different to you Polish people, the populaiton of the ukraine is fa rmore split regarding where it wants to belong, it makes no sense to speak of "the" Ukrainians as if there were only one kind of. And a historic prcedent for a nationbals atte with today'S borders there simply has not been. So do not compare the Ukraine with the case of Poland. 'That is two very different stories.

You also mentiined rights again. And I have already said that before, too: rights mean little if you are not strong enough to support them. When you are dpeneding on the good will of the other, you are not sovereign, but you are weak and endure what you must. And when you are inferior to your stronger neighbour, it is maybe not clever to constantly step onto the sleeping tiger's tail and trying to notoriously provoke him. That is not by Sun Tzu - but by Lao Tze. ;)

Sailor Steve

09-04-14, 09:42 AM

Definitely ashamed of french elites following NATO like good servants, but so proud of those few volunteers making use of their own brains!
I appreciate the sentiment, but how do you know for certain that the "elites" aren't the ones using their brains and the volunteers you're proud of aren't being led by the nose by propagandists? It works both ways.

Oberon

09-04-14, 10:08 AM

I saw what you did :know:

I know you did. :O:

Sbygneus

09-04-14, 10:42 AM

Thank you Skybird. You seem very reasonable person and you are right. We should be careful and consolidate. I hope our governments think the same. People of the West must unite.
I wish I was so calm as you but its sometimes very hard. And I think it has something to do with Poland being a bit more to the east

p.s. I wonder why China is not a mightiest country in the world yet, having Sun Tzu?:)

kranz

09-04-14, 11:32 AM

I think Polish should get over the fact that their nation never became (because of Russia and Sweden) and (probably) never would be a Great Power in Europe.:cool:
We used to be a 'Great Power in Europe' but you either fail to accept it or missed that history class.
Besides, your remark concerning Poland pretty much makes no sense and is irrelevant to the discussion. On the other hand, what we can see atm is Russia trying to re-establish her position of the Clay Feet Giant.

Our idol is John Paul II and who is yours?
Only if you live in Wadowice.

Theirs? Let me think...Ivan IV, Lenin, Stalin, Dzerzhinsky and now Putin brainwashing them 24 hours/d.
Basically everyone in their miserable history of mass murdering of either their own people or the 'neighborhood' (Chechens, Kazachs, Poles, Georgians (for US members of the forum - Georgia in Europe, not Georgia, USA but who knows...) who can claim a reasonable number of victims (starved to death, executed, banished, deported to Siberia etc.)

Skybird

09-04-14, 11:37 AM

I hope our governments think the same.

Yours and that of Estonia maybe is a bit too aggressive. Ours certainly is too hesitent. In a perfect world - but we have no perfect world, just this one. Well...

Rasmussen said every NATO country should decide for itself whether it wants to deliver weapons to Kiev or not. And Paris has put the sale of two helicopter carriers on ice. Delivering military technology to Russia I always considered to be a folly.

Damn, that are many typos I produced again in my last posts. I just suck at typing on a keyboard, and I am too lazy to proof-read what I type. My fault.

ikalugin

09-04-14, 12:25 PM

I wonder what the legal status of this Mistral deal would be now, as the way things are going - France would have to start paying the penalties for the delay (and/or cancelation).

Skybird

09-04-14, 12:38 PM

I do not know the details of that contract, but it was reported that France only has to pay back the advance payment already paid by Russia.

Meanwhile Russian tanks are reported to have been spotted approaching Mariupol. Eh, I mean Martian tanks with little green men in them. :D

Oberon

09-04-14, 12:42 PM

http://content5.video.news.com.au/NDM_-_news.com.au/222/687/stalin.jpg

ikalugin

09-04-14, 12:48 PM

Russian tanks are everywhere. That said I am not sure if "Russian" in this case means manufacture (past ownership) or current usage.

Oberon

09-04-14, 12:58 PM

Russian tanks are everywhere. That said I am not sure if "Russian" in this case means manufacture (past ownership) or current usage.

Yes. :yep:

Bilge_Rat

09-04-14, 01:40 PM

video of a Russian armored column inside Ukraine. This video appeared, disappeared over the past few days and has now reappeared on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=v5SbQAjbsUo

The road sign seen at 00:40 places it on road M04 E40 - Izvarino-Lugansk-Debalcevo

http://f5.s.qip.ru/C38ZWmFW.png

ikalugin

09-04-14, 02:34 PM

kranz

09-04-14, 02:41 PM

Yeah...last week we had russian commandos taken prisoner and interrogated in front of a camera. They claimed they were lost during exercises...they were exchanged for ukrainian captives a few days later.

Bilge_Rat

09-04-14, 02:47 PM

Can you please clarify, do you claim that those vehicles are operated by Russian Armed Forces, by ethnic Russians (or citizens of Russian Federation) in general, or that it is of Russian manufacture (past ownership)?

The issue was explained by me above, there are a lot of claims of Russian vehicles/collums ect, however it is not always clear (atleast to me) which one of the above cattegories they are claimed to be.

ok, Regular Russian Army units crewed by Regular Russian Army soldiers and commanded by Regular Russian Army officers deep inside Ukraine.

Whether they are "officially" on vacation, sick leave, lost or not even there, you would have to ask the Kremlin. :ping:

ikalugin

09-04-14, 02:55 PM

I see, how did you come to this conclusion? Any clues from the video itself? Or do you have any other verfiable and reliable information?

Sure one could claim that this is an example of vehicles being supplied to the Separatists by looking into the vehicle types present. However I did not notice any evidence that they are crewed by active duty Russian Armed Forces personel, if you did, please do point it out.

p.s. I am all for an open discussion on the matter, however I do try (within my humble ability) to separate opinion/speculation from the proven facts.

kranz

09-04-14, 03:29 PM

I see, how did you come to this conclusion? Any clues from the video itself? Or do you have any other verfiable and reliable information?

here ye go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWB4X0LHRkI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TTuR1y-Ui4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sXIJ7bp8F8

Now you will probably claim they are Ukrainians wearing Russian uniforms and pretending to be Russians.:woot:

p.s. I am all for an open discussion on the matter, however I do try (within my humble ability) to separate opinion/speculation from the proven facts.

quite the opposite. You are a bad, brainwashed troll who makes even Skybird 'look good' in this thread. Please refrain from further posting.

Skybird

09-04-14, 05:34 PM

ikalugin - does it really matter? I think it is clear by now which side is meant when saying "Russian tanks".

The only question that matters is: where are Russian tanks standing now - and where are they going.

Oberon

09-04-14, 05:37 PM

I hear Odessa is nice this time of year... :yep:

mapuc

09-04-14, 05:54 PM

Do we not defend our countries

example

USA send troops to Mexico, but keep secret about it and there's no flag on the shoulder of the soldiers

On a forum there's threads and discussion about this and you can be sure that there will be American debater who demand prof that it is American soldier and it is American equipment

Markus

Oberon

09-04-14, 05:56 PM

Huh?

mapuc

09-04-14, 06:20 PM

Huh?

A member is asking for prof that it is Russian troops and Russian equipment in Eastern Ukraine

I can see he's from Moscow. The way He write I get the feeling he's defending his country against these accusation

So I made an example

Markus

Sbygneus

09-05-14, 12:43 AM

ikalugin

09-05-14, 02:13 AM

My point was actually that one should try to stay objective by looking into the evidence. Ie it is perfectly reasonable to speculate about Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine, however one should try to provide evidence when stating it as not a speculation.

Ie I try to fight my national bias (which exists for anyone) by looking into evidence and trying to make rational/logical conclusions from it. In the video itself I do not see any such evidence (of Russian Armed Forces operating the vehicles) and this is why I have asked if anyone did see something that I have missed.

kranz

09-05-14, 03:58 AM

Ie I try to fight my national bias

http://i.imgur.com/BN6cBx4.gif
btw, this is a forlorn fight for you.

(which exists for anyone)

how do you know? are you a 'sociology professor'?
I doubt.

Skybird

09-05-14, 05:09 AM

ikalugin, what about Russian Armed Forces operating their vehicles and wearing their uniforms with camouflaged national Russian emblems? ;)

To hide the national Russian ownership and army membership, is part of this way of warfare. To prevent identification and thus prevent being held responsible..

There were the British buccaneers once who officially were marauders and pirates of the sea, but in reality aided the Spanish fleet with official order by her British majesty. Formally, England had nothing to do with these raids. Practically it waged war against Spain.

And what about Russian tanks and heavy weapons provided by the regular Russian forces to separatist whom were also trained ny Russian specialists...

I do not mind whether Russian army units with unhidden insignias are standing in the Ukraine or not, or have their national emblems hidden or painted over, or have handed their equipment to Ukrainian Russians and separatists. Practically Russia is at war with the Ukraine, and all this lipstick and mascara only is for trying to spread doubt and preventing unity in the West.

I also remind of statements by captured as well as unsuspecting Russian soldiers - giving me personally the impression of not realising the dimension of what they were saying, they usually were extremely young - that confirmed that Russian soldiers are fighting in the Ukraine. And please do not tell me Putin version of it, that they all are doung it in their holidays and had gotten vacancy leave from the Russian army.

Me maybe will never see Russian emblems on uniforms and vehicles operating in the Donbass and around Luhansk. Well, terrorists in the ME often also do not wear uniforms, they also wave no hands and shout "I am the terrorist, shoot me!" . They even intentionally melt into the background of the civilians around them.

I have a lot of understanding for the Russian motivation, that is not to excuse all and everything, but I think I can differ between the world as I would like to have it, and the world as it really is, and I understand how it came this far and why Putin does what he does, by internal as well as external reasons. I am realist. But don't take from my understanding for Russia that I am naive.

Oberon

09-05-14, 06:04 AM

all this lipstick and mascara only is for trying to spread doubt and preventing unity in the West.

And a great job it's doing as well... :har: NATO hasn't been this united since 1949... :har:

Skybird

09-05-14, 06:19 AM

And a great job it's doing as well... :har: NATO hasn't been this united since 1949... :har:Becasue they do not believe it.

Also, the so-called feuilleton that in Germany traditionally is extremely far left-leaning, and much of the humoristically so-called German intelligenzia, fall for it, and warn and caution endlessly against not acting too much against Russia. Thatthe party Die Linke even demands NATO to not react at all, is no surprise, they are formed up to huge degrees by GDR-sympathisers and people who still transfigure the SED.

Anyhow, I still have not seen a robust adaptation of NATO to the new political realities. That rapid reaciton force they want to increase - is a paper tiger so far and in case of a determined attack again st the Baltic or Poland would not mean much difference.

Has you noted the big surprise by NATO chieftains when they hesitently had to admit that the Russians were able to mobilize 40,000+ troops near the border surprisingly fast? They too have watched the wars of 92, 03 - and they draw consequences.

If there is one lesson to be learned before any other - there it is.

Also, a valid counterstrategy/tactic against Russia's new little-green-men tactics of hidden warfare, NATO also has not found or formulated so far. You can counter that only by substantial permanent combat forces stationed in the according territories. Not by forces that are not there but are meant to be flown in later.

Any bidders?

A German piece on the German budget, and why it owuld be pontless currently to just in crease it.

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/ukraine-krise-soll-der-deutsche-wehretat-erhoeht-werden/10656062.html

I also point at that comment by an anonymous reader, saying this

Zuviel Häuptlinge kaum Macher

Bin seit jahren im Reservistenverband Berlin und sehe über Übungen was in der Truppe los ist. Es ist nur noch ein Spassverein. Wenige müssen die Arbeit machen (Auslandseinsätze etc.) und der Rest sitzt und wartet die Zeit bis zur Pensionierung ab (sogenannte Unterstützungskommandos). Das sind die Kostentreiber!! In den Kasernen laufen Heer, Marine und Luftwaffe rum, da viele Truppenteile aufgelöst worden sind und jetzt Personalüberhang herrscht.

Die Reservisten habe den Auftrag die ausscheidenenden Soldaten in der Schießausbildung zu unterstützen und anzuleiten (soweit keine Beorderung vorliegt) Seit diesem jahr können wir das nicht merh durchführen, da die Schießbahnen nur bis 16.00 Uhr geöffnet sind (wir gehen ja noch nebenbei arbeiten). Es wird alles runtergfahren. Das Material verrottet, da keine Leute mehr da sind die Ahnung haben oder es pflegen können.
Wir haben von der Truppe Waffen erhalten die waren so dreckig, da habe wir die Reinigungsketten nicht mal reinbekommen.
So siehtes aus. Geld ist genug da, nur es geht in die falschen Bereiche.

Anmerkung zum Problem G36. Die haben ein Problem, wir haben die ziviele Version und die Waffenrohre halten nicht mal 1000 Schuss. Wir haben sogenannte Überschläge in der Scheibe. D.h. das Geschoss überschlägt sich und fliegt nicht rotierend. Kenne jetzt zwei Fälle wo die Waffenrohre getauscht worden sind. Nach max. 1000 Schuß-. Kein Reservist der aktiv im Reservistenverband schießt kauft sich noch eine Waffe von HK die sind einfach zu Störanfällig und die Treffleistung ist na ja. Es gibt besseres für das Geld!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Das bmvg ist viel zu gross und unfelxibel. Des weiteren gibt es ohne Ende Dienststellen die der Bw unterstehen aber nichts direkt damit zu tun haben. Personalamt, Materialämter, Kreisämter, Rechnungsstelle etc. Wenn mann die mal ausgleidern würde und nur die reine Treuppe sehen würde, da würden alle weinen.
Until some years ago, I knew several professionals in the BW, who also saw operation time in Afghan istan. Already ten years ago they were complaining about right these things.

And when I get aorund in my city of Münster here, and pass German barracks and BW installations - and see that fat-bellied private nightwatch men in their 50s and who are employees of civil contractors stand at the gates and protect BW perimeters and buildings, then I wonder what kind of message it sends to our enemies in the ME or elsewhere that our glorious army cannot even afford to protect its assets by itself. It's hilarious. Pensioneers protecting the German army...?

ikalugin

09-05-14, 07:34 AM

Still there is a world of difference between supplying equipment, supplies and instructors (and what not) and when you have actual regular army units fighting in the war.

Thus I would always ask (for evidence) when people claim the later. The issue here is that both sides confuse the situation (Russia by denying everything and West by claiming that Russian Armed Forces actively participate in the war, both without objective proofs of their claims) and so both sides are as bad.

As to the "vocation" troops, border incidents have been happening before - for example Ukrainian troops crossing border. Morever even if presence of Russian troops on Ukranian soil was proven, it does not prove their direct participation in the war, they could be (for example) training or advising.

kranz

09-05-14, 07:59 AM

Still there is a world of difference between supplying equipment, supplies and instructors (and what not) and when you have actual regular army units fighting in the war.

no, there is not.

Thus I would always ask (for evidence) when people claim the later.

evidences confirming both the former and the latter were already posted but you keep denying them living in some SF world.

and West by claiming that Russian Armed Forces actively participate in the war,

artillery support IS active participation similarly to supplying with equipment, instructors and intelligence. All of these have been confirmed. Step outside your imaginative world and you will (most likely) see them.

Jimbuna

09-05-14, 08:24 AM

This debate should stay within the bounds of SubSim policy and rules...please keep it that way.

Onkel Neal

09-05-14, 08:49 AM

I'm becoming to be inclined agree with Gorby.
In March this year, Gorbachev wrote about the Ukrainian turmoil on his website and called for mass media to stop adding to the tension in order to prevent what he called “a tragic schism between two brotherly nations.”
http://rt.com/politics/185308-gorbachev-ukraine-crisis-dialogue/

Of course, he also says

the Ukrainian conflict can only be settled through dialogue, both inside the country and at an international level.

But is seems like nothing will be resolved with dialogue until after Russia carves off another piece of Ukraine for itself.

We (the West) have a red line, and that is NATO. Until that is crossed, we have no war to fight. If Putin tries his Sudetenland tricks on the Baltics, then we are at war.

Skybird

09-05-14, 08:59 AM

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/01/warning-merkel-on-russian-invasion-intel/

ikalugin

09-05-14, 09:33 AM

But is seems like nothing will be resolved with dialogue until after Russia carves off another piece of Ukraine for itself.

We (the West) have a red line, and that is NATO. Until that is crossed, we have no war to fight. If Putin tries his Sudetenland tricks on the Baltics, then we are at war.
This is dependent on if Ukranian authorities can reach a compromise on their policies with Russia. If they do not they would be further pressured. The Russian terms were not really changed throught the conflict and they are not really that impossible or horrible (no worse than IMF terms when they give you a loan I am sure).

That said at the moment such a compromise is becomming less and less likely.

Sadly, history teaches us that this was not the case in the past. This and the manuever room of the article 5 (discussed above) makes me less than certain that this would happen.

Oberon

09-05-14, 10:42 AM

Speaking of the Baltic states:

http://www.postimees.ee/2910947/kaitsepolitseinik-viidi-eesti-territooriumilt-relva-ahvardusel-venemaale

( http://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/2fjpvs/an_estonian_state_security_agency_officer/ )

ikalugin

09-05-14, 11:45 AM

Special forces operators doing their job? Or a false flag?

Oberon

09-05-14, 11:49 AM

Or mafia, they're not exactly under-armed in Russia post-Yeltsin.

ikalugin

09-05-14, 12:02 PM

Organised crime in Russia is not -that- bad anymore though I find it somewhat unclear as to what kind of armed force they were using.
p.s. - it appears that modern sub discussions are not very active atm :(, anyplace in the anglo sphere where I could find those?
p.p.s - it shows that there are some missing pages in this discussion (pages 97 98 99 are not availiable)

kranz

09-05-14, 12:07 PM

Special forces operators doing their job? Or a false flag?
Ukrainian saboteurs wearing Russian uniforms trained in Poland for US money.
Confirmed.

Oberon

09-05-14, 02:59 PM

Organised crime in Russia is not -that- bad anymore though I find it somewhat unclear as to what kind of armed force they were using

Well, to be fair it wouldn't be too difficult to jam police radios, and smoke grenades aren't that hard to come by. We'll see what happens.

p.s. - it appears that modern sub discussions are not very active atm :(, anyplace in the anglo sphere where I could find those?

You can blame the desert of subsims at the moment, and modern based subsims have rarely been as popular as WWII based ones.
In regards to other places, none that I know of, other chaps on here might know some.

p.p.s - it shows that there are some missing pages in this discussion (pages 97 98 99 are not availiable)

Yeah, that's a bug in the forum software, some threads have up to fifty odd extra pages that don't exist. Only happens on threads that have lots of pages. Bit wierd. :doh:

Jimbuna

09-06-14, 06:26 AM

The current ceasefire appears to be holding but the EU are intent on imposing more sanctions unless Russia withdraws the troops they deny exist in the eastern part of Ukraine.

I believe Putin to be guilty but is it wise to rub his nose in it?...he has a habit of throwing caution to the wind and using his trump card.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29093531

Oberon

09-06-14, 07:40 AM

Aye, would be a bit daft to keep on with the sanctions, especially since, as ikalugin has pointed out, you can't be 100% certain that those are Russian forces in East Ukraine and not Russian supplied equipment used by eastern Ukrainians. :hmmm: A point sure to be raised by Moscow. :doh:

kranz

09-06-14, 08:22 AM

would be a bit daft to keep on with the sanctions
and not Russian supplied equipment used by eastern Ukrainians.
dat logic.

afaik international regulations forbid selling weapons to countries engaged in war conflicts. I can't really believe that all the equipment used by the pro-russian terrorists is the 'ex-ukrainian' gear captured after the Revolution. And to be it doesn't really matter if this is russian gear operated by russians or russian gear operated by the terrorists. One of the leaders of the terrorists already declared that they wouldn't stop unless their two so-called 'republics' were given independence or incorporated to russia. Can't see that happening while not being supported by russia.:) (unless they have their own factories etc).
Besides you keep forgetting that Russia imposed counter-sanctions which might not have been noticed yet in your sleepy and blissful Suffolk or Tyne and Wear.

ikalugin

09-06-14, 08:55 AM

And if there are Russian troops in Ukraine, how would EU assertain that they have left?

Considering that and my previous point (that sanctions would not outweight critical Russian national interests in Ukraine) the new sanctions have no meaning within the current Ukranian crisis. Thus one has to look for their reasons elsewhere.

Jimbuna

09-06-14, 08:59 AM

Steve....How do I answer that :) :hmmm:

Skybird

09-06-14, 09:35 AM

Currently, people are not dying, or less people are dying. Taken for itself, that is good, compared to a war being fought.

But politically the acceptance of that cease-fire is a de facto defeat for Poroshenko, and I assume he and his party will pay the price for that in the upcoming elections. It seems his army was no longer capable to continue the fight currently with any realistic chances. Seen that way it may speak for him that he does not needlessly sacrifice his soldiers just to keep up his ego and political fate. On the other hand, he is one of those oligarchs, and one should never forget that, not for one moment.

The undisputed winner is Putin so far. He took a gamble, he surprised and bluffed the west and caught him on the wrong foot - and he will get away with it. He has gotten all his objective of which i would assume he had them: the Crimean is Russian, the Ukraine de facto is split, the Eastern areas still are not Russian-owned so mst not be paid for and economically maintained by Russia, but Kiev, a threat to always advance forther along the coast is a big stick for any upcomign negotiations, the Russian influnce in Kiev'S internal politics is secured because in case of autonomy for the Eastern provinces this could onkly mean a federalist structure of the ukraine. A NATO membership is extremely unlikely, so is an EU membership. Game, set and match Putin, if the situation does not dramatically change.

The fiscal sanctions the Russian central bank currently tries to compensate for by using the same methods that the Fed and the ECB are using: they print money. It will not do Russia worse than what it does America or the EU, but it will make Russia needing to suffer the same consequences from that fiscal lunacy - I mean policy, like America and Europe.

Another winner there is in the background: China.

If the cease fir eholds and leads to negotiations, Russia most likely will get what it wants: an unadmitted de facto acceptance of the status quo on the ground.

There is a chance for two other scenarios: Russia just trying on to endlessly poke Ukraine's eyes and trying to unsettle the state without and end in time, just to destabilize it and by that securing Russian influence. And a furthe rRussian advance in a bit for grabbing more Ukrainian territory. I see both scenarios currently as less likely than the scenairo I just explained before. Becasue the scenario I explained before maximises Russian benefits and gains while reducing their costs. It's the best possible outcome for Russia. The other two scenarios cost them more and give them less.

Question is whether Putin ticks by this logic, or not.

Some say there is one good thing for the West, that is that the whole issue served as a wake-up call for NATO. But so far the reactions only were symbolic, and the decisions announced lack substance that would really make a difference. The financial situation in he West is just one reason for that.

ikalugin

09-06-14, 12:59 PM

Well if Poroshenko accepts the Russian terms, then we would try to play the separatists to agree to a ceasefire. The issue here is that an illusion exists in the West of Putin's complete control over the separatists, which is not quite the case.

Ie even though there is a degree of control (funding, supplies wise, ect) they are still doing their own thing. So if the terms are not acceptable (such as Putin requesting a delay in referendum) they would refuse.

And while our leadership may obtain it's original objectives by leaving the status quo, this may not be the case with the Russian population and the local people (ie separatists), who would ask for at least the "big Novorussia" or better still - control of the entire Ukraine. Morever out leadership may feel that the original terms (federalisation ect) may be inadequate and thus ask for more.

So even though ceasefire exists (allowing both parties to arm and prepare) the war is not over yet and may even turn into a "frozen conflict".

P.s. The true winner of course is the PRC. Did very little, secured their northern border by gaining a BFF, got a nice high tech export market, weakened the EU.

Flamebatter90

09-06-14, 01:06 PM

Steve....How do I answer that :) :hmmm:
Positively of course. When in doubt, say yes. :subsim:

Oberon

09-06-14, 01:16 PM

I think putting more sanctions on Putin is going to be as affective as throwing packing material at a ferret:

https://cdn.andrewlorente.com/1e58429b0bfc43fb124d9b6e8be04fae1f18ce84

Skybird

09-06-14, 01:19 PM

So even though ceasefire exists (allowing both parties to arm and prepare) the war is not over yet and may even turn into a "frozen conflict".

The whole concept of turning the Ukraine into a federalist nation so that the Russian provinces can notoriously make sure there is unrest an dinstability and so weakening Kiev, is a "frozen conflict". A peaceful, stabile, harmonic Ukraine is not in the Kremlins interest. the more stable the Ukraine is, the less influence the Kremlin has.

The separatists may not follow each and everey command, but they play Putins ball, no doubt on that. They also depend on Russian military aid and weapons - without that, the ukrainian army wad close to pushing them out of Donetsk and Luhansk. The wind of war changed not before the Russians intervened more massively. The separatists repeatedly adapted their choices of words and demands according to what the Kremlin announced just hours before. There is no talk of independence and joining Russia currently, but a demand for autonomy. Which has a federalist constitution for the ukraine as a precondition.

Again, the trick for Moscow is to keep Kiev off balance and keeping an influence in its inner politics, with the eastern region being the tool for that - while not needing to pay for these Eastern provinces, but leave the bill to Kiev and the EU. Thus Moscow demanded today that the EU should not so much spend time to think about new sanctions, but how to invest in the East and help the reconstruction. ;)

There is a nice Gambit possible for the West now, but that would only be played by a cold-hearted bastard like me, and not by our sensible, wellmeaning political elites of philantropists. :cool: The West could decide to completely boycott any economic aid and financial assistance for the ukraine. Kiev would collapse and would be incapable to take care of the destroyed infrastructure. That leaves Moscow with just two choices: either it does not care and risks that the people in the separatists' areas turn away from Russia in great dissappointment when they see their situation not improving while having spend monmths with poutting their hopes into mother Russia's help, and then there would be a risk that they voluntarily join Kiew again, and the game is lost for Moscow. Or Moscow decides to accept the poisoned gambit pawn and starts to pay for the Eastern provinces - then it gets financially injured and loses more "blood" (=money) in an effort to rebuild the infrastructure and to secure the supplying of both the areas of Donbass and Luhansk - and the Crimean. Financially, that would be costly.

Moscow would still control these places then - but it would need to pay for it, and a high price it would be, additionally to the sanctions.