SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Here we go again-Ukraine once again

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Here we go again-Ukraine once again (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=249066)

I don't see it that way, there does not seem to be much appetite in Russia to expand beyond Crimea and Donbas.

The Moscow Times which is the only real objective independent english language publication on Russia IMHO has had many articles lately on the buildup of Russian forces:

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/...ting-up-a73457

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/...-tactic-a73461

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/...nto-war-a73480

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/...or-says-a73500

The main takeaway is that the buildup is probably not a sign of an imminent invasion.

Maybe Putin just wants to test Biden, anyway there's not much to counter with, even with the NATO.
Or a new Truman doctrine like "Not further." :hmmm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat (Post 2741086)

joining NATO would be a major propaganda coup for Ukraine since it would put NATO firmly on its side in the conflict, but for NATO, it would be a lose/lose proposition:

1. under art. 5, NATO has to help any member under attack. Does that mean that NATO would be in a state of war with Russia has soon as Ukraine joins? Can NATO be at war with Russia in Ukraine , but be at peace in the rest of the world? How do we keep this from spinning into World War 3?

2. Presumably, they could carve the present occupation from art. 5 obligations, but would that in effect mean that NATO is recognizing and legitimising the Russian occupation in Donbass/Crimea?

3. would NATO troops be on the frontline in the Donbass? What happens when NATO troops are killed or wounded, will NATO retaliate? How far will NATO go, will it launch an offensive to reconquer Donbas? How will Russia react? How do you keep this thing from spinning out into World War 3?

4. What if Ukraine joins, but NATO does nothing but offer moral support. This will show the alliance is a useless "paper tiger". How will say the Baltic States stand up to future Russian pressure knowing the art. 5 garantee is not absolute?

No matter how you game it out, Ukraine joining NATO in the current situation is a potential disaster.

The question is whether the Russian would let it come so far as to the Ukraine accomplishing NATO membership. I think they will escalate before the ink gets put on the treaty. At least that is what I would do if I were the Russians.

But maybe they are more pacifist than I am. :D

A "NATOnised" Ukraine imo is unacceptable for them. Not after their experiences with the Eastern enlargmentent of NATO 20 years ago. Their older militaries are still traumatized by those events, and I think Putin did not like it either.

Anyhow, a new member to any kind of alliance should be a contribution to that alliance, not just a burden and risk with no profits to be gained. Adding weak members do not make an alliance stronger, but weakens it. We can see that clearly in the current status of NATO. Increasing a group of weak members with another weak member just - increases the number of weak members. And we already have problems enough (that at least the WEuropeans for themselves are unable and/or unwilling to solve).

That'll put a big rip in Stalin's postWWII Iron Curtain...No disPUTIN' that!:arrgh!:

I seriously doubt NATO will allow Ukraine to join for the reasons I laid out, but Ukraine does not have to join anyway. NATO is already providing a lot of support in terms of training and military equipment. Several NATO countries have troops in Ukraine for the training mission.

Ukraine armed forces are already much more capable than in 2014-15. Back then, UKR had a lot of obsolete equipment, poorly trained troops, corrupt officer corps. Now, they have a lot of brand new U.S. vehicles, supplies, equipment, many of their troops have received extended NATO training. For example, Ukraine now has several hundred Javelins ATGMs which would put a serious dent in Russian forces should they launch an offensive.

I could be wrong, but Catfish thread(this one) doesn't it somehow go well together with my thread ??

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sho...d.php?t=249066

Markus

^ you are right, if the threads could be merged please?

Ukraine
North Atlantic

:timeout::hmmm::hmmm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish (Post 2741153)

^ you are right, if the threads could be merged please?

Not only merge them, also make some changes in the headlines.

E.g
Here we go again-Ukraine once again, want to speed up Nato membership

Only a proposal

Markus

^ Thanks! :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 2741157)

Ukraine
North Atlantic
:timeout::hmmm::hmmm:

Well it is about the always quoted worldwide "full-spectrum dominance", and it is not the NATO as a whole that sets the goals, but what its main member (read USA) decides. Freedom has to be defended [sic] everywhere and pre-emptive, from Afghanistan to Nicaragua, to the Pacific, and tomorrow from the the world :03:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 2740265)

I really hope the US does not sent troops to the Ukraine.

Can you imagine if Trump had done that. :ping:

Gee I hope we dont send U.S. troops to the Ukraine either. :roll: We had a chance to inquire and question, we had a chance to find out what may have come of better relations. Instead war profiteers, headlines, political hacks, and fanboys deemed it a bad idea and collusion. And the lemmings swallowed the pill.

Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only "stupid" people, or fools, would think that it is bad! We.....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 7, 2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal (Post 2741220)

Can you imagine if Trump had done that. :ping:

:haha: Ok
But then he never would have done it, no instant triumph and nothing to gain in the eyes of his followers, so also not for him personally.

The former President was a President, a little majority of the American voters disliked and whatever he did or didn't was wrong according to every ordinary person's expertise.

Had former President sent troops to Ukraine-A verbal havoc would have occurred.

Today USA have a President which seems to be liked if he choose to send troops to Ukraine - A verbal congratulations would arise

Clap-Clap-Clap...Right thing to do, bla bla bla. He is by all mean the best President we have, bla bla bla.

So you see it's not the question whether it's correct or not, it is a question about whether the President is popular or not.

I'm talking about what politicians, media and people outside USA would think.

Markus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2741283)

Well the CIA was there but it seems it did not help much at that time. I have no idea whether it would be a good idea or not to send troops to Ukraine now.
On one hand Russia might feel provoked, on the other hand it might think it could have a walk-over and annex the rest of the Ukraine as easy as it did last time, "defending" the "real" russian population.
Strategically spoken, Ukraine is close to Bulgaria, Turkey and Syriah. But then Russia already has invaded parts of the Ukraine and "secured" Sevastopol for itself.

Quote:

Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only "stupid" people, or fools, would think that it is bad! We.....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 7, 2017

So you approve Nord stream II i guess? Like Trump? :D

Approve of Nord Stream 2? To a certain extent I do, as peace, trade and commerce, is in my opinion always a better alternative than to amassing troops and tanks at neighboring borders. However if we did establish better relations with Russia there is no guarantee Nord Stream 2 would be completed. We might convince Russia to continue the flow of energy through Ukraine instead of Germany. Remember the original reason for NATO is to keep the Russians out and Germany down. :D

Luckily for Germany though the military industrial complex and its profiteers convinced everyone Trump had to go. Trade and better relations were not what the Generals wanted. The headlines did say Trump should listen to his Generals! Meanwhile Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Finland enjoy trade and allow Putin's Nord Stream 2 project to lay pipe in their waters.

And now everyone in the U.S. is sitting around with their thumbs up their butt hoping we dont send troops into Ukraine :roll:. Which baffles the hell out of me because that's exactly what they voted for. Because you know... Trump bad man :har:

A little off topic question

Have a discussion with a friend, who says that NATO have about 15 times more material and soldiers than Russia have.

Have tried to find a special article or video clip where some Danish expert on European military said in an interview on Danish tv some years ago

(From memory)
When it comes to Europe - Russia is stronger, if you count USA as a part of NATO, NATO is stronger.

Which of these two is correct ?

Markus

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc (Post 2741307)

US is a part of NATO NATO has 30 countries
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/nato_countries.htm