Military Crisis in Ukraine

[Doc Rikowski]

Too much propaganda driven posts about the Kossovo war and a lot of false and/or inexact information imho.

Anyway since it would lead to a huge off topic discussion I'll just leave it there.

Then again objectivity in here is not much appreciated (let alone facts) unless, as I said before, one supports one of the two sides.

Try to be neutral next time. It helps clearing the mind. Just a suggestion...

Also avoid insulting people for their opinions. It also helps.

[Raavi]

Too much propaganda driven posts about the Kossovo war and a lot of false and/or inexact information imho.

 

So you can refute facts, huh, interesting. How is that time-machine working out for you, Doctor? If you're going to make claims like that you better be able to back them up. Elaborate on what exactly is false and/or inexact in reference to the posts about Kosovo. Please, humor me.

 

Or is it just that you can't come up with a rebuttal that will even begin to hold ground because the arguments that were presented against yours are grounded in facts, and blew your, what I can only describe as kremlin apologist-rhetoric out of the water?

Edited March 19, 2014 by Raavi

[Dingdongs]

 

And K2, I think if the US launched an Iraq style operation into Russia and got close to Moscow Putin would almost certainly employ tactical nukes on US soldiers and marines making that land push, and perhaps on the sailors and airmen supporting them.

It's possible, as I've said. But for the first war with Russia, think modernized version of Desert Storm. There might be some troops on the ground, but at the periphery. Crimea, almost certainly. Any other territories Russia land-grabs by then as well. Perhaps some other strategic regions in the South of Russia. But they wouldn't march on Moscow. That would cause huge casualties to NATO forces and Russian civilians, and nobody needs that. That is unlikely to trigger even a tactical nuclear response. And hopefully, if it does, missile defense forces will be ready for it. Still, it is a big risk. No doubt about that.

 

If there is a second war with Russia, one that involves a full scale invasion, I'm pretty sure the plan is for Russia not to have any delivery systems left for tactical nukes. You need very large caliber artillery or cruise missiles for that, and these will be destroyed in the first war. Any air force Russia manages to rebuild would be neutralized before it can drop a nuke.

 

Again, it's still a risk. And if things get really bad, there might be attempts of suicide bombing with tactical nukes. But by that point, Russia would cease to exist as a country. Unlike Iraq, I really don't see any reason to linger in Russia past the point of securing and dismantling nuclear objects. So it's definitely possible to orchestrate the whole thing giving Russia very little chance to actually make use of their nuclear arsenal.

 

 

But it is war, and there are risks. If and when the war between NATO and Russia would be fought, it would be with understanding that there exists a risk of nuclear strikes from tactical to full scale first-strike attempted by Russia. I do think Putin is banking on West never having the balls to accept these risks, but he seems to be unaware of the fact that behind all-talk politicians that are sent to assemblies, there stand people who are as cold and calculating as he is. And the moment the risks of Russia's expansion are going to exceed risks of the nuclear strike, all of the talks are going to end. I just hope there are enough people in Russia who also understand this to prevent it from getting that far.

 

But would a desert storm style war be an effective means of stopping Russia if it came to that? You know how the Russian government thinks and operates much better than I do, but I don't see Putin and the powers that be in Russia just totally falling back and giving up because NATO takes back Crimea and maybe sticks 100-200 thousand troops in peripheral zones.

[K^2]

But would a desert storm style war be an effective means of stopping Russia if it came to that? You know how the Russian government thinks and operates much better than I do, but I don't see Putin and the powers that be in Russia just totally falling back and giving up because NATO takes back Crimea and maybe sticks 100-200 thousand troops in peripheral zones.

It's not a matter of giving up when you have no aviation, fleet, armor, or a whole lot in terms of transportation network. Russia simply wouldn't be able to move troops around effectively enough to re-take these territories, requiring just a minimal NATO presesense, or just armies of the nation whose territory it actually is.

 

You take out Russian air force, artillery, and navy, and Ukrainians are perfectly capable of holding Crimean peninsula. Maybe not right now, but hopefully, they'll get their stuff together in the mean time as well. They are doing pretty well so far in most of the country.

[Svip]

So is Germany going to get Königsberg back?

[sivispacem]

Too much propaganda driven posts about the Kossovo war and a lot of false and/or inexact information imho.

If you're going to "leave it at that", don't leave it at a general dismissal of well-supported views with "err, this is wrong but I'm not going to say any more on the issue". That's tantamount to an admission that you've been outmaneuvered and have nothing more to say on the subject, yet still want to insist that you're right. And I'm sorry but all that's doing is damaging your credibility.

 

 

Try to be neutral next time.

This is just getting silly now. I'm not sure what on earth gives you the idea that your views are neutral and balanced, because they're not. You've been labelled a Kremlin apologist by several people with good reason- your persistent use of false analogies and hazy insinuations of Western "bad-ness" to justify a military incursion against a sovereign state; the establishment of a puppet administration solely for the purposes of the annexation of territory. You are in effect defending aggressive Russian expansionism under the guise of being impartial.

 

Would you care to explain to me what makes you think you're being impartial on the issue?

 

Whilst we're on the subject, you can stop the rhetoric about "insulting people for their opinions". You're claiming your views are factual, not opinion-based, and also insinuating that anyone who disagrees with them is swayed by propaganda and biased. Which is insulting in itself coming from someone whose such an atrocious hypocrite on the subject that they accuse others of bias and completely fail to acknowledge their own blatant prejudices.

[Clem Fandango]

Then again objectivity in here is not much appreciated (let alone facts) unless, as I said before, one supports one of the two sides.

Heh? From what I can see, the people you're arguing against- save a few- agree that the West aren't acting from a position of moral authority and haven't really downplayed the Western role in this conflict. It's you who is pretending not to support Russia yet defending its actions when they are objectively indefensible. Are you a contrarian, or have you been soaking up Russian propaganda?

[K^2]

So is Germany going to get Königsberg back?

If everyone starts taking back territory that has been given to or conquered by Russia, it will be down to Moscow Region. And maybe Alaska. Except, that, somehow, doesn't even register with Russian population.

[Svip]

 

So is Germany going to get Königsberg back?

If everyone starts taking back territory that has been given to or conquered by Russia, it will be down to Moscow Region. And maybe Alaska. Except, that, somehow, doesn't even register with Russian population.

 

 

Hey, Königsberg was German before it was Russian. Muscovy and Novogrod were quite Russian. And give Finland it's other arm back! (Finns will understand what I am talking about.)

[Creed Bratton]

Drawing a parallel between Kosovo and Crimea is insincere at best, and Putin knows it. Is it true that international law was broken in the case of Kosovo? Yes, depending on your perspective. A lot of things were wrong with that. But the result of the referendum was an actual will of the people. And it wasn't held at gunpoint. Every international standard was upheld. And if you take international law as the will of the international community, then the case of Kosovo wasn't illegal because the majority of the international community recognized its independence. Like I said, it depends on your perspective. There's no point in shifting perspectives in case of Crimea. Putin is stealing a piece of a sovereign country. It's medieval sh*t.

[K^2]

Hey, Königsberg was German before it was Russian. Muscovy and Novogrod were quite Russian. And give Finland it's other arm back! (Finns will understand what I am talking about.)

I'm pretty sure I did not contradict that. But good catch. Moscow and Novgorod regions. And maybe Alaska. Definitely not Leningrad Region^*. That's conquered territory.

 

^* Yes. They renamed Leningrad to St. Petersburg, but it's still Leningrad Region. When you enter Russia, they have an amnesty bin for common sense at the customs.

[Doc Rikowski]

EDIT: nvm, lost interest

Edited March 19, 2014 by Doc Rikowski

[sivispacem]

The more I think about it, the more parallels I can see between Putin and Miloević. Both cut their teeth in behind-the-scenes roles in Warsaw Pact governments, both rose to positions of power in the post-Soviet era, both obsessed with the concept of nationalist expansionism. Both figures tied closely with political corruption and criminal enterprise, both employers of nationalist rhetoric, paramilitary forces and state sponsored violence to produce political cohesion. Both responsible for the mass murder of civilians in campaigns over a period of several decades, primarily committed against ethnic minorities in breakaway regions.

[poklane]

Now Russia is concerned about Russians in Estonia: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-russia-estonia-idUSBREA2I1J620140319

Also, it looks like Ukraine may pull all their troops out of Crimea, essentially giving up on Crimea. EDIT: It looks like Ukraine will appeal to the UN to recognize Crimea as a demilitarized zone. These zones are clear of military (soldiers) presence, and as an example: they are already in place at the border between North Korea and South Korea and between the Turkish and Greek parts of Cyprus (which is protected by the UN).

Edited March 19, 2014 by poklane

[Stephan90]

Now Russia is concerned about Russians in Estonia: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-russia-estonia-idUSBREA2I1J620140319

Also, it looks like Ukraine may pull all their troops out of Crimea, essentially giving up on Crimea.

 

As long as the EU and the USA aren't doing anything but only speaking out threats Russia will do one step after another. Transnistria in Moldowa could also be the next aim. Those who think that Putin is satisfied with the Crimea are naive in my opinion.

[Frank Brown]

 

Now Russia is concerned about Russians in Estonia: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-russia-estonia-idUSBREA2I1J620140319

Also, it looks like Ukraine may pull all their troops out of Crimea, essentially giving up on Crimea.

 

As long as the EU and the USA aren't doing anything but only speaking out threats Russia will do one step after another. Transnistria in Moldowa could also be the next aim. Those who think that Putin is satisfied with the Crimea are naive in my opinion.

 

 

Russia won't attack a NATO or EU member state.

 

I wonder if 5'5" Vladdy has Napoleon complex.

[Stephan90]

 

 

Now Russia is concerned about Russians in Estonia: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-russia-estonia-idUSBREA2I1J620140319

Also, it looks like Ukraine may pull all their troops out of Crimea, essentially giving up on Crimea.

 

As long as the EU and the USA aren't doing anything but only speaking out threats Russia will do one step after another. Transnistria in Moldowa could also be the next aim. Those who think that Putin is satisfied with the Crimea are naive in my opinion.

 

 

Russia won't attack a NATO or EU member state.

 

I wonder if 5'5" Vladdy has Napoleon complex.

 

 

The strategic importance of Ukraine and especially Crimea (regarding the oil and gas ressources) are bigger than Estonia and yet the West has not even started with heavy economical sanctions atleast. So do you think it will play a role that Estonia is member of the EU and the NATO and Ukraine not yet? I don't think it would matter when sh*t gets heavy.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Stephan90

[Frank Brown]

 

 

 

Now Russia is concerned about Russians in Estonia: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-russia-estonia-idUSBREA2I1J620140319

Also, it looks like Ukraine may pull all their troops out of Crimea, essentially giving up on Crimea.

 

As long as the EU and the USA aren't doing anything but only speaking out threats Russia will do one step after another. Transnistria in Moldowa could also be the next aim. Those who think that Putin is satisfied with the Crimea are naive in my opinion.

 

 

Russia won't attack a NATO or EU member state.

 

I wonder if 5'5" Vladdy has Napoleon complex.

 

 

The strategic importance of Ukraine and especially Crimea (regarding the oil and gas ressources) are bigger than Estonia and yet the West has not even started with heavy economical sanctions atleast. So do you think it will play a role that Estonia is member of the EU and the NATO and Ukraine not yet? I don't think it would matter when sh*t gets heavy.

 

 

NATO members are obligated to defend each other during a defensive war. And in what way is Crimea a strategic location? The Russians were already leasing a naval base from the Ukrainians until 2044, I believe.

[Stephan90]

 

 

 

 

Now Russia is concerned about Russians in Estonia: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-russia-estonia-idUSBREA2I1J620140319

Also, it looks like Ukraine may pull all their troops out of Crimea, essentially giving up on Crimea.

 

As long as the EU and the USA aren't doing anything but only speaking out threats Russia will do one step after another. Transnistria in Moldowa could also be the next aim. Those who think that Putin is satisfied with the Crimea are naive in my opinion.

 

 

Russia won't attack a NATO or EU member state.

 

I wonder if 5'5" Vladdy has Napoleon complex.

 

 

The strategic importance of Ukraine and especially Crimea (regarding the oil and gas ressources) are bigger than Estonia and yet the West has not even started with heavy economical sanctions atleast. So do you think it will play a role that Estonia is member of the EU and the NATO and Ukraine not yet? I don't think it would matter when sh*t gets heavy.

 

 

NATO members are obligated to defend each other during a defensive war. And in what way is Crimea a strategic location? The Russians were already leasing a naval base from the Ukrainians until 2044, I believe.

 

 

On one hand Crimea has a big economical importance

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/06/ukraine-crisis-great-power-oil-gas-rivals-pipelines

 

On the other hand, who would have guaranteed Putin that the new Ukrainian government would not try to get the Russian navy out of Crimea despite the valid contract between Ukraine and Russia?

[Doc Rikowski]

No comment. Just news.

 

Former IDF Maidan militia commander talks.

http://www.jta.org/2014/02/28/news-opinion/world/in-kiev-an-israeli-militia-commander-fights-in-the-streets-and-saves-lives

 

General prosecutor says foreigners were identified among Maidan snipers.

https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/prosecutor-generals-office-ukrainian-opposition-unrelated-to-maidan-snipers-339952.html

 

Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet tells EU's Cathy Ashton about claim that provocateurs were behind Maidan killings.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/ukraine-bugged-call-catherine-ashton-urmas-paet

Edited March 20, 2014 by Doc Rikowski

[sivispacem]

Unless protesters had somehow managed to get hold of the armour, weapons and equipment of the Ukrainian Berkut squads, snuck into buildings with armed military guards and set up at vantage points on secure military and government facilities that, as far as we are aware, were only accessible to members of the security forces, that theory is, as the Guardian outlines, nothing more than a conspiracy. No evidence, based on conjecture and second-hand information, illogical, impractical, fails Occam's Razor.

 

The reporting about IDF members being involved in the protests is certainly interesting, though not at all surprising. After all, Moscow had been shipping members of the FSB and Alpha Units over the border to act as agent provocateurs so the idea that ethnic Ukrainians from elsewhere might return to assist in resisting state-sponsored violence in response to peaceful protest isn't enormously shocking.

[Max]

The BBC is reporting that Ukraine is making plans to extract all military personnel and their families from Crimea, essentially forfeiting the peninsula to Russia. My feeling is that in the event of war this is a tactical move to concentrate forces and not have isolated and vulnerable units across the region which would need to be reached. Do our resident defence analysts agree or do you think they're simply backing down?

 

Ukraine knows they cannot dislodge Russia from Crimea currently, however any more aggressive moves on the Kremlin's behalf into Eastern Ukraine it would make sense to have all Ukrainian forces available, not several thousand holed up in bases.

[sivispacem]

I agree inasmuch as it makes little operational sense to have a sizeable contingent of the Ukrainian military- particularly highly trained marines- essentially inoperable. There's not a great deal that Ukraine can do about the thousands of Russian special forces on Crimean soil but destroying all materiel they can't take with them and shipping back off to the mainland strengthens the military in the event of a further incursion into the mainland. Crimea is of far more strategic importance to Russia than Ukraine.

[Doc Rikowski]

No comments. Just news.

 

Controversial subject.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/140313/who-were-the-maidan-snipers-ukraine-security-head

 

Maidan snipers were a "Third Force, not Ukrainian" says current Interior Minister (use Chrome translate if possible).

Investigation ongoing.

http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/politics/3314742-krovoprolytye-v-ukrayne-sprovotsyrovala-neukraynskaia-tretia-syla-avakov

Edited March 20, 2014 by Doc Rikowski

[sivispacem]

I don't find it particularly surprising that people associated with the old regime are claiming that the shootings were orchestrated by the protesters. No-one disputes the fact that there were armed individuals in the protest movement, the question is what role, if any, they had in the mass shootings. All the footage seen anywhere, regardless of source, primarily shows individuals in police armour armed with semi-automatic SVD and SVDS rifles, firing from higher vantage points down into the crowded square.

 

I find the idea that the snipers were members of the Russian security services far more compelling than the idea they were foreign mercenaries or protesters. That at least explains the access to military grade equipment and weaponry, as well as how they were able to gain access to military and police facilities to use as vantage points.

[Doc Rikowski]

No comments. Just news.

 

3 new Ukrainian parliament members (Svoboda) beat up TV CEO.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/head-ukraine-tv-beaten-camera-far-right-parliament-members-article-1.1727271

 

Russian Propaganda vs Ukrainian Censorship

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/russian-state-media-pushes-propaganda-war-article-1.1722764

 

Ukraine PM says no to NATO and puts off agreement on economic issues.

Good relations with Russia not precluded.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-ukraine-crisis-nato-idUSBREA2H0D720140318

Edited March 20, 2014 by Doc Rikowski

[K^2]

Doc, could you please just post a link to RT and be done with it? Because they do the "no comments, just news," in exactly the same style. Except, they, at least, are getting payed by Russian government. I don't know what you're getting out of it.

[Misbegotten cad]

Now western medias claim that Putin is planning world domination.

 

I really doubt it. In this day and age no sane person would think world domination even possible. I mean in the era of Hitler, yes, then it could have happened, but these days people are just too independent to ever submit under a single ruler.

And Putin knows this very well.

 

So no, he's not after world domination, he just wants to make Russia better and stronger nation.

[Svip]

Stronger? Sure, but better? Better for whom?

[Doc Rikowski]

Doc, could you please just post a link to RT and be done with it? Because they do the "no comments, just news," in exactly the same style. Except, they, at least, are getting payed by Russian government. I don't know what you're getting out of it.

 

Didn't know Reuters and NY Daily News were pro Russia...

 

Is there any news site you can link me to that suits your partiality on the subject so that it won't disturb you when I post news about it?

 

Fearing simple facts reported by hundreds of sources?

 

Why don't you put a disclaimer up there warning people that some news sites are not welcome in the section?

 

Cause if posting unbiased news links (if not blatantly pro West) from well known mainstream media means being pro Russia then I don't know what would please your prejudices better.

 

Just link me to whatever you like and I'll post news using it as a source.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Doc Rikowski