Aesma wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Aesma wrote:

If we assume Ukrainians (not talking about an attack on a NATO country here as that would be WW3 in my opinion) would fight on the ground, couldn't NATO concentrate on an air war ? By that I mean shoot down anything over/close to Ukraine, and bomb tanks and artillery pieces on the ground ?

Or does NATO not feel confident in fighting against Russia and its air defense equipment ?

Any concerted kinetic effort NATO makes against Russian forces could trigger WW3, IMO. Plus proxy wars have been all the rage since Korea with the nuclear powers.

If Russian forces are on Ukrainian territory then they're fair game, it's not an attack on Russia.

They on Ukrainian soil: Crimea. And of course, Russian soldiers are on 'holiday' in eastern Ukraine of they are 'green men' or whatever they call themselves these days.

The problem with Russia invading Ukraine is that it then becomes stronger. It gets a larger population base for its military. Even more important, it gets the large gas turbine production that it desperately needs. It also gets them contiguous land borders with former eastern bloc countries that they've lost. In the long term, that would make it easier for them to destabilize them.

I think the situation in Ukraine is a rather complicated matter and by reducing into a good guy / bad guy problem, all the nuances get lost.

While I personaly don't agree with the annexation of Crimea by Russia, I doubt any powerful country would have acted differently.
The Black Sea is the only year around access to the ocean for the Russians. Sevastopol a highly strategic military port for them and for which they have (had) a lease agreement with the Ukrainians. Then the pro Russian president gets ejected by popular uprising and his pro western replacement wants closer ties with the EU and Nato. Faced with the threat of potentially loosing one of its most strategic asset, Putin reacted like we all know.

As for Donbas and Luhansk oblast, we have to remember that in both a sizable Russian minority is living there (if Wikipedia is to be believed most people there speak Russian and not Ukrainian).
Two groups identifying with different nationalities is quite volatile. I mean just look at another place in the news actually: Northern Ireland.

In conclusion I think:

• For Russia Crimea is a done deal.
• Dombas and Luhansk can only be solved by a solution accepted by most people living there.
• Rest of Ukraine is out of reach for Putin because a vast majority living there wants to be Ukrainian and not Russian.

Best regards and stay safe,
Jonas

A small update.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59528864

Seems that January may be a start date according to intelligence officials. Biden has said he will acept no redlines from Moscow.
Well at least you get a peaceful Christmas.

I guess, it all depends on the perceived popularity of the Putin regime. He needs to fabricate an external threat, in order to have some legitimacy with the Russian population. A much easier way to disguise Russian internal problems like that, than actually solve them. Russian population deserves much better, certainly better than being dragged into open warfare.

It could be that Putin and Xi are coordinating on two fronts. That would certainly test Western mettle. If anyone can turn the screws on Vlad it might be BoJo confiscating oligarch real estate assets in London. That'd be exquisite fun to watch. An opening salvo could be taking Chelsea FC from Abramovich.

I agree with you that Russia is the most useless nation-state on the planet but even your ground troops and armored divisions could potentially move themselves 175 KM in the next 4-8 weeks. Moving 5 KM a day might seem like a stretch to you but I'd give them 50/50 odds.

When you're attempting to question people's collective intelligence by claiming they're willingly swallowing utter nonsense from their own media you might want to peruse the 20 years of depraved rubbish your shirtless wonder of a leader has been feeding you and your lot.

Try harder comrade.

wingman wrote:

It could be that Putin and Xi are coordinating on two fronts. That would certainly test Western mettle. If anyone can turn the screws on Vlad it might be BoJo confiscating oligarch real estate assets in London. That'd be exquisite fun to watch. An opening salvo could be taking Chelsea FC from Abramovich.

Might be awkward considering how much funding his party gets from them.
Doesn't mention that does he, or his pathetic minions when they wrap themselves in the flag.
I've seen too many news reports about Russians having lunches for cash with the PM or a game of tennis with one of his Cabinet sock puppets, no Russian has that kind of money without permission from the Godfather Putin, the richest, most corrupt of them all.
Won't see that in the rags that support him, if the BBC bring it up they'll have that nasty, corrupt and stupid 'Culture Secretary' 'Mad Nadine' Dorries threatening them.

The City of London is one of the biggest clearing houses for Putin's buddies, along with other hostile or just oppressive regimes, along with organised crime networks.
The current UK government being one of the minor ones but one whose members are deeply embedded with it.
So don't hold your breath there.

What the Ministry Of Defence, who have sent small numbers of troops, mainly engineers to the region with the refugee issue, along with more substantial forces exercising more often with Eastern European NATO nations think of this you might ask? From what I know from those I know who work there, is utter contempt for 'Bojo'.

wingman wrote:

It could be that Putin and Xi are coordinating on two fronts. That would certainly test Western mettle.

I agree. With the US (along with Japan and Australia) bearing most of the burden in the Pacific, we will see if the EU can keep things under control next door to them. I hope they can, but I'm not holding my breath.

Ok - am I the only one seeing a parallel to the Axis in WW 2 ? With Iran, Belarus and North Korea vying for the third seat and the losers being the modern day Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria?

Why are so many news outlets reporting today that Russia is planning a false flag incident to justify invasion?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Why are so many news outlets reporting today that Russia is planning a false flag incident to justify invasion?

Probably because they might be? "Our Germanic brothers in the Sudetenland are being oppressed, we must save them". "Our Germanic brothers in the Danzig strip are being oppressed, we must save them". "Our Russian brothers in the Crimea are being oppressed, we must save them". Etc, etc.

Unfortunately, the EU won't do much and the USA has lost its appetite for foreign adventures post Afghanistan, in my opinion.

The reality is this is the time for the EU to mobilize. The Ukraine isn't in NATO. That makes it very unlikely the USA will commit.

If WW2 showed us anything, war is required to stop certain leaders.

"Noise and fury signifying nothing."

As noted early in this thread, the Balkins are probably next. In the win/loss columns, all that can be done is an embargo.

My opinion is the Sudetenland references are too close to the mark.

Lightsaber

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Why are so many news outlets reporting today that Russia is planning a false flag incident to justify invasion?

My guess would be to try to take the news cycle away from the catastrophic losses Biden had handed to him last two days. They need to get a new headline fast.

I'm not sure most American's even know where the Ukraine is (except here in Cleveland and other areas with large numbers of Ukrainian immigrants).
To think this will impact Biden's poll numbers is a stretch.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I'm not sure most American's even know where the Ukraine is (except here in Cleveland and other areas with large numbers of Ukrainian immigrants).
To think this will impact Biden's poll numbers is a stretch.

You'd be right about that. Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia...all the same thing right? - sez Joe Shmo

Aaron747 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I'm not sure most American's even know where the Ukraine is (except here in Cleveland and other areas with large numbers of Ukrainian immigrants).
To think this will impact Biden's poll numbers is a stretch.

You'd be right about that. Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia...all the same thing right? - sez Joe Shmo

Europeans may know where they are but won't do anything because their homes might not be warm this winter...

There is zero chance of a large scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia’s military budget is only $60b a year. For scale, Britain spent $45b on a track and trace app for Covid that doesn’t even work. You’ll see Russian tanks on the moon before you see them in Kyiv. Annex the sliver of eastern Ukraine they’ve already been de facto controlling for the last five or more years, maybe. Since most of the locals are Russians anyway, it’s not worth a military confrontation over.

And ridiculous to say Western Europe shouldn’t buy Russian gas because of a border dispute among Russian speaking people. Taking Russian gas out of the market will make the rest (Qatari etc) about three times more expensive. Why are we theoretically willing to bankrupt Germans over this? Would be cheaper to go to war. We should be looking to improve relations with Russia as we have no ideological differences with them, just a trumped up dispute for ratings.

cedarjet wrote:

Annex the sliver of eastern Ukraine they’ve already been de facto controlling for the last five or more years, maybe. Since most of the locals are Russians anyway, it’s not worth a military confrontation over.

And ridiculous to say Western Europe shouldn’t buy Russian gas because of a border dispute among Russian speaking people
... We should be looking to improve relations with Russia as we have no ideological differences with them, just a trumped up dispute for ratings.

Don't they teach about pre-WW2 appeasement in Lebanon and its consequences? What you wrote is taken word-by-word from Chamberlain's vocabulary.

Russia wants a buffer to NATO. So if it keeps annexing parts of countries that want to join NATO, it will get exactly the opposite of what it claims to want.

cedarjet wrote:

We should be looking to improve relations with Russia as we have no ideological differences with them, just a trumped up dispute for ratings.

You keep thinking that...

johns624 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I'm not sure most American's even know where the Ukraine is (except here in Cleveland and other areas with large numbers of Ukrainian immigrants).
To think this will impact Biden's poll numbers is a stretch.

You'd be right about that. Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia...all the same thing right? - sez Joe Shmo

Europeans may know where they are but won't do anything because their homes might not be warm this winter...

That is Russia's big playing card. If the EU responds either militarily or economically, Russia responds with a gas embargo. Unfortunately, this seems predetermined to happen.

The question becomes, what about the Baltics? Russia played its cards right to setup an easy takeover of the Ukraine. This secures food and oil. That might be enough.

Really the only counter is a complete embargo on computer chips, aircraft parts, and anything else that is dual use.

Lightsaber

After the fall of the USSR and the West claiming "victory" in the Cold War, there was an understanding that Russia would adapt a more democratic stance and America would keep its distance. The reality of it is that NATO has expanded closer and closer to Russia. My own (birth) country, Romania, joined NATO in 2004 along with Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Other members have joined since.

You can't possibly think that Russia sees this as fair. Of course, one can argue that each country has the freedom to ally itself with whomever it wants, but that has consequences. One example is Romania's choice to ally itself with the Axis during the early years of WW2 and eventually switching sides once the Germans / Romanians, etc were defeated and the Red Army invaded Romania.

I personally believe no Eastern European country should have joined NATO. It should have been independent, or at very best join some sort of Eastern European alliance that would not be seen by Russia as a direct threat, but rather as an independent and neutral buffer zone between Russia and NATO.

I really hope things can be worked out and no further conflict and loss of life will occur in Ukraine (with its citizens) or Russian forces. I believe the USA would not be very happy if Mexico would ally itself with Russia. One only needs to look at Cuba to see how American reacted when Russian forces were deployed in USA's own backyard during the 50s, 60s and beyond.

This is my opinion. I have no formal education in political science. I have lived in Eastern Europe 12 years and up to date on current affairs as far as a public citizen can be. I have lived in Canada for almost 29 years... so my view on things may be a little biased.

Most of the Eastern Europe joined Nato and EU because the (legitimate) fear of Russia trying to taker them back. That is 100 percent Russia's fault just like the annexing of Crimea is. So much bs pro Russians. Any independent country should be allowed to join which ever alliance they wish without the bald midget in Moscow should have anything to say about it.If said midget and those who put him in power would have accepted that USSR was no more perhaps those eastern Europe would have remained neutral. However I do think that Putin just like Trump doesn't give a s......... about the people or the nation. All they care about is themselves and their own personal gain (money/ego).

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

Most of the Eastern Europe joined Nato and EU because the (legitimate) fear of Russia trying to taker them back. That is 100 percent Russia's fault just like the annexing of Crimea is. So much bs pro Russians. Any independent country should be allowed to join which ever alliance they wish without the bald midget in Moscow should have anything to say about it.If said midget and those who put him in power would have accepted that USSR was no more perhaps those eastern Europe would have remained neutral. However I do think that Putin just like Trump doesn't give a s......... about the people or the nation. All they care about is themselves and their own personal gain (money/ego).

It's not pro or against Russia. It's just a fact of life. I don't like the idea of Romania being the "frontline" of a potential war with Russia. We saw how that ended up after WW2. It's easy to say and comment when one lives in Paris, Manchester, Winnipeg or Seattle. It's a whole different feeling living in Iasi or Constanta.

Vio wrote:

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

Most of the Eastern Europe joined Nato and EU because the (legitimate) fear of Russia trying to taker them back. That is 100 percent Russia's fault just like the annexing of Crimea is. So much bs pro Russians. Any independent country should be allowed to join which ever alliance they wish without the bald midget in Moscow should have anything to say about it.If said midget and those who put him in power would have accepted that USSR was no more perhaps those eastern Europe would have remained neutral. However I do think that Putin just like Trump doesn't give a s......... about the people or the nation. All they care about is themselves and their own personal gain (money/ego).

It's not pro or against Russia. It's just a fact of life. I don't like the idea of Romania being the "frontline" of a potential war with Russia. We saw how that ended up after WW2. It's easy to say and comment when one lives in Paris, Manchester, Winnipeg or Seattle. It's a whole different feeling living in Iasi or Constanta.

You don't think that Romania wouldn't have anything to fear from Putin if they didn't join NATO? You don't think that Putin would let a number of weak, unallied central and eastern European countries remain that way? If it wasn't for NATO, the Baltic states probably already would've been "reintegrated".

johns624 wrote:

Vio wrote:

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

Most of the Eastern Europe joined Nato and EU because the (legitimate) fear of Russia trying to taker them back. That is 100 percent Russia's fault just like the annexing of Crimea is. So much bs pro Russians. Any independent country should be allowed to join which ever alliance they wish without the bald midget in Moscow should have anything to say about it.If said midget and those who put him in power would have accepted that USSR was no more perhaps those eastern Europe would have remained neutral. However I do think that Putin just like Trump doesn't give a s......... about the people or the nation. All they care about is themselves and their own personal gain (money/ego).

It's not pro or against Russia. It's just a fact of life. I don't like the idea of Romania being the "frontline" of a potential war with Russia. We saw how that ended up after WW2. It's easy to say and comment when one lives in Paris, Manchester, Winnipeg or Seattle. It's a whole different feeling living in Iasi or Constanta.

You don't think that Romania wouldn't have anything to fear from Putin if they didn't join NATO? You don't think that Putin would let a number of weak, unallied central and eastern European countries remain that way? If it wasn't for NATO, the Baltic states probably already would've been "reintegrated".

That is a possibility. I couldn't answer that. Romania, for better or worse, was a fairly independent country within the sphere of influence of the USSR. Ceausescu was not exactly a popular guy in Moscow. He had his way... and it wasn't always aligned with Gorbachev, Chernenko, Andropov or Brezhnev. The Americans considered him "quite friendly". Nixon even visited Bucharest in 1969 and Romania had a decent relationship with Western Europe and America.

Vio wrote:

After the fall of the USSR and the West claiming "victory" in the Cold War, there was an understanding that Russia would adapt a more democratic stance and America would keep its distance. The reality of it is that NATO has expanded closer and closer to Russia. My own (birth) country, Romania, joined NATO in 2004 along with Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Other members have joined since.

You can't possibly think that Russia sees this as fair.

Why not?

Dogman wrote:

Vio wrote:

After the fall of the USSR and the West claiming "victory" in the Cold War, there was an understanding that Russia would adapt a more democratic stance and America would keep its distance. The reality of it is that NATO has expanded closer and closer to Russia. My own (birth) country, Romania, joined NATO in 2004 along with Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Other members have joined since.

You can't possibly think that Russia sees this as fair.

Why not?

Because their enemies "NATO" is at their front door... It doesn't take a PhD in International Relations or Political Science to understand that. I'm not saying I'm agreeing with them but one must see things from their point of view as well. That's all I'm saying.

Vio wrote:

Dogman wrote:

Vio wrote:

After the fall of the USSR and the West claiming "victory" in the Cold War, there was an understanding that Russia would adapt a more democratic stance and America would keep its distance. The reality of it is that NATO has expanded closer and closer to Russia. My own (birth) country, Romania, joined NATO in 2004 along with Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Other members have joined since.

You can't possibly think that Russia sees this as fair.

Why not?

Because their enemies "NATO" is at their front door... It doesn't take a PhD in International Relations or Political Science to understand that. I'm not saying I'm agreeing with them but one must see things from their point of view as well. That's all I'm saying.

Oh, their point of view is perfectly clear. But it doesn't mean that it should be respected. It is their own fault that NATO is their enemy and the former satellites are running away from them to hide under NATO umbrella. Look what happened to those who didn't. Russia is not afraid that NATO is getting closer, it's afraid that if a former colony joins NATO it would be too dangerous to send the little green men across the border.
If NATO wanted to destroy Russia what would be the better time than 1990s, when Russian military and economy laid in ruins? Instead they sent food to Russia. As soon as Russia regained some of the economical power it was back to its old imperial habits.

Dutchy wrote:

Aesma wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Any concerted kinetic effort NATO makes against Russian forces could trigger WW3, IMO. Plus proxy wars have been all the rage since Korea with the nuclear powers.

If Russian forces are on Ukrainian territory then they're fair game, it's not an attack on Russia.

They on Ukrainian soil: Crimea. And of course, Russian soldiers are on 'holiday' in eastern Ukraine of they are 'green men' or whatever they call themselves these days.

You have to get over that, Crimea is Russian territory now, just like it should have been at the collapse of the Soviet Union. It should never have been part of Ukraine.

The real question must be asked why would Russia invade Ukraine, what benefits are there in invading? I don’t know any Russians who want war. Putin isn’t stupid he knows the repercussions of such a move.

IMO this is the US sabre rattling, getting the Eastern Europeans all worked up, it keeps them worried and buying military toys, keeps American defense contractors feed with orders…an unstable world is great for business.

johns624 wrote:

Vio wrote:

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

Most of the Eastern Europe joined Nato and EU because the (legitimate) fear of Russia trying to taker them back. That is 100 percent Russia's fault just like the annexing of Crimea is. So much bs pro Russians. Any independent country should be allowed to join which ever alliance they wish without the bald midget in Moscow should have anything to say about it.If said midget and those who put him in power would have accepted that USSR was no more perhaps those eastern Europe would have remained neutral. However I do think that Putin just like Trump doesn't give a s......... about the people or the nation. All they care about is themselves and their own personal gain (money/ego).

It's not pro or against Russia. It's just a fact of life. I don't like the idea of Romania being the "frontline" of a potential war with Russia. We saw how that ended up after WW2. It's easy to say and comment when one lives in Paris, Manchester, Winnipeg or Seattle. It's a whole different feeling living in Iasi or Constanta.

You don't think that Romania wouldn't have anything to fear from Putin if they didn't join NATO? You don't think that Putin would let a number of weak, unallied central and eastern European countries remain that way? If it wasn't for NATO, the Baltic states probably already would've been "reintegrated".

I’d like to see any proof of that! What do the Baltic states offer Russian. They have no oil, no major industries, there’s nothing of any real value in any of the Baltic states.

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Vio wrote:

It's not pro or against Russia. It's just a fact of life. I don't like the idea of Romania being the "frontline" of a potential war with Russia. We saw how that ended up after WW2. It's easy to say and comment when one lives in Paris, Manchester, Winnipeg or Seattle. It's a whole different feeling living in Iasi or Constanta.

You don't think that Romania wouldn't have anything to fear from Putin if they didn't join NATO? You don't think that Putin would let a number of weak, unallied central and eastern European countries remain that way? If it wasn't for NATO, the Baltic states probably already would've been "reintegrated".

I’d like to see any proof of that! What do the Baltic states offer Russian. They have no oil, no major industries, there’s nothing of any real value in any of the Baltic states.

Land... "Buffer Zones" between the East and West. Are all forgetting our history? Are we forgetting WW2 and how close Nazi Germany and their allies got to Moscow? Russia has a reason to be nervous. With that being said, they haven't exactly been a model "patron" to their "client' states. I certainly lived that in in the 1980s (Communist) Romania.

My problem is seeing Eastern European nations become, once again a battleground between the superpowers.

Vio wrote:

I personally believe no Eastern European country should have joined NATO. It should have been independent, or at very best join some sort of Eastern European alliance that would not be seen by Russia as a direct threat, but rather as an independent and neutral buffer zone between Russia and NATO.

There is no point in declaring neutrality if it is not to be widely respected and ackowledged. Neutrality was next to useless to Belgium both in 1914 and 1940. Commie Czechoslovakia entertained the idea of seeking neutrality in 1968. We've got 7500 Russian tanks and 20 years of occupation instead (it is to Romania's credit they chose to stay out of the invasion). What is noteworthy is that the Austrian government, unsure what the WarPac is REALLY up to (invasion to Western Europe), expected its neutrality to be violated.
Is it not because of direct historical experience with Russia, countries sought defense and security arrangements to mitigate Russian threat for the future?
BTW, if Ceausescu was allegedly a fairly nice guy and you want Romania to be Russia's doormat again from which it is ok to steal land... why did your parents left for Canada?

Kiwirob wrote:

[ What do the Baltic states offer Russian. They have no oil, no major industries, there’s nothing of any real value in any of the Baltic states.

C'mon Rob, you're smarter than that. There's two great reasons (from the Russian point of view) for bringing them back into the fold. The first, historical one is that they were once part of the Imperial Empire. The second, practical one is that they would open up a land border with the Kaliningrad Oblast, which hosts their main Baltic naval base.

L410Turbolet wrote:

BTW, if Ceausescu was allegedly a fairly nice guy and you want Romania to be Russia's doormat again from which it is ok to steal land... why did your parents leave for Canada?

That's a very good question!

L410Turbolet wrote:

Vio wrote:

I personally believe no Eastern European country should have joined NATO. It should have been independent, or at very best join some sort of Eastern European alliance that would not be seen by Russia as a direct threat, but rather as an independent and neutral buffer zone between Russia and NATO.

There is no point in declaring neutrality if it is not to be widely respected and ackowledged. Neutrality was next to useless to Belgium both in 1914 and 1940. Commie Czechoslovakia entertained the idea of seeking neutrality in 1968. We've got 7500 Russian tanks and 20 years of occupation instead (it is to Romania's credit they chose to stay out of the invasion). What is noteworthy is that the Austrian government, unsure what the WarPac is REALLY up to (invasion to Western Europe), expected its neutrality to be violated.
Is it not because of direct historical experience with Russia, countries sought defense and security arrangements to mitigate Russian threat for the future?
BTW, if Ceausescu was allegedly a fairly nice guy and you want Romania to be Russia's doormat again from which it is ok to steal land... why did your parents left for Canada?

1. Please don't put words in my mouth. Not once, did I mention Ceausescu was a "nice guy". He was a piece of sh*t to his own people. What I said above was:

Ceausescu was not exactly a popular guy in Moscow. He had his way... and it wasn't always aligned with Gorbachev, Chernenko, Andropov or Brezhnev. The Americans considered him "quite friendly"

So the West didn't consider Ceausescu (and Romania) a threat to them... (within the confines of the Warsaw Pact).

I don't think Romania should be Russia's doormat. I also don't want Romania to be America's "sandbags" in a conflict.

2. My parents left Romania in 1993... that's 4 years after the Romanian revolution and the fall of communism. They wanted a change in life. There was no threat, or financial hardship. It's the same reason people move from Seattle to California or from Ontario to Alberta.

cedarjet wrote:

There is zero chance of a large scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia’s military budget is only $60b a year. For scale, Britain spent $45b on a track and trace app for Covid that doesn’t even work. You’ll see Russian tanks on the moon before you see them in Kyiv. Annex the sliver of eastern Ukraine they’ve already been de facto controlling for the last five or more years, maybe. Since most of the locals are Russians anyway, it’s not worth a military confrontation over.

And ridiculous to say Western Europe shouldn’t buy Russian gas because of a border dispute among Russian speaking people. Taking Russian gas out of the market will make the rest (Qatari etc) about three times more expensive. Why are we theoretically willing to bankrupt Germans over this? Would be cheaper to go to war. We should be looking to improve relations with Russia as we have no ideological differences with them, just a trumped up dispute for ratings.

This sounds like a page right out of the Trump doctrine on Russia - 'we should just get along with them'. Sure...one can discuss that when grabs on sovereign territory are fully abated. Until then, the behavior of the state is well outside of diplomatic norms. As for ideological differences - they most certainly exist. Ask Mr. Putin if the concept of 'west and east' is still valid. I think we can all see his answer on the daily.

Vio wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

Vio wrote:

I personally believe no Eastern European country should have joined NATO. It should have been independent, or at very best join some sort of Eastern European alliance that would not be seen by Russia as a direct threat, but rather as an independent and neutral buffer zone between Russia and NATO.

There is no point in declaring neutrality if it is not to be widely respected and ackowledged. Neutrality was next to useless to Belgium both in 1914 and 1940. Commie Czechoslovakia entertained the idea of seeking neutrality in 1968. We've got 7500 Russian tanks and 20 years of occupation instead (it is to Romania's credit they chose to stay out of the invasion). What is noteworthy is that the Austrian government, unsure what the WarPac is REALLY up to (invasion to Western Europe), expected its neutrality to be violated.
Is it not because of direct historical experience with Russia, countries sought defense and security arrangements to mitigate Russian threat for the future?
BTW, if Ceausescu was allegedly a fairly nice guy and you want Romania to be Russia's doormat again from which it is ok to steal land... why did your parents left for Canada?

1. Please don't put words in my mouth. Not once, did I mention Ceausescu was a "nice guy". He was a piece of sh*t to his own people. What I said above was:

Ceausescu was not exactly a popular guy in Moscow. He had his way... and it wasn't always aligned with Gorbachev, Chernenko, Andropov or Brezhnev. The Americans considered him "quite friendly"

So the West didn't consider Ceausescu (and Romania) a threat to them... (within the confines of the Warsaw Pact).

I don't think Romania should be Russia's doormat. I also don't want Romania to be America's "sandbags" in a conflict.

2. My parents left Romania in 1993... that's 4 years after the Romanian revolution and the fall of communism. They wanted a change in life. There was no threat, or financial hardship. It's the same reason people move from Seattle to California or from Ontario to Alberta.

I take your points and appreciate the nuances but have to disagree with #2. As someone who has lived abroad more than once by choice, it is not the same as moving interstate. There is considerably more administrative effort and financial risk involved. And as we all know, changing cultures is not for everyone.

Aaron747 wrote:

I take your points and appreciate the nuances but have to disagree with #2. As someone who has lived abroad more than once by choice, it is not the same as moving interstate. There is considerably more administrative effort and financial risk involved. And as we all know, changing cultures is not for everyone.

Absolutely it's more involved. We had to go through a pretty rigorous process. My parents were really young when they moved here (33 and 30). They were very adventurous and wanted to experience something new. Moving to a new country was a good idea for them. In Romania they did very well, financially and socially. Sometimes people want excitement and a break from the regular routine.

I'm the same way. I lived in 4 provinces and 1 territory and my job takes me to many places in Canada and the US. I also travel extensively and hopefully one day I can move to another country and experience that culture as well... It'll have to wait till retirement though. For now, I'll make use of my job benefits to travel and see the world...

The concept of buffer states is hardly new. Russia and the UK accepted having Afghanistan as a buffer in the 19th century

Russia is haunted by the lack of any natural defences between Berlin and Moscow - no mountains or major rivers to stop an advancing army. Napoleon and Hitler both almost succeeded in taking Moscow - but the kind of severe winter that saved Moscow twice is becoming increasingly rare and armies understand better the need for good equipment (including winter clothing) for troops. Belarus can provide useful cannon fodder for now to defend Russia, but Ukraine has been rebelling against Moscow for many years. Moscow was happy to invade Ukraine 100 years ago, when it declares independence from Moscow - much of the world didn't get too upset about it at the time. Putin is thinking 50 years ahead, not 5. As a UK resident who is currently in Ukraine, I don't like it - but Putin is meant to act in Russia's interests, not Ukraine's interests

We're seeing Ukraine as a pawn in a global geopolitical game of chess between the major powers. Not great if you live somewhere like Kharkiv or Kherson where tension is present.

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

[ What do the Baltic states offer Russian. They have no oil, no major industries, there’s nothing of any real value in any of the Baltic states.

C'mon Rob, you're smarter than that. There's two great reasons (from the Russian point of view) for bringing them back into the fold. The first, historical one is that they were once part of the Imperial Empire. The second, practical one is that they would open up a land border with the Kaliningrad Oblast, which hosts their main Baltic naval base.

I see it like that at all. Plus 6.2m people less the ethnic Russians would be a PITA to police, the Baltic aren’t crimea with a majority of ethnic Russians happy to be back in the fold. Integration would be expensive, and the cost to the Russian economy after the inevitable sanctions wouldn’t make having a land border with Kaliningrad worth while.

A modicum of critical thinking would tell you that this is a bad idea, that only an absolute lunatic would think is even a remote possibility of occurring.

Newark727 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

You have to get over that, Crimea is Russian territory now, just like it should have been at the collapse of the Soviet Union. It should never have been part of Ukraine.

The real question must be asked why would Russia invade Ukraine, what benefits are there in invading? I don’t know any Russians who want war. Putin isn’t stupid he knows the repercussions of such a move.

IMO this is the US sabre rattling, getting the Eastern Europeans all worked up, it keeps them worried and buying military toys, keeps American defense contractors feed with orders…an unstable world is great for business.

Kiwirob wrote:

I’d like to see any proof of that! What do the Baltic states offer Russian. They have no oil, no major industries, there’s nothing of any real value in any of the Baltic states.

You're not thinking like a revanchist - which is to your credit. But I don't think we can assume the same of Putin and his allies.

Nice word revanchist. If I was Putin and wanted to recreate the Soviet Union or the Russian empire than I’d be going after the areas where A they have resources worth taking B a population that would be amenable and C nobody cares about. I’d annex the Stans and Azerbaijan, they have valuable resources and are ruled by dictators, the citizens of those countries would likely have a better, safer life back in the Russian fold than they have right now.

Kiwirob wrote:

You have to get over that, Crimea is Russian territory now, just like it should have been at the collapse of the Soviet Union. It should never have been part of Ukraine.

No, annexation is illegal and we would be getting into a lawless world if we would accept it. Everything else is beside the point.

Kiwirob wrote:

The real question must be asked why would Russia invade Ukraine, what benefits are there in invading?

The Kremlin already invaded Ukraine. The benefits: destabilizing it so it can't develop into a democracy and become more stable and prosperous than Russia. And remember that Putin said that the collapse of the USSR was the most historic fault of the 20th century. Russia's policy is slowly getting back on the world stage by getting territory back under their control.

Kiwirob wrote:

I don’t know any Russians who want war.

Russia is. an autocracy, so the public opinion doesn't matter all that much. Although one of the reasons to annex Crimea in 2014 is said to be the falling popularity numbers within Russia. What always works is creating an artificial enemy to pull a group together, playing the nationalistic card, right. out of the dictator's playbook.

Kiwirob wrote:

Putin isn’t stupid he knows the repercussions of such a move.

Don't think he will go into a full-scale war. Threatening it is enough, destabilizing Ukraine is enough.

Kiwirob wrote:

IMO this is the US sabre rattling, getting the Eastern Europeans all worked up, it keeps them worried and buying military toys, keeps American defense contractors feed with orders…an unstable world is great for business.

This is such a complete bull. An unstable world is never great for business. The American defense industry is doing fine with spreading out all their activities around the 50 states in order to keep the orders flowing in.

Kiwirob wrote:

Nice word revanchist. If I was Putin and wanted to recreate the Soviet Union or the Russian empire than I’d be going after the areas where A they have resources worth taking B a population that would be amenable and C nobody cares about. I’d annex the Stans and Azerbaijan, they have valuable resources and are ruled by dictators, the citizens of those countries would likely have a better, safer life back in the Russian fold than they have right now.

If he annexed the 'stans, he'd have a much longer border with China, which I don't think he'd want. Sooner or later, China is going to look north at all those natural resources. Besides, he already has them in his sphere of influence. The recent events in Kazakhstan prove the close relationship.

Or, maybe Putin tries a different tack to intimidate the West? Shut off gas to Europe, why not? Use internet hackers to close a pipeline or the electric grid in the US, maybe? Reward Europe with cheaper gas and punish the US with missiles in Venezuela, oh goodie!

Instead of thinking how we react, perhaps looking at Putin’s aims, capabilities and the incentives to get what he wants would be appropriate. His popularity in Russia is down, he needs to show Russia is still a superpower to his team.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/16/worl ... asion.html

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Or, maybe Putin tries a different tack to intimidate the West? Shut off gas to Europe, why not?

Because he will lose quite a big chunk of the money on which Russia's economy depends? Or he will lose the backing of the oligarchs, they need to grab part of the foreign money flowing in, as well as Putin himself.

Kiwirob wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

You have to get over that, Crimea is Russian territory now, just like it should have been at the collapse of the Soviet Union. It should never have been part of Ukraine.

The real question must be asked why would Russia invade Ukraine, what benefits are there in invading? I don’t know any Russians who want war. Putin isn’t stupid he knows the repercussions of such a move.

IMO this is the US sabre rattling, getting the Eastern Europeans all worked up, it keeps them worried and buying military toys, keeps American defense contractors feed with orders…an unstable world is great for business.

Kiwirob wrote:

I’d like to see any proof of that! What do the Baltic states offer Russian. They have no oil, no major industries, there’s nothing of any real value in any of the Baltic states.

You're not thinking like a revanchist - which is to your credit. But I don't think we can assume the same of Putin and his allies.

Nice word revanchist. If I was Putin and wanted to recreate the Soviet Union or the Russian empire than I’d be going after the areas where A they have resources worth taking B a population that would be amenable and C nobody cares about. I’d annex the Stans and Azerbaijan, they have valuable resources and are ruled by dictators, the citizens of those countries would likely have a better, safer life back in the Russian fold than they have right now.

What is important to Putin is a sense of safety and security, no matter how reasonable or not they are. Kazakhstan is fine as long as they're ruled by like-minded rulers, hence they send troops to Kazakhstan when it look like things could change.
China could be a threat to Russia in term of military and territory, however both are ideologically similar. Unlike in the Western side of Russia, where the idea of freedom and liberty have keep making gains, and as it reached Ukraine and creating tides in Belarus, Putin with their government in Moscow fear such advance of free idea. And such ideological level of threat to their continued rule of the country is much more significant a threat to their power than the military threat. That's why their concern is now toward the Western side.

c933103 wrote:

What is important to Putin is a sense of safety and security, no matter how reasonable or not they are. Kazakhstan is fine as long as they're ruled by like-minded rulers, hence they send troops to Kazakhstan when it look like things could change.
China could be a threat to Russia in term of military and territory, however both are ideologically similar. Unlike in the Western side of Russia, where the idea of freedom and liberty have keep making gains, and as it reached Ukraine and creating tides in Belarus, Putin with their government in Moscow fear such advance of free idea. And such ideological level of threat to their continued rule of the country is much more significant a threat to their power than the military threat. That's why their concern is now toward the Western side.

I think you are quite right. Nobody is interested to invade Russia. But indeed, the Putin regime. does fear the drive towards a free and prosperous country.