It's looking gloomy along the Ukraine boarder, US has warned allies an invasion is possible. Read an interesting article about the knock on global effects should that come to pass.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... gniter-rhr

It raises many issues, Ukraine is not a member of Nato, and there would be no formal treaty requirement to come to its aid and yet, aggression on that scale could hardly be ignored.
"First, and most obviously, it would create an energy crisis. Russia is a major exporter of both oil and gas. Most of Europe has allowed itself to become dangerously dependent on Russia’s energy exports, and even more so with the new Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline that bypasses Ukraine."
"60pc of Germany’s energy comes from Russia. In a tight global market, it will be impossible to source that from Qatar and elsewhere. There simply isn’t enough oil and gas available."
Stock markets around the globe would be badly hit, something like 2008-9.
Would the West respond in any meaningful way or just shout a lot and stamp their feet.

Russia already invaded Ukraine. The truth probably is that the response will be minimal. The EU / America / NATO doesn't want a war over Ukraine. If the Russian aggression would go into a NATO / EU country, that would be a different matter, but the Putin regime will not do that. Georgia, Ukraine, Moldavia, all is fine, but no further.
I suspect the Putin regime is just fine with the situation as it is, Crimea annexed, eastern Ukraine destabilized, thus Ukraine can't join the EU and NATO with an active conflict, abeit frozen one. The Putin regime van point to the evil west at will to legitimize itself for Russians, nothing works better than to create an artificial externe enemy to promote cohesion within a group or country in this case. Right from the dictator's playbook.
So I see no reason for Russia to invade Ukraine anything more than it already has.

And yes, the EU should be way more energy independent, and the dependency on Russia (and the other way around) is one reason, not the most important one, that is climate change, of course, but nevertheless a good by-catch of the energy transition.

readytotaxi wrote:

It's looking gloomy along the Ukraine boarder, US has warned allies an invasion is possible. Read an interesting article about the knock on global effects should that come to pass.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... gniter-rhr

It raises many issues, Ukraine is not a member of Nato, and there would be no formal treaty requirement to come to its aid and yet, aggression on that scale could hardly be ignored.
"First, and most obviously, it would create an energy crisis. Russia is a major exporter of both oil and gas. Most of Europe has allowed itself to become dangerously dependent on Russia’s energy exports, and even more so with the new Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline that bypasses Ukraine."
"60pc of Germany’s energy comes from Russia. In a tight global market, it will be impossible to source that from Qatar and elsewhere. There simply isn’t enough oil and gas available."
Stock markets around the globe would be badly hit, something like 2008-9.
Would the West respond in any meaningful way or just shout a lot and stamp their feet.

You don't really have to be a member of NATO in order to get help from NATO. It's more a matter of how interesting it is for NATO members to involve itself. NATO was part of the war in the former Jugoslavia for instance. Just like NATO has gone far beyond Europe in recent years.

I don't think that we should/could do anything. Because of geography, a meaningful response is almost impossible. Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia, but tries to play the "poor, little me" card. It has a population greater than all the western European countries except for Germany, France, Italy, UK and Spain. If they had spent their money on defense instead of stealing it, they would have a credible defense that Russia probably wouldn't test. This is coming from someone whose paternal grandparents came from there.

johns624 wrote:

I don't think that we should/could do anything. Because of geography, a meaningful response is almost impossible. Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia, but tries to play the "poor, little me" card. It has a population greater than all the western European countries except for Germany, France, Italy, UK and Spain. If they had spent their money on defense instead of stealing it, they would have a credible defense that Russia probably wouldn't test. This is coming from someone whose paternal grandparents came from there.

That's all true, but Ukraine and Belarus are a very useful buffer zone for the EU. I don't think anyone would want Russia right on our front doorstep.

johns624 wrote:

I don't think that we should/could do anything. Because of geography, a meaningful response is almost impossible. Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia, but tries to play the "poor, little me" card. It has a population greater than all the western European countries except for Germany, France, Italy, UK and Spain. If they had spent their money on defense instead of stealing it, they would have a credible defense that Russia probably wouldn't test. This is coming from someone whose paternal grandparents came from there.

You have a point in broad terms, but it's missing a little context. Ukraine didn't need to spend a lot on defense, because its crooked kleptocrats were allied to Russia's crooked kleptocrats, and Russia had signed a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's borders in exchange for getting their Soviet nukes back. The invasion was triggered because Putin freaked out at Ukrainians protesting the corruption, and reneged on his country's word to do so. Personally, that's what makes me uncomfortable; it's not that Ukraine deserves the help, it's that the foreign policy decisions Putin made are such a profoundly sour precedent for Russia's neighbors, whose internal sovereignty he clearly doesn't respect, and the world at large.

(And you over there warming up the what-about machine, I hear you. There can be more than one sour precedent for the world at once, so shut up.)

Newark727 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I don't think that we should/could do anything. Because of geography, a meaningful response is almost impossible. Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia, but tries to play the "poor, little me" card. It has a population greater than all the western European countries except for Germany, France, Italy, UK and Spain. If they had spent their money on defense instead of stealing it, they would have a credible defense that Russia probably wouldn't test. This is coming from someone whose paternal grandparents came from there.

You have a point in broad terms, but it's missing a little context. Ukraine didn't need to spend a lot on defense, because its crooked kleptocrats were allied to Russia's crooked kleptocrats, and Russia had signed a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's borders in exchange for getting their Soviet nukes back. The invasion was triggered because Putin freaked out at Ukrainians protesting the corruption, and reneged on his country's word to do so. Personally, that's what makes me uncomfortable; it's not that Ukraine deserves the help, it's that the foreign policy decisions Putin made are such a profoundly sour precedent for Russia's neighbors, whose internal sovereignty he clearly doesn't respect, and the world at large.

(And you over there warming up the what-about machine, I hear you. There can be more than one sour precedent for the world at once, so shut up.)

And that’s exactly the problem and Putin will try on Baltics if you gets away with invading and integrating the Ukraine into Russia. There is much less of historical record, but Putin and precious of his ilk have used “protecting our co-nationals living there” argument.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I don't think that we should/could do anything. Because of geography, a meaningful response is almost impossible. Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia, but tries to play the "poor, little me" card. It has a population greater than all the western European countries except for Germany, France, Italy, UK and Spain. If they had spent their money on defense instead of stealing it, they would have a credible defense that Russia probably wouldn't test. This is coming from someone whose paternal grandparents came from there.

You have a point in broad terms, but it's missing a little context. Ukraine didn't need to spend a lot on defense, because its crooked kleptocrats were allied to Russia's crooked kleptocrats, and Russia had signed a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's borders in exchange for getting their Soviet nukes back. The invasion was triggered because Putin freaked out at Ukrainians protesting the corruption, and reneged on his country's word to do so. Personally, that's what makes me uncomfortable; it's not that Ukraine deserves the help, it's that the foreign policy decisions Putin made are such a profoundly sour precedent for Russia's neighbors, whose internal sovereignty he clearly doesn't respect, and the world at large.

(And you over there warming up the what-about machine, I hear you. There can be more than one sour precedent for the world at once, so shut up.)

And that’s exactly the problem and Putin will try on Baltics if you gets away with invading and integrating the Ukraine into Russia. There is much less of historical record, but Putin and precious of his ilk have used “protecting our co-nationals living there” argument.

I've been to Estonia and would much rather fight for them than Ukraine. The Baltic republics are tiny but are making a decent effort to protect themselves. They are much more Western oriented.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

And that’s exactly the problem and Putin will try on Baltics if you gets away with invading and integrating the Ukraine into Russia. There is much less of historical record, but Putin and precious of his ilk have used “protecting our co-nationals living there” argument.

Not to mention that "protecting our co-nationals living there" is an argument with some... fairly troubling implications, to put it mildly, if you look into the regimes that have made use of it in the past.

Newark727 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

And that’s exactly the problem and Putin will try on Baltics if you gets away with invading and integrating the Ukraine into Russia. There is much less of historical record, but Putin and precious of his ilk have used “protecting our co-nationals living there” argument.

Not to mention that "protecting our co-nationals living there" is an argument with some... fairly troubling implications, to put it mildly, if you look into the regimes that have made use of it in the past.

Yep. Those poor ethnic Germans in western Poland...

Or Czechoslovakia, Sudetenland!

Various Russian-led countries/empires have been intermittently rolling through Eastern Europe for hundreds of years. The Western European countries have never done anything about it. I don’t see why that would change now. It’s not a winnable fight. The best theoretical suggestion would be to find a different source of energy.

Mortyman wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

It's looking gloomy along the Ukraine boarder, US has warned allies an invasion is possible. Read an interesting article about the knock on global effects should that come to pass.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... gniter-rhr

It raises many issues, Ukraine is not a member of Nato, and there would be no formal treaty requirement to come to its aid and yet, aggression on that scale could hardly be ignored.
"First, and most obviously, it would create an energy crisis. Russia is a major exporter of both oil and gas. Most of Europe has allowed itself to become dangerously dependent on Russia’s energy exports, and even more so with the new Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline that bypasses Ukraine."
"60pc of Germany’s energy comes from Russia. In a tight global market, it will be impossible to source that from Qatar and elsewhere. There simply isn’t enough oil and gas available."
Stock markets around the globe would be badly hit, something like 2008-9.
Would the West respond in any meaningful way or just shout a lot and stamp their feet.

You don't really have to be a member of NATO in order to get help from NATO. It's more a matter of how interesting it is for NATO members to involve itself. NATO was part of the war in the former Jugoslavia for instance. Just like NATO has gone far beyond Europe in recent years.

Who in there right mind would want to go to war over Ukraine? My oldest son is near conscription age, I wouldn’t want to see him die for Ukraine.

johns624 wrote:

I don't think that we should/could do anything. Because of geography, a meaningful response is almost impossible. Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia, but tries to play the "poor, little me" card. It has a population greater than all the western European countries except for Germany, France, Italy, UK and Spain. If they had spent their money on defense instead of stealing it, they would have a credible defense that Russia probably wouldn't test. This is coming from someone whose paternal grandparents came from there.

Ukraine is easily the most corrupt country I have ever worked in. It’s crazy how they allowed industry to collapse, at the fall of the Soviet Union they had the most modern shipyards in Europe, with a well trained, cheap workforce they could have been a match for the Japanese and Koreans, now they can’t even build a basic patrol boat.

Kiwirob wrote:

Who in there right mind would want to go to war over Ukraine? My oldest son is near conscription age, I wouldn’t want to see him die for Ukraine.

Apparently the Russian leadership, Crimea is annexed and it is known that a lot of Russian conscripts died in Eastern Ukraine.

Kiwirob wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

It's looking gloomy along the Ukraine boarder, US has warned allies an invasion is possible. Read an interesting article about the knock on global effects should that come to pass.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... gniter-rhr

It raises many issues, Ukraine is not a member of Nato, and there would be no formal treaty requirement to come to its aid and yet, aggression on that scale could hardly be ignored.
"First, and most obviously, it would create an energy crisis. Russia is a major exporter of both oil and gas. Most of Europe has allowed itself to become dangerously dependent on Russia’s energy exports, and even more so with the new Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline that bypasses Ukraine."
"60pc of Germany’s energy comes from Russia. In a tight global market, it will be impossible to source that from Qatar and elsewhere. There simply isn’t enough oil and gas available."
Stock markets around the globe would be badly hit, something like 2008-9.
Would the West respond in any meaningful way or just shout a lot and stamp their feet.

You don't really have to be a member of NATO in order to get help from NATO. It's more a matter of how interesting it is for NATO members to involve itself. NATO was part of the war in the former Jugoslavia for instance. Just like NATO has gone far beyond Europe in recent years.

Who in there right mind would want to go to war over Ukraine? My oldest son is near conscription age, I wouldn’t want to see him die for Ukraine.

People said the same thing about Poland a while back and fewer may have died making a stand then.

Redd wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I don't think that we should/could do anything. Because of geography, a meaningful response is almost impossible. Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia, but tries to play the "poor, little me" card. It has a population greater than all the western European countries except for Germany, France, Italy, UK and Spain. If they had spent their money on defense instead of stealing it, they would have a credible defense that Russia probably wouldn't test. This is coming from someone whose paternal grandparents came from there.

That's all true, but Ukraine and Belarus are a very useful buffer zone for the EU. I don't think anyone would want Russia right on our front doorstep.

Fact of the matter is that many countries have a direct border with Russia, including EU members, such as Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Norway is an EFTA member wich is the closest you can be to the EU without actually being a member also has a direct border with Russia.

Mortyman wrote:

Redd wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I don't think that we should/could do anything. Because of geography, a meaningful response is almost impossible. Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia, but tries to play the "poor, little me" card. It has a population greater than all the western European countries except for Germany, France, Italy, UK and Spain. If they had spent their money on defense instead of stealing it, they would have a credible defense that Russia probably wouldn't test. This is coming from someone whose paternal grandparents came from there.

That's all true, but Ukraine and Belarus are a very useful buffer zone for the EU. I don't think anyone would want Russia right on our front doorstep.

Fact of the matter is that many countries have a direct border with Russia, including EU members, such as Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Norway is an EFTA member wich is the closest you can be to the EU without actually being a member also has a direct border with Russia.

Norway has a stable relationship with Russia, there is no need for Norway to rock any boats.

Kiwirob wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Redd wrote:

That's all true, but Ukraine and Belarus are a very useful buffer zone for the EU. I don't think anyone would want Russia right on our front doorstep.

Fact of the matter is that many countries have a direct border with Russia, including EU members, such as Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Norway is an EFTA member wich is the closest you can be to the EU without actually being a member also has a direct border with Russia.

Norway has a stable relationship with Russia, there is no need for Norway to rock any boats.

The stability goes in waves.

Kiwirob wrote:

Norway has a stable relationship with Russia, there is no need for Norway to rock any boats.

It would be better, if immigrants stayed out discussions, what their host country should or should not do.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Norway has a stable relationship with Russia, there is no need for Norway to rock any boats.

It would be better, if immigrants stayed out discussions, what their host country should or should not do.

Some immigrants are permanent residents and/or are married to citizens/have citizen children. As long as their stay is not temporary I’d say they have every right as relatives and taxpayers to comment on a country’s affairs.

wingman wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

You don't really have to be a member of NATO in order to get help from NATO. It's more a matter of how interesting it is for NATO members to involve itself. NATO was part of the war in the former Jugoslavia for instance. Just like NATO has gone far beyond Europe in recent years.

Who in there right mind would want to go to war over Ukraine? My oldest son is near conscription age, I wouldn’t want to see him die for Ukraine.

People said the same thing about Poland a while back and fewer may have died making a stand then.

Russia needs to be stood up to, but Ukraine isn't the place.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Norway has a stable relationship with Russia, there is no need for Norway to rock any boats.

It would be better, if immigrants stayed out discussions, what their host country should or should not do.

I'm a taxpayer, voter and will be a citizen very soon.

Aaron747 wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Norway has a stable relationship with Russia, there is no need for Norway to rock any boats.

It would be better, if immigrants stayed out discussions, what their host country should or should not do.

Some immigrants are permanent residents and/or are married to citizens/have citizen children. As long as their stay is not temporary I’d say they have every right as relatives and taxpayers to comment on a country’s affairs.

Yip 15 years and millions of NOK in tax give me the right to have my say.

Kiwirob wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

It would be better, if immigrants stayed out discussions, what their host country should or should not do.

Some immigrants are permanent residents and/or are married to citizens/have citizen children. As long as their stay is not temporary I’d say they have every right as relatives and taxpayers to comment on a country’s affairs.

Yip 15 years and millions of NOK in tax give me the right to have my say.

You betcha - any other take is just ridiculous.

Kiwirob wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

It would be better, if immigrants stayed out discussions, what their host country should or should not do.

Some immigrants are permanent residents and/or are married to citizens/have citizen children. As long as their stay is not temporary I’d say they have every right as relatives and taxpayers to comment on a country’s affairs.

Yip 15 years and millions of NOK in tax give me the right to have my say.

You earn way to much money then ...

Pi7472000 wrote:

No response can be made. Russia will do what it wants to do. It is not an issue for the U.S.

It's an issue for every country in the world, or at least every UN member (aka about all countries in the world). Wars of conquest are illegal these days.

Aesma wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

No response can be made. Russia will do what it wants to do. It is not an issue for the U.S.

It's an issue for every country in the world, or at least every UN member (aka about all countries in the world). Wars of conquest are illegal these days.

Illegal according to who? Russia is a permanent members of the UNSC. This is precisely why having the top arms sellers and conflict creators on the council is asinine.

Aaron747 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

No response can be made. Russia will do what it wants to do. It is not an issue for the U.S.

It's an issue for every country in the world, or at least every UN member (aka about all countries in the world). Wars of conquest are illegal these days.

Illegal according to who? Russia is a permanent members of the UNSC. This is precisely why having the top arms sellers and conflict creators on the council is asinine.

The USA, USSR, UK and France, so ironically the Russians themselves Waging an agressive law. See Nuremberg Tribunal. 1946.

Aaron747 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

No response can be made. Russia will do what it wants to do. It is not an issue for the U.S.

It's an issue for every country in the world, or at least every UN member (aka about all countries in the world). Wars of conquest are illegal these days.

Illegal according to who? Russia is a permanent members of the UNSC. This is precisely why having the top arms sellers and conflict creators on the council is asinine.

We all know the reason why the UNSC was configured the way it is, let's try to use something else to address the issue. At least the UN has lasted longer that the original League of Nations, did or does the UNSC have anything to do with that longevity?
As for a potential military conflict involving a NATO member, I suspect the first shot fired would be to discredit such a member to allow the membership itself to boot them from the club.
Ukraine is on its own, however, I will do some research on the Great Patriotic War to see how they fared, I suspect if they truly value their independence, it would be a long struggle regardless of whether the west assist officially. It would become a financial boom for western arms dealers and smugglers getting weapons across the border. I can imagine the gas / trade wars if the local insurgency gains ground and Russian military might is unable to quell.
Interesting time ahead. It does however show that the mantra that if one is invested with other via trade military action are dmininshed.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Norway has a stable relationship with Russia, there is no need for Norway to rock any boats.

It would be better, if immigrants stayed out discussions, what their host country should or should not do.

Not to speak for someone else, but he's an expat, resident and pays taxes there from what I've gathered so far. Why should he not have a say?

Pi7472000 wrote:

No response can be made. Russia will do what it wants to do. It is not an issue for the U.S.

If you tolerate this then your children will be next...........

Not sure of Russia could manage to keep Ukraine occupied for a longer period of time due to the size of Ukraine, probably just better the insert a putinist as president/prime minister.

Mortyman wrote:

Redd wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I don't think that we should/could do anything. Because of geography, a meaningful response is almost impossible. Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia, but tries to play the "poor, little me" card. It has a population greater than all the western European countries except for Germany, France, Italy, UK and Spain. If they had spent their money on defense instead of stealing it, they would have a credible defense that Russia probably wouldn't test. This is coming from someone whose paternal grandparents came from there.

That's all true, but Ukraine and Belarus are a very useful buffer zone for the EU. I don't think anyone would want Russia right on our front doorstep.

Fact of the matter is that many countries have a direct border with Russia, including EU members, such as Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Norway is an EFTA member wich is the closest you can be to the EU without actually being a member also has a direct border with Russia.

With the exception of Finland those border countries are also NATO-members and I doubt Russia would take a gamble on those because if they do the rest
of Nato have to respond.If NATO doesn't respond then the point of NATO cease to exist,.

Aaron747 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

No response can be made. Russia will do what it wants to do. It is not an issue for the U.S.

It's an issue for every country in the world, or at least every UN member (aka about all countries in the world). Wars of conquest are illegal these days.

Illegal according to who? Russia is a permanent members of the UNSC. This is precisely why having the top arms sellers and conflict creators on the council is asinine.

According to international law, and the UN if a vote was to happen. The UNSC would obviously be useless, but there can still be a vote of the full assembly.

"Peaceful" takeover of Crimea.
Detached Russian speaking Eastern Ukraine from its neighbor and turned them into semi-autonomous republics beholden to Russia.

IMO, Russia has already achieved its goals in Ukraine.


Armed conflict to takeover Ukraine is not Putin's style. Undertable moves to overthrow the US puppet Govt and replace him with someone who answers to Russia - now THAT is a possibility.

I feel some in the West are intentionally scare-mongering by prediting a war with Russia over Ukraine and China over Taiwan. Perhaps this is a tactic to gain additional funds for their military projects. But in the real world, there is little chance of any conflict going "hot" in the next 2 years.

The only "hot" war I see as possible in 2022-2024 period is China-Pak vs India for control over Indian occupied Kashmir, Ladakh and the North East. China is itching for a battle to test its new military gizmos and solidify its claims to the 1860 pre-British India border and Pakistan would be stupid to repeat the mistake it made in 1962 and sit out a China-v-India war.

BawliBooch wrote:

But in the real world, there is little chance of any conflict going "hot" in the next 2 years.

Militaries plan just a little longer than 2 years into the future.

Aesma wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

It's an issue for every country in the world, or at least every UN member (aka about all countries in the world). Wars of conquest are illegal these days.

Illegal according to who? Russia is a permanent members of the UNSC. This is precisely why having the top arms sellers and conflict creators on the council is asinine.

According to international law, and the UN if a vote was to happen. The UNSC would obviously be useless, but there can still be a vote of the full assembly.

This is the reason why the security council veto is such a hot topic, the UN can vote but a single security council member can veto it.

The US regularly uses it's veto to stop any resolutions condemning Israel and Russia vetoed a resolution condemning its annexation of Crimea.

Russia has no real desire to invade and take the rest of Ukraine. They took Crimea because they were afraid of losing Sevastopol. They wanted their own port, not one that belonged to a nation desiring to be part of the EU and NATO. And they wanted their own route to the port that did not go through Ukraine. They have both now. (Not that both are not easily cut off if there ever was a war in the region, but woe be upon any nation that does such)

Russia's goal is never to occupy (why take on a headache like that?), rather it is to destabilize and to reduce western integration. And in particular prevent them from joining the EU or NATO . Russia just wants Ukraine weak and divided and over time under their complete influence. We'll see if that happens. So far they have succeeded the first and second part.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Russia's goal is never to occupy (why take on a headache like that?), rather it is to destabilize and to reduce western integration.

Putin wants to restore the Soviet Evil Empire, even if it is a mere torso of the original. Having a full control over Ukraine is essential for the plan. The weaker the EU/NATO is by engaging in various delusional "strategic autonomy" projects, the more tempted he might be to take on the Baltic republics.

It looks like I'll have to cancel my planned trip to Ukraine to meet up with my wife and son. I'll probably have to change their return tickets to the US.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Russia's goal is never to occupy (why take on a headache like that?), rather it is to destabilize and to reduce western integration.

Putin wants to restore the Soviet Evil Empire, even if it is a mere torso of the original. Having a full control over Ukraine is essential for the plan. The weaker the EU/NATO is by engaging in various delusional "strategic autonomy" projects, the more tempted he might be to take on the Baltic republics.

I'm sure he doesn't want this at all, what would be the point, the days of empire building ended during WW1.

Russia is the biggest country in the world, mostly empty. Why does he need to take bits and pieces of neighboring countries ? Yet he does it.

Aesma wrote:

Russia is the biggest country in the world, mostly empty. Why does he need to take bits and pieces of neighboring countries ? Yet he does it.

Really! At least Trump offered to buy Greenland, not just invade it.

Aesma wrote:

Russia is the biggest country in the world, mostly empty. Why does he need to take bits and pieces of neighboring countries ? Yet he does it.

I guess when you have great power you like to feel it flex now and then, gives you comfort perhaps.

https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feedi ... logistics/

This article analyzes whether Russia has the logistical capability to support a large scale invasion.

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 ?

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.

Aesma wrote:

Russia is the biggest country in the world, mostly empty. Why does he need to take bits and pieces of neighboring countries ? Yet he does it.

For the same reason that most billionaires are likely still harder working than the poor. Money, power, land - doesn't matter how much you have, once you've tasted the glut you will never have too much.

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.