Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

acmilano

Military Crisis in Ukraine

Recommended Posts

Svip

Russia has little to no interest in attacking Kiev. With or without Kerry there. Russia has its Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, and they are intent on keeping that military base. In addition, the new government in Kiev is largely anti-Russian, and several Neo Nazi elements of the new government (four ministers are from far right movements) are worrying ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine and particularly in Crimea, where they form a majority of the demographics.

 

Crimea being Ukrainian is also a more modern construct. Historically it was neither Russian nor Ukrainian, but Tatarian. The Tatars was expelled in 1944 when Stalin accused them of aiding Hitler, and they were moved to Uzbekistan, from whence they dreamt of returning to Crimea. In 1956, Russian SSR gave Ukrainian SSR the territory of Crimea as a symbolic gesture. However, since all of the USSR was run from Moscow anyway, this was not seem as a problem for Moscow.

 

It would not be entirely unreasonable if Crimea became independent or a part of Russia.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forty

Why is this topic pinned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Why is this topic pinned?

 

I suppose because this topic is important. Because discussing this will help defuse the crisis. The more you post, the more likely Putin is to redraw his troops.

 

Imagine if he saw your post and thought you'd think topic was largely irrelevant, he'd be convinced he could take the whole Eastern Europe without consequence!

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geralt of Rivia

 

Why is this topic pinned?

 

I suppose because this topic is important. Because discussing this will help defuse the crisis. The more you post, the more likely Putin is to redraw his troops.

 

Imagine if he saw your post and thought you'd think topic was largely irrelevant, he'd be convinced he could take the whole Eastern Europe without consequence!

 

He'd take his post as seriously as he takes Tony Abbott.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EyeMacHunt

 

 

Why is this topic pinned?

 

I suppose because this topic is important. Because discussing this will help defuse the crisis. The more you post, the more likely Putin is to redraw his troops.

 

Imagine if he saw your post and thought you'd think topic was largely irrelevant, he'd be convinced he could take the whole Eastern Europe without consequence!

 

He'd take his post as seriously as he takes Tony Abbott.

 

 

At least he would take Abbott more seriously than Ronald McDonald's sister.

 

But Abbott really should choose his words more carefully.

Edited by EyeMacHunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geralt of Rivia

I have a really bad feeling, especially with the reported explosions, that something's gotta give.

 

I smell war coming. I don't want it, but I just feel it. I hope I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith

Hey, stop trying to tarnish the 'Abbott' good name you guys.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

diane-abbott.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geralt of Rivia

That's old. Of course Ukraine is gonna mobilize it's troops, it got invaded.

 

Nothing has happened yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

 

No two nuclear states would militarily engage each other directly. I believe nuclear weapons completely fulfill their purpose as deterrents, and understanding of the concept of mutually assured destruction, or just the high chance of having your country obliterated prevents leaders of nuclear-armed countries from ever engaging each other directly.

I believe this to be grossly incorrect. Even Waltz in many of his writings on nuclear weapons did not hold that they would all out prevent war. It is VERY possible for great powers to go to war with one another conventionally and not use nuclear weapons. When it comes down to the US pounding on the gates of Moscow, then perhaps nuclear weapons would become an issue. A limited war like this that would likely result simply in Russian forces being pushed back home? Nuclear weapons aren't an issue. The idea that NATO would not go to war against Russia simply because they have nukes is frankly ridiculous.

 

With Kerry now going to Kiev on Tuesday, do you honestly think if Russian tanks roll into Kiev, the US military and NATO are going to do absolutely nothing about it?

 

I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you too mate. I'm unfamiliar with Waltz - I'll try to read up on him if I have time. Yes there is a possibility of anything happening, but the possiility of two nuclear states going to war is absolutely minuscule. I can think of an example of it happening once in the past - when India and Pakistan has border clashes in 1999 (about a year after Pakistan's first successful nuclear test), but Pakistan denied involvement of it's regulars until it was found out after the war. There were also some Russian intelligence officials and military advisors killed in Vietnam by the US armed forces, but again, there was deniability. I guess what I should have said is that no two nuclear armed states go into direct open conflict.

My opinion is based on history - including the 44-year Cold War where the two bitter enemies never engaged each other directly.

 

 

 

Kenneth Waltz was the main theorist behind nuclear deterrence. Again, that's just not true. If we look at war on the micro level, so in this particular case is it likely for the US to go to war against Russia because they moved into Crimea? Of course not. But at the macro level, does the fact that both nations possess nuclear weapons automatically prevent them from even engaging in a limited war over particular interests? Absolutely not. Nuclear deterrence does not = no more war... only the most idealistic and radical theorists would say that.

 

You can't just base all of these opinions on historical, micro analysis of particular wars. You need to look at the conduciveness of the international system to war. You are absolutely right that if engaged in a war for survival, nuclear weapons would be used. If it were the US/NATO vs. Russia and US armored divisions were rolling into Moscow, nuclear weapons become an issue. If it is say, a limited conflict over Poland and NATO/US forces repel Russia, then that's it. Nuclear weapons would not have any dictation in such a war occurring/not occurring. Nuclear weapons = no war is a logical fallacy.

 

 

 

Your scenario is pretty much an impossibility. Russia isn't dumb enough to attack Kiev when Kerry is there. And even if they do kill him directly and intentionally, I'll hazard a guess that the US still won't start war with Russia. And the reasons for both, I am still convinced, are those of nuclear weapons.

I guess time will tell. Hopefully though, not too much blood will be spilled because of this.

Yes, it is an impossibility. But why do you think the US sent Kerry to Kiev? For fun? No - to deter Russia from further involvement in their Ukranian campaign.

 

So your guess is, if Russia directly engages a capital of a sovereign country and kills 3rd highest ranking US official, the US would not respond militarily because it's afraid of Russia's nukes? You need to realize that it goes both ways. We have enough nukes to destroy them too. Your theoretical ideas here would be accurate if Russia were the only one with nuclear weapons, but they aren't. I suggest you do some reading on nuclear deterrence theory & what it actually entails. It isn't as simple as country A = nukes and country B = nukes, country A = never in a conventional war again with country B

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZeeKid2k10

I hope America doesn't get involved that going start possible WW3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PetkaGtA

I don't think there will be war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Anyone has more information on a "loud explosion has been heard Simferopol"?

 

EDIT:

 

Breaking News German ‏@GermanyAktuell 1m RT @PzFeed: Reports of a second explosion in Simferopol, Ukraine. Russian forces are storming Ukrainian ammunition stores in Sevastopol.

According to the news I've read, Russia has been using flashbangs in that. I don't know if these are the explosions from the accounts you've read.

 

Interesting development. Poland is pulling up armor to its Eastern border. APCs are seen moving east on roads and by rail across the country. This might not seem like much, but it's a very strong gesture. Now would be a very good time for Ukrainian gov't to ask Poland to help defend Ukraine's Eastern border and strategic regions near Crimea. Not en-mass, because that would not be taken well in the East or Crimea, but small, almost symbolic numbers of troops and armor mixed in with Ukrainian military, working together to protect important locations, would pretty much guarantee that Russia makes no moves on mainland Ukraine. One dead Polish soldier, legitimately on territory of Ukraine, would mean a war with a NATO country.

 

With mainland Ukraine secure, this would open up a whole lot of new options with Crimea. For starters, water, gas, and electricity for the peninsula come through and from mainland Ukraine. If Crimean gov't wants to invite Russian troops for defense, let them get electricity and water from them as well. See how long they still want Russian troops then.

 

 

Yes there is a possibility of anything happening, but the possiility of two nuclear states going to war is absolutely minuscule.

Given that U.S. and Soviet forces have already seen limited direct action against each other during various proxy wars of the 20th says that they are entirely happy with having a war, so long as it's not on their respective territories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murray Bunyan

Would someone kindly fill me in on what's happening right now? Is Russia trying to invade Ukraine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geralt of Rivia

Would someone kindly fill me in on what's happening right now? Is Russia trying to invade Ukraine?

Russia already invaded Ukraine.

 

They took over Crimea, and are currently just waiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murray Bunyan

 

Would someone kindly fill me in on what's happening right now? Is Russia trying to invade Ukraine?

Russia already invaded Ukraine.

 

They took over Crimea, and are currently just waiting.

 

Waiting for what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geralt of Rivia

 

 

Would someone kindly fill me in on what's happening right now? Is Russia trying to invade Ukraine?

Russia already invaded Ukraine.

 

They took over Crimea, and are currently just waiting.

 

Waiting for what?

 

Ukraine to fire the first shot.

 

And/or Crimea to become independent so they can annex it.

Edited by TheMasterfocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
poklane

Just had to post this, from twitter:

proxy.jpg?t=HBh4aHR0cDovL2kuY2JjLmNhLzEu

EDIT: Anybody knows how serious this is/could be?

http://therebel.org/news/rt/746702-ukraine-to-go-nuclear-new-govt-rep-threatens-rearmament-us-silent

In power for barely a week, representatives of the new Ukranian government are already threatening to literally go nuclear if they don't get their way. A deputy from the Svoboda party warns that Kiev could go back on its own constitution, and restock its nuclear arsenals within 6 months.

Edited by poklane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Max

 

Just had to post this, from twitter:

proxy.jpg?t=HBh4aHR0cDovL2kuY2JjLmNhLzEu

EDIT: Anybody knows how serious this is/could be?

http://therebel.org/news/rt/746702-ukraine-to-go-nuclear-new-govt-rep-threatens-rearmament-us-silent

In power for barely a week, representatives of the new Ukranian government are already threatening to literally go nuclear if they don't get their way. A deputy from the Svoboda party warns that Kiev could go back on its own constitution, and restock its nuclear arsenals within 6 months.

 

As far as I know a complete impossibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ryan

 

 

Just had to post this, from twitter:

proxy.jpg?t=HBh4aHR0cDovL2kuY2JjLmNhLzEu

EDIT: Anybody knows how serious this is/could be?

http://therebel.org/news/rt/746702-ukraine-to-go-nuclear-new-govt-rep-threatens-rearmament-us-silent

In power for barely a week, representatives of the new Ukranian government are already threatening to literally go nuclear if they don't get their way. A deputy from the Svoboda party warns that Kiev could go back on its own constitution, and restock its nuclear arsenals within 6 months.

 

As far as I know a complete impossibility.

 

I wouldn't go so far to call it a complete impossibility. Prior to the end of the cold war, Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power in the world, only behind the United States and Russia. While Ukraine turned over all their nuclear weapons to Russia for destruction at the end of the Cold War, they continue to run several nuclear generating facilities throughout the county, including the largest one in Europe which could be used to aid in the development. That being said though, while I am no nuclear weapons expert, 6 months to test and develop a nuclear warhead just seems ludicrous, especially when you consider the North Koreans have been trying to do it for over ten years. Even if they were to copy a design of a warhead from their former stockpile, we're talking about a design that is at least 25 years old, if not older, so they are bound to run into some challenges in adapting such a design to modern day weaponry. Once again, 6 months to test and develop just seems ludicrous. Assuming they were somehow successful, not only would Ukraine be facing Russia but they would also be facing the United Nations since it would mark a clear violation of the United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Ukraine signed and ratified into law in 1994. The result would likely see Ukraine hit with heavy sanctions and alienated from the west whose help they want so badly.

 

So to conclude, I wouldn't say it is completely impossible for Ukraine to develop nuclear weapons since they were a former nuclear power and do presently posses nuclear technology, though it is highly unlikely they would be able to harness it and develop a nuclear warhead from scratch in 6 months. And even if they did, they would essentially be shooting themselves in the foot by doing so since the west would likely drop all support for a Ukraine in possession nuclear weapons which were acquired via violation of an international treaty. Right now, Russia is in violation of international law by violating the sovereignty of Ukraine. Ukraine possessing nuclear weapons would be a violation of international law since they signed the treaty. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

International law goes out the window when the literal survival of your state is at risk. I'm sure the Ukranian government has some kind of contigency plan for restocking their nuclear arsenal. A lot of experts don't buy that they totally gave up their nuclear capabilities to a point where they could never have them again. The problem is, with the Ukranian Chief of Naval Operations/equivalent defecting to Russia, that whole contingency plan is probably well known by Russia at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gtamann123

I really had my money on the North Koreans being the ones to start WW3. With China having the outside shot. The Eastern Europeans really snuck in there this time I have to say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

I really had my money on the North Koreans being the ones to start WW3. With China having the outside shot. The Eastern Europeans really snuck in there this time I have to say

 

Except no world war is going to start now. North Korea still have plenty of chances. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view), Russia isn't batsh*t crazy.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D- Ice

 

Kenneth Waltz was the main theorist behind nuclear deterrence. Again, that's just not true. If we look at war on the micro level, so in this particular case is it likely for the US to go to war against Russia because they moved into Crimea? Of course not. But at the macro level, does the fact that both nations possess nuclear weapons automatically prevent them from even engaging in a limited war over particular interests? Absolutely not. Nuclear deterrence does not = no more war... only the most idealistic and radical theorists would say that.

Thanks for the info on Kenneth Waltz. In theory, yes it is possible for them to engage in limited, conventional and open conflict with one another without the use of nuclear weapons. But I believe that the fear of escalation - which happens quite fast in open, conventional wars - with the possibility of using nuclear weapons is too much for any sensible politician on either side to risk.

Like I said before, it is not an outright impossibility, but it just makes direct open engagement so unlikely that it is better not considered at all. And prior historical events prove my point - not once have any nuclear armed countries engaged each other directly and openly, even in the worst crises of the 44-year cold war.

 

 

 

You can't just base all of these opinions on historical, micro analysis of particular wars. You need to look at the conduciveness of the international system to war.

Please do correct me if I am wrong, but according to the conductiveness of the international system to war, no two nuclear-armed states have ever directly and openly engaged each other in direct (conventiona) and open (official) conflict. India and Pakistan have had a long history of conflict over Kashmir, but this stopped when both got nuclear weapons. Same for the Sino-Russian border clashes, or the Sino-Indian ones.

War as a whole continues just as always, but nuclear-armed states now use proxies, and rarely deniability to distance themselves from direct engagement with another nuclear-armed state.

 

 

 

Yes, it is an impossibility. But why do you think the US sent Kerry to Kiev? For fun? No - to deter Russia from further involvement in their Ukranian campaign.

Good point. I personally do agree with you on that. But it just reinforces my point that nuclear-armed Russia won't directly and openly perform an act of war against the nuclear-armed US (put Kerry in danger/harm him).

 

 

 

So your guess is, if Russia directly engages a capital of a sovereign country and kills 3rd highest ranking US official, the US would not respond militarily because it's afraid of Russia's nukes? You need to realize that it goes both ways. We have enough nukes to destroy them too. Your theoretical ideas here would be accurate if Russia were the only one with nuclear weapons, but they aren't.

Correct, but like I said above, it is really unlikely for Russia to commit an act of war against the US. If they do, then my theory is pretty much automatically disproven, so anything the US does in reaction would be a complete guess to me.

 

 

 

I suggest you do some reading on nuclear deterrence theory & what it actually entails. It isn't as simple as country A = nukes and country B = nukes, country A = never in a conventional war again with country B

Thanks, I will if I have time. But military and war theory are not really my specialities, so it'll probably have to wait until after some major clinical examinations I have coming up.

 

 

 

You are absolutely right that if engaged in a war for survival, nuclear weapons would be used. If it were the US/NATO vs. Russia and US armored divisions were rolling into Moscow, nuclear weapons become an issue. If it is say, a limited conflict over Poland and NATO/US forces repel Russia, then that's it. Nuclear weapons would not have any dictation in such a war occurring/not occurring. Nuclear weapons = no war is a logical fallacy.

Again, I do completely agree with your analysis here. The issue is that even limited conflicts can escalate into all-out war and nuclear weapons deployment. It can end with one side just pulling back, but I believe no sensible politician would even consider entering such a slippery slope.

 

I am unsure how else we can continue to debate this, as it is purely theorical - I guess only time will tell.

Regardless, back on topic, I still hold that it will be near-impossible for NATO to engage Russia directly,and I am willing to bet my bottom dollar on it.

 

Yes there is a possibility of anything happening, but the possiility of two nuclear states going to war is absolutely minuscule.

Given that U.S. and Soviet forces have already seen limited direct action against each other during various proxy wars of the 20th says that they are entirely happy with having a war, so long as it's not on their respective territories.

 

By "direct action" I mean direct military confrontation - i.e. US military forces vs. Soviet military forces. I would call proxy wars indirect engagement. You are completely correct in that proxy wars happened a lot during the Cold War, and there has been many between nuclear-armed states since.

My point is that, based on available history, no two nuclear-armed states will engage each other in direct open conflict. Open means in action officially admitted by that country's government (unlike Pakistani involvement in the 1999 Kragil conflict, or presence of Soviet military advisors in Vietnam).

Edited by D- Ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_FRANKENSTEIN_

Russia did this once and now they are going to do it again, but they gonna fail (I hope).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

I had to share this story, it was too funny to let pass.

Wow. This isn't a hoax. I had to check with the Wayback Machine, but this article really was written in 2011. I suppose with as much noise about Sochi as they've made in Russia, something like that had to have happened, and Pravda would be the place where it'd get published (Worst. Name. Ever.) but it's still a bit eerie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Brown

 

I had to share this story, it was too funny to let pass.

Wow. This isn't a hoax. I had to check with the Wayback Machine, but this article really was written in 2011. I suppose with as much noise about Sochi as they've made in Russia, something like that had to have happened, and Pravda would be the place where it'd get published (Worst. Name. Ever.) but it's still a bit eerie.

 

 

That article is amazing. It uses a picture of a nuclear bomb explosion from World in Conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.