Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

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. 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?

[TarJak]

Is Kissinger right? http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-0...ophecy/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]

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]

A unnecessary post Sorry

Markus

[Skybird]

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]

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_a..._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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

I'm afraid this is like saying China cannot deal with Christianity. You are punching at the wind.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._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.

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]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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

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]

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

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?



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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

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]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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

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?



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.

Agreed....guaranteed mutual destruction keeps both parties in check.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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/fie...a-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.

[Skybird]

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]

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