About 2 decades ago, I read Russka, a historical novel by Edward Rutherford. It traces around 2000 years of Russian history and tells how the Russian people were failed by their rulers time and time again and still somehow they were able to hold onto power. Democracy as well as human rights as practised in the west was never there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russka_(novel)

It is a heavy read and sadly it only is/was till 1991. IIRC, the book stops just before the Russian Empire implosion but that would have added perhaps another 100-150 odd pages who knows.

The reason I'm sharing the above is once you read it, you understand the Russians a bit more nuanced takes on things. One of the other things which I didn't see anybody mention in the thread are the Russian hackers who have also been playing games on the world stage for years now without apparently any consequences.

It looks like the US is giving up on the Ukraine, talk of supporting an insurgency, not defense:
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-invasion ... 54315.html

Romania, as part of Nato is different. Why hasn't the EU prepared? This has been obvious for years.

Lightsaber

OK. I am annoyed... A post of mine was deleted because it discussed elements of Ukraine's issues.

This thread should have been locked. Just like the thread on Ukraine was. If there were posts that were off topic then like that thread it should have been locked....
There is no place (now) to discuss Ukraine and Russia and all the knock on effects of Putin's strategy. This thread bore the brunt of that decision, but the topic was valid, even here, as it is all interconnected. Why was that thread not "cleaned up" like this thread was and allowed to proceed on topic?

Tugg

lightsaber wrote:

It looks like the US is giving up on the Ukraine, talk of supporting an insurgency, not defense:
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-invasion ... 54315.html

Romania, as part of Nato is different. Why hasn't the EU prepared? This has been obvious for years.

Lightsaber

The EU is a barely functioning collection of countries with conflicting interests who do not share a common language. There is no way such an organization will be able to produce a credible policy for common defense. Only NATO with the US as master (that can smash European heads together) can defend Europe from Russia.

lightsaber wrote:

It looks like the US is giving up on the Ukraine, talk of supporting an insurgency, not defense:
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-invasion ... 54315.html

Romania, as part of Nato is different. Why hasn't the EU prepared? This has been obvious for years.

Lightsaber

I can't find any quote talking about "supporting an insurgency" in the AP article linked in this Yahoo article. And the AP article dates from Jan 20, it's not a new development of the recent hours.

https://apnews.com/article/antony-blinken-jen-psaki-vladimir-putin-sergey-lavrov-congress-1df536e9a832830dc3bae2e89aef4116

As for the EU preparation, EU has no military power because its (ex-)member states, or at least some of them, consider that their defense (and foreign policy) shall remain an exclusive competence of the member states (and of NATO). To be fair, several NATO members are now starting to slowly increase their military spending. But indeed, had this happened a few years earlier, it would have given a bit more food for thought to Putin.

Tugger wrote:

OK. I am annoyed... A post of mine was deleted because it discussed elements of Ukraine's issues.

This thread should have been locked. Just like the thread on Ukraine was. If there were posts that were off topic then like that thread it should have been locked....
There is no place (now) to discuss Ukraine and Russia and all the knock on effects of Putin's strategy. This thread bore the brunt of that decision, but the topic was valid, even here, as it is all interconnected. Why was that thread not "cleaned up" like this thread was and allowed to proceed on topic?

Tugg

I agree - maybe it's because many Anet'ers are familiar with military history that these discussions are important. If this goes bad, discussions about adding flights to Peoria aren't really going to matter a whole bunch.

Does anyone recall reading a book called "Alas, Babylon" by Pat Frank?

tomcat wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

It looks like the US is giving up on the Ukraine, talk of supporting an insurgency, not defense:
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-invasion ... 54315.html

Romania, as part of Nato is different. Why hasn't the EU prepared? This has been obvious for years.

Lightsaber

I can't find any quote talking about "supporting an insurgency" in the AP article linked in this Yahoo article. And the AP article dates from Jan 20, it's not a new development of the recent hours.

https://apnews.com/article/antony-blinken-jen-psaki-vladimir-putin-sergey-lavrov-congress-1df536e9a832830dc3bae2e89aef4116

As for the EU preparation, EU has no military power because its (ex-)member states, or at least some of them, consider that their defense (and foreign policy) shall remain an exclusive competence of the member states (and of NATO). To be fair, several NATO members are now starting to slowly increase their military spending. But indeed, had this happened a few years earlier, it would have given a bit more food for thought to Putin.

From what little I understand and know the whole idea of EU was based on trade. The idea is and was to have peace and hence defence wasn't part of things. And to be fair on those aspects it has been proved to be brilliant.

In fact, Eurocorps seems to be a pretty recent thing -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps

Now to hope that they will be as mature as NATO might be asking too much. It would be interesting to read an article or two about what NATO members are doing to increase their military spending and their thoughts/strategies about the same. That would be useful.

pune wrote:

Now to hope that they will be as mature as NATO might be asking too much. It would be interesting to read an article or two about what NATO members are doing to increase their military spending and their thoughts/strategies about the same. That would be useful.

It shouldn't be much of a problem since most members are already NATO members and used to working with each other. The only full time units are French and German. There's a reason for this. They are the main proponents because they didn't like playing second fiddle to the US and UK. They want the title but not the job. A brigade with its units spread out over several bases has no cohesiveness.

LCDFlight wrote:

Crimea. Donbass. Donetsk? Kiev, barely saved in 2014. Not a failing state? How much worse can it get, buddy? I have great respect for the Ukraine people, but they have no fundamental security. They are well educated people who are mostly well behaved and have long history. But Russia has undermined their state so deeply that it barely runs. Only the US or China can really protect Ukraine from Putin. He is getting old and he knows he has to get this done. The US wishes Ukraine well, but we are not committed to its defense. Nobody is. Putin noticed that. And that’s why This is all happening.

What is your definition of a failed state? Looks like it is different from the commonly accepted one. Here, you can review it or read it for the first time, whatever applies to you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state.
Ukraine has a functional government, although at the last president election it also became a victim of the populism virus. It has functional courts, economy, and military. Where is your proof that the state is barely run? It is definitely a state under attack, but not a failed one.

Dogman wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Crimea. Donbass. Donetsk? Kiev, barely saved in 2014. Not a failing state? How much worse can it get, buddy? I have great respect for the Ukraine people, but they have no fundamental security. They are well educated people who are mostly well behaved and have long history. But Russia has undermined their state so deeply that it barely runs. Only the US or China can really protect Ukraine from Putin. He is getting old and he knows he has to get this done. The US wishes Ukraine well, but we are not committed to its defense. Nobody is. Putin noticed that. And that’s why This is all happening.

What is your definition of a failed state? Looks like it is different from the commonly accepted one. Here, you can review it or read it for the first time, whatever applies to you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state.
Ukraine has a functional government, although at the last president election it also became a victim of the populism virus. It has functional courts, economy, and military. Where is your proof that the state is barely run? It is definitely a state under attack, but not a failed one.

My definition is the same as the commonly accepted one. Ukraine's grip on Crimea, Donbass and Donetsk has been lost. The next domino to fall would be Kiev... full state failure.

Ukraine only has the economy of a small US state. Its GDP is a little over one-tenth that of the US state of Wisconsin. Its GDP is smaller than the US state of Rhode Island.

I went to Kiev a few years back, I was very impressed by how well they are holding up. Kiev looks better than most American cities... at first. It is tidy and orderly. It is only when you read background literature that you know how fragile Ukraine's situation is. No military allies, no real money, hybrid warfare in progress versus a KGB genius who never stops.

wingman wrote:

I said it in jest a while back but, really, squeeze the oligarchs by the cajoolies and the Putin head will pop off. For every square kilometer of terrain they take London, Paris and the US should confiscate $1B in assets. Then turn off that damn gas pipe. All this talk of "sanctions" just drives the same business right into the existing money laundering schemes managed (or at least tacitly condoned) by London, Paris and the US.

The US should send some cruise missiles to bomb compressor stations on the gas pipelines. That way the Germans won't be able to stab everyone else in the back.

tommy1808 wrote:

He certainly is old enough to start showing cognitive problems.

Not just him, large parts of the russian populace seem to live in a parallel universe of some sort. But that's what decades of lies and propaganda will do to you I guess. It's a very explosive situation we are facing, I just hope some calm minds will be able to diffuse it.

pune wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

wingman wrote:

I said it in jest a while back but, really, squeeze the oligarchs by the cajoolies and the Putin head will pop off. For every square kilometer of terrain they take London, Paris and the US should confiscate $1B in assets. Then turn off that damn gas pipe. All this talk of "sanctions" just drives the same business right into the existing money laundering schemes managed (or at least tacitly condoned) by London, Paris and the US.

The US should send some cruise missiles to bomb compressor stations on the gas pipelines. That way the Germans won't be able to stab everyone else in the back.

For money-laundering UK is actually the go-to-destination. If you look at the countries in the top 13, 4 places are in and around UK.

https://index.taxjustice.net/cthi/2021/world/index/top

But the Germans' goal seems to be to secure natural gas from the Nord Stream Siberian pipeline that would line Putin's pockets. Physically interfering with delivery of gas seems to be the only way to shut off the money spigot.

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream# tells well and also the various issues and aspects of it. I do wonder how the other countries would have reacted (and probably would not be in a place to) if they were in something like the Chinese BRI. I don't think Biden would risk going to war or something, there probably is no appetite especially after the soldiers have come from Afghanistan. And he has too many things to fix and look after. The above being one more.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

pune wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

The US should send some cruise missiles to bomb compressor stations on the gas pipelines. That way the Germans won't be able to stab everyone else in the back.

For money-laundering UK is actually the go-to-destination. If you look at the countries in the top 13, 4 places are in and around UK.

https://index.taxjustice.net/cthi/2021/world/index/top

But the Germans' goal seems to be to secure natural gas from the Nord Stream Siberian pipeline that would line Putin's pockets. Physically interfering with delivery of gas seems to be the only way to shut off the money spigot.

There are a dozen EU countries more depended on Russian gas than Germany, you should get off that narrow focus.

best regards
Thomas

AeroVega wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

It looks like the US is giving up on the Ukraine, talk of supporting an insurgency, not defense:
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-invasion ... 54315.html

Romania, as part of Nato is different. Why hasn't the EU prepared? This has been obvious for years.

Lightsaber

The EU is a barely functioning collection of countries with conflicting interests who do not share a common language. There is no way such an organization will be able to produce a credible policy for common defense. Only NATO with the US as master (that can smash European heads together) can defend Europe from Russia.

With the EU not meeting guidelines for Nato preparedness, I do not think the US population is behind the US leading this conflict.

We will defend our allies. Romania and Bulgaria joined Nato, so deserve our protection.

I'm waiting for Europe to deploy their expidiriary forces to show they care.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

I'm waiting for Europe to deploy their expeditionary forces to show they care.

Lightsaber

You forgot your "sarcasm" emoticon. The only unit they have is a French-German brigade that is stationed between several different bases, which leads to a lack of cohesion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-German_Brigade

This comment veers off topic but still relates, to me at least, to this issue we face. A country that starts slowly and methodically taking land that doesn't belong to it by force, or outright invades an entire country, presents the oldest lesson in European history. It's plain as day the US doesn't have the history to match but it certainly makes it easier for us to remember ours. Putin knows exactly how to expose and leverage differences in NATO and The West in general. He's done a formidable job in US society already. Nevertheless, Americans do have a proven ability to focus the mind, unify and inflict pain using a number of means. It's extremely disconcerting not to see this in Europe when confronted from the same bellicose tactics that have wreaked havoc countless of times in the past 150 years, much less the full 1500 years Europeans like to puff up about when comparing notes with us adolescent Yanks.

Putin taking Ukraine unhindered would be just the final step in his opening sequence. That's the lesson. We all know it. And doing nothing about it only grows the consequences exponentially. That's the other lesson. I haven't followed news of Germany and France actively blocking the rendering of military assistance to Ukraine but if true it's the very worst thing they can do in the long term. Putin will exploit that kind of weakness to his benefit like countless of others have going back a Millenia. What 's so incomprehensible is that the debate seems to be about money and the economic pain Europe would bear by more forcefully confronting Russia now. The countries of NATO and the EU simply cannot lose that kind of war against a doddering mess of country like Russia. This is the time to make that crystal clear to Putin and his Oligarch kleptocracy.

lightsaber wrote:

I'm waiting for Europe to deploy their expidiriary forces to show they care.

Lightsaber

At the end of the day, you cannot want something more than your proxy or ally and expect to get it.

The Europeans wanted cheap gas, called it "green energy" and bet on the fact that the Russians would be less Russian, and not view Russian defense problems in a non-Russian fashion, if the Europeans bought said gas.

Reagan told Thatcher it was a fool's gambit in the 1980s. It hasn't improved since then.

The reality is that the US passed it 100% debt to GDP ratio years ago. The US cannot afford to underwrite the security of the wealthy, anymore. The US cannot afford the most boutique military anymore. The US cannot afford the welfare state it has got, and the military obligations it has got.

Hard choices are in the future and making hard choices isn't what the US has had recent experience with.

wingman wrote:

The countries of NATO and the EU simply cannot lose that kind of war against a doddering mess of country like Russia. This is the time to make that crystal clear to Putin and his Oligarch kleptocracy.

NATO (sans US) and EU wide forces are better than they were in 2012, yes or no?

Because NATO couldn't defeat a civil war ravaged Libya in 2012 without US help.

Russia is a klepocracy, and its a mess, but it is not doddering. Putin and his minions have a vision and a will to power, neither of which is terribly evident in any Western capital at this moment.

wingman wrote:

I haven't followed news of Germany and France actively blocking the rendering of military assistance to Ukraine but if true it's the very worst thing they can do in the long term.

Here's an example. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/uk ... uxbndlbing

FlapOperator wrote:

wingman wrote:

The countries of NATO and the EU simply cannot lose that kind of war against a doddering mess of country like Russia. This is the time to make that crystal clear to Putin and his Oligarch kleptocracy.

NATO (sans US) and EU wide forces are better than they were in 2012, yes or no?

Because NATO couldn't defeat a civil war ravaged Libya in 2012 without US help.

I'd say that they aren't. It appears that Putin decided not to wait all those years until they boosted their spending to 2%.

FlapOperator wrote:

wingman wrote:

The countries of NATO and the EU simply cannot lose that kind of war against a doddering mess of country like Russia. This is the time to make that crystal clear to Putin and his Oligarch kleptocracy.

NATO (sans US) and EU wide forces are better than they were in 2012, yes or no?

Because NATO couldn't defeat a civil war ravaged Libya in 2012 without US help.

Russia is a klepocracy, and its a mess, but it is not doddering. Putin and his minions have a vision and a will to power, neither of which is terribly evident in any Western capital at this moment.

I don't know about vision but I can say that both Russia and China have been sharing tactics and strategies together for quite a long time now and that has improved a lot of things between them. China is looking to do a network-centric war with India and sadly most of our generals are fast asleep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0FL9Y-RqEU or rather made to asleep.

I am sure apart from the huge manpower there are also other strategies they would be employing. I do agree with the other poster that U.S. just has no appetite for another war.

pune wrote:

I am sure apart from the huge manpower there are also other strategies they would be employing. I do agree with the other poster that U.S. just has no appetite for another war.

There's a big difference between helping out an ally and having to do most of the fighting and logistics yourself.

FlapOperator wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I'm waiting for Europe to deploy their expidiriary forces to show they care.

Lightsaber

At the end of the day, you cannot want something more than your proxy or ally and expect to get it.

The Europeans wanted cheap gas, called it "green energy" and bet on the fact that the Russians would be less Russian, and not view Russian defense problems in a non-Russian fashion, if the Europeans bought said gas.

Reagan told Thatcher it was a fool's gambit in the 1980s. It hasn't improved since then.

The reality is that the US passed it 100% debt to GDP ratio years ago. The US cannot afford to underwrite the security of the wealthy, anymore. The US cannot afford the most boutique military anymore. The US cannot afford the welfare state it has got, and the military obligations it has got.

Hard choices are in the future and making hard choices isn't what the US has had recent experience with.

Agreed, the US cannot afford to subsidize wealthy country defense anymore.

This is going to get interesting.

Lightsaber

FlapOperator wrote:

The US cannot afford to underwrite the security of the wealthy, anymore. The US cannot afford the most boutique military anymore. The US cannot afford the welfare state it has got, and the military obligations it has got.

I've been saying this for years! The US, through NATO, is subsidizing Europe's defense. Without the US or NATO defending Europe, they will fall. It is time to let Europe take care of their own defense or suffer the consequences if they don't.

lightsaber wrote:

.

Agreed, the US cannot afford to subsidize wealthy country defense anymore.

This is going to get interesting.

Lightsaber

The 4 largest EU economies are all larger than Russia's, and Spain's is slightly smaller. The 5 largest EU countries have a population over double of what Russia's is. They have the means, just not the will.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/r ... al-product
https://learnertrip.com/demography/euro ... C636%2C000

Here's a perfect example of the noncommitment---Netherlands is sending TWO F35 fighters to Bulgaria, starting in APRIL. It would be funny, if it weren't so pathetic!
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ukr ... 29860.html

Not much we can do. Russia will take what it wants as it marches West! Will be interesting to see how far West they go.

lightsaber wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I'm waiting for Europe to deploy their expidiriary forces to show they care.

Lightsaber

At the end of the day, you cannot want something more than your proxy or ally and expect to get it.

The Europeans wanted cheap gas, called it "green energy" and bet on the fact that the Russians would be less Russian, and not view Russian defense problems in a non-Russian fashion, if the Europeans bought said gas.

Reagan told Thatcher it was a fool's gambit in the 1980s. It hasn't improved since then.

The reality is that the US passed it 100% debt to GDP ratio years ago. The US cannot afford to underwrite the security of the wealthy, anymore. The US cannot afford the most boutique military anymore. The US cannot afford the welfare state it has got, and the military obligations it has got.

Hard choices are in the future and making hard choices isn't what the US has had recent experience with.

Agreed, the US cannot afford to subsidize wealthy country defense anymore.

This is going to get interesting.

Lightsaber

They’ll have too. Remember how world war 2 started?

FlapOperator wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

That's why appeasement politics doesn't work.

True, which is why appeasement politics needs to stop.

Someone needs to tell the US Senate, who recently used the dreaded filibuster to stop the sanction of NordStream2.

The US has no right to sanction Nordstream2, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with them. I used to work for a company who supplied equipment to the pumping stations in Germany, why should they be sanctioned, they sold the equipment to German companies.

pune wrote:

tomcat wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

It looks like the US is giving up on the Ukraine, talk of supporting an insurgency, not defense:
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-invasion ... 54315.html

Romania, as part of Nato is different. Why hasn't the EU prepared? This has been obvious for years.

Lightsaber

I can't find any quote talking about "supporting an insurgency" in the AP article linked in this Yahoo article. And the AP article dates from Jan 20, it's not a new development of the recent hours.

https://apnews.com/article/antony-blinken-jen-psaki-vladimir-putin-sergey-lavrov-congress-1df536e9a832830dc3bae2e89aef4116

As for the EU preparation, EU has no military power because its (ex-)member states, or at least some of them, consider that their defense (and foreign policy) shall remain an exclusive competence of the member states (and of NATO). To be fair, several NATO members are now starting to slowly increase their military spending. But indeed, had this happened a few years earlier, it would have given a bit more food for thought to Putin.

From what little I understand and know the whole idea of EU was based on trade. The idea is and was to have peace and hence defence wasn't part of things. And to be fair on those aspects it has been proved to be brilliant.

In fact, Eurocorps seems to be a pretty recent thing -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps

Now to hope that they will be as mature as NATO might be asking too much. It would be interesting to read an article or two about what NATO members are doing to increase their military spending and their thoughts/strategies about the same. That would be useful.

The Eurocorps thing is at the disposal of the EU but it's not an EU organization.
https://www.eurocorps.org/about-us/a-force-for-the-eu-nato/

Regarding the NATO members spending, here are the latest figures and their evolution over the recent years. They have reached a low point in 2014 outside the US and have been slowly increasing since then. It's basically the acquisition of new equipment (hello F-35 but not only) which has been driving this spending increase.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf

And here is the NATO homepage for its expenditures:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm

Kiwirob wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

True, which is why appeasement politics needs to stop.

Someone needs to tell the US Senate, who recently used the dreaded filibuster to stop the sanction of NordStream2.

The US has no right to sanction Nordstream2, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with them. I used to work for a company who supplied equipment to the pumping stations in Germany, why should they be sanctioned, they sold the equipment to German companies.

Well, Germany sold some old GDR/Russian made howitzers to Finland, who sold them to Estonia and now Germany won't let them go to Ukraine.
https://www.archyde.com/no-permission-f ... s%20saying.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/p ... e-war.html

I would like to quote a line from the article: "the reality is clear: Ukraine is so corrupt, and its grasp of democracy is so tenuous, that no one expects it to be accepted for NATO membership in the next decade or two."

Even the NY Times admits Ukraine is a mess. No one ever brings up this detail. Ukraine has experienced massive amounts of corruption and mismanagement after the fall of the USSR. For example, did you know that one president who ran the country in the 1990's was implicated in the brutal murder and decapitation of a journalist ? Kinds of begs the question why are we sticking our neck out so much for this nation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-21525593

Why should the west stick our necks out for Ukraine ? They make an excellent proxy country to do the fighting on behalf of NATO against Russia. A bit like the way the USA got the UK to do the fighting for them against Germany in the first couple of years of WW2 while lending the UK the money and assets needed to fight

alberchico wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/politics/us-russia-ukraine-war.html

I would like to quote a line from the article: "the reality is clear: Ukraine is so corrupt, and its grasp of democracy is so tenuous, that no one expects it to be accepted for NATO membership in the next decade or two."

Even the NY Times admits Ukraine is a mess. No one ever brings up this detail. Ukraine has experienced massive amounts of corruption and mismanagement after the fall of the USSR. For example, did you know that one president who ran the country in the 1990's was implicated in the brutal murder and decapitation of a journalist ? Kinds of begs the question why are we sticking our neck out so much for this nation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-21525593

Ukrainians got out in the street to protest the corruption. It's what got their country invaded to start with. Ukraine isn't the issue. It's that Russia actively punishes countries that try to rid themselves of crooked autocrats, and in the course of doing so, violates the sovereignty of its neighbors (even former allies!,) lies to the world, and violates international law.

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Someone needs to tell the US Senate, who recently used the dreaded filibuster to stop the sanction of NordStream2.

The US has no right to sanction Nordstream2, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with them. I used to work for a company who supplied equipment to the pumping stations in Germany, why should they be sanctioned, they sold the equipment to German companies.

Well, Germany sold some old GDR/Russian made howitzers to Finland, who sold them to Estonia and now Germany won't let them go to Ukraine.
https://www.archyde.com/no-permission-f ... s%20saying.

It's not the same situation at all. It's German made military equipment, they get a veto on where it's sold onto, the US has the same policy. For what my previous company sold had no US content and was made in the companies factory in Germany.

Newark727 wrote:

alberchico wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/politics/us-russia-ukraine-war.html

I would like to quote a line from the article: "the reality is clear: Ukraine is so corrupt, and its grasp of democracy is so tenuous, that no one expects it to be accepted for NATO membership in the next decade or two."

Even the NY Times admits Ukraine is a mess. No one ever brings up this detail. Ukraine has experienced massive amounts of corruption and mismanagement after the fall of the USSR. For example, did you know that one president who ran the country in the 1990's was implicated in the brutal murder and decapitation of a journalist ? Kinds of begs the question why are we sticking our neck out so much for this nation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-21525593

Ukrainians got out in the street to protest the corruption. It's what got their country invaded to start with. Ukraine isn't the issue. It's that Russia actively punishes countries that try to rid themselves of crooked autocrats, and in the course of doing so, violates the sovereignty of its neighbors (even former allies!,) lies to the world, and violates international law.

Do you honestly believe that? Ukraine today is just a corrupt as it ever was. I had a customer whose son was called up in 2015, the family paid to get him out of his service, most families who could afford to do this did, so only children of poor people ended up fighting.

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

The US has no right to sanction Nordstream2, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with them. I used to work for a company who supplied equipment to the pumping stations in Germany, why should they be sanctioned, they sold the equipment to German companies.

Well, Germany sold some old GDR/Russian made howitzers to Finland, who sold them to Estonia and now Germany won't let them go to Ukraine.
https://www.archyde.com/no-permission-f ... s%20saying.

It's not the same situation at all. It's German made military equipment, they get a veto on where it's sold onto, the US has the same policy. For what my previous company sold had no US content and was made in the companies factory in Germany.

All is fair in love and war.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Why should the west stick our necks out for Ukraine ? They make an excellent proxy country to do the fighting on behalf of NATO against Russia. A bit like the way the USA got the UK to do the fighting for them against Germany in the first couple of years of WW2 while lending the UK the money and assets needed to fight

I don't think anyone would agree with you that the US got the UK to do the fighting for them. Britain declared war on Germany. Most Americans wanted nothing to do with another European war.

Kiwirob wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

True, which is why appeasement politics needs to stop.

Someone needs to tell the US Senate, who recently used the dreaded filibuster to stop the sanction of NordStream2.

The US has no right to sanction Nordstream2, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with them. I used to work for a company who supplied equipment to the pumping stations in Germany, why should they be sanctioned, they sold the equipment to German companies.

The Germans and other NordStream2 beneficiaries cannot have their cake and eat it to. Considering Russian actions to destabilize Europe to date entirely outside the current Ukraine situation, any business dealing has to be seen as directly benefiting a nation whose intelligence operatives are brazenly doing illegal acts all over Europe. The idea that Gazprom is somehow insulated from the highest organs of Russian government is laughable on its face.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Why should the west stick our necks out for Ukraine ? They make an excellent proxy country to do the fighting on behalf of NATO against Russia. A bit like the way the USA got the UK to do the fighting for them against Germany in the first couple of years of WW2 while lending the UK the money and assets needed to fight

I don't think anyone would agree with you that the US got the UK to do the fighting for them. Britain declared war on Germany. Most Americans wanted nothing to do with another European war.

And still don't today... Just in the last few months, on this forum, Europeans have preached to us about how civilized and cultured Europeans are compared to violent Americans. Okay, we'll stay home.

tommy1808 wrote:

[
There are a dozen EU countries more depended on Russian gas than Germany,

Yet none of them collude with Putin the way Germany does. Not even Orban.

johns624 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Why should the west stick our necks out for Ukraine ? They make an excellent proxy country to do the fighting on behalf of NATO against Russia. A bit like the way the USA got the UK to do the fighting for them against Germany in the first couple of years of WW2 while lending the UK the money and assets needed to fight

I don't think anyone would agree with you that the US got the UK to do the fighting for them. Britain declared war on Germany. Most Americans wanted nothing to do with another European war.

And still don't today... Just in the last few months, on this forum, Europeans have preached to us about how civilized and cultured Europeans are compared to violent Americans. Okay, we'll stay home.

I know many in the US listened to anti semite and 92nd or 93rd person to fly across the Atlantic, Lindbergh.
FDR however knew that in the longer term, before Pearl Harbor and then Germany declaring war on the US, that Hitler's Germany was the greater threat to the US and/or US economic interests.
Why did Hitler declare war? It seems his bunch were not that well informed about the US, thinking it 'Jew ridden' and full of 'Negro influences'. (They'd have fit right in to your Jan 6th mob).
So in their estimation they would eventually be at war with the US once they 'cleaned up' in Europe, however they were certain that the USA would not be able to deploy a force of say the size used in Operation Torch anywhere within the European area until 1970!

Not that the pre US entering the war help was one way, the 1940 Tizard Mission to send vital military technology to the US, no charge, no exchange back asked for, often called the most valuable intelligence and science given freely from one nation to another.
From areas where the US was researching at some level (atomic weapons), where it directly supplemented and improved on other areas such as radar technology and in some fields where the US was at the time, nowhere, jet engines.

Then the area where both allies were leaped, rocket technology, imagine Von Braun's team, not having to contend with the RAF flattening his facilities, with even more resources in a victorious German superstate, where the V-2 was a test vehicle for something bigger, longer ranged.

Back to today, I guess that those European NATO forces either scrambling to deploy additional resources, land air and sea, the latter headed by HMS Prince Of Wales, to bolster the security of NATO nations especially threatened by Russia, are some kind of mirage?
European NATO and US forces have been doing this in some form for several years, since Crimea in fact, be it the air policing, NATO warships (despite attempts at intimidation by Russian forces) assuring right of passage in the Black Sea, or battlegroups deployed to Poland, Estonia and Romania to name the obvious ones.

The way some on here carry on you'd think Europe is demanding that US troops go and fight in the Ukraine, maybe that's how your media reports it? Of course not, aside from not being a NATO member no one is suggesting that but the neighboring states could be pulled in.
Then of course the obvious question, 'if Putin gets away with this, keeps getting away with this sort of thing, what happens when he does something that NATO has to confront, directly, even in combat?'
No one wants that, not even Putin for all his bluster and bullying.

The US of course wants European NATO forces to play their part in deterring Putin from a course like that, they have been, for years.
Has it been considered why Putin is doing this now? Is it economic problems/instability at home and seeking a distraction, an older man in a hurry to realize his ambitions within a narrowing window, based on his old resentments and bitterness?
Probably both.

GDB wrote:

The US of course wants European NATO forces to play their part in deterring Putin from a course like that, they have been, for years.
Has it been considered why Putin is doing this now? Is it economic problems/instability at home and seeking a distraction, an older man in a hurry to realize his ambitions within a narrowing window, based on his old resentments and bitterness?
Probably both.

Add a thrird--he knows Europe has quite a few divisions right now. Between Brexit, France and Germany pushing an EU military, dependence on Russia gas, now may be his best chance.

johns624 wrote:

GDB wrote:

The US of course wants European NATO forces to play their part in deterring Putin from a course like that, they have been, for years.
Has it been considered why Putin is doing this now? Is it economic problems/instability at home and seeking a distraction, an older man in a hurry to realize his ambitions within a narrowing window, based on his old resentments and bitterness?
Probably both.

Add a thrird--he knows Europe has quite a few divisions right now. Between Brexit, France and Germany pushing an EU military, dependence on Russia gas, now may be his best chance.

Yes, one of (the very many) objections I had to that act of great British political stupidity in 2016 was knowing that Putin would be happy about it.
And look who else has benefited, not that he'll be PM for much longer the way things are going, though the likely replacements are no better.

Here is another thing to consider, if that ex Russian spy Putin tried to murder in Salisbury in 2018 had been residing in a German city, would Putin have judged that pissing off the Germans so much that the result would be bad for Nord Stream and also make it much easier politically to increase the speed of defence spending rises and deployments?
So not worth it or just do it with a gun or knife rather than spreading WMD around the city.

Not that the UK government's response was robust enough either, their party still took donations from Russian Oligangsters, continued failure to legislate more firmly with regard to dirty money through one of it's main conduits, the City Of London.

FlapOperator wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Someone needs to tell the US Senate, who recently used the dreaded filibuster to stop the sanction of NordStream2.

The US has no right to sanction Nordstream2, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with them. I used to work for a company who supplied equipment to the pumping stations in Germany, why should they be sanctioned, they sold the equipment to German companies.

The Germans and other NordStream2 beneficiaries cannot have their cake and eat it to. Considering Russian actions to destabilize Europe to date entirely outside the current Ukraine situation, any business dealing has to be seen as directly benefiting a nation whose intelligence operatives are brazenly doing illegal acts all over Europe. The idea that Gazprom is somehow insulated from the highest organs of Russian government is laughable on its face.

It’s not up to the US to decide who gets cake and who doesn’t. It’s European cake not American cake.

Kiwirob wrote:

It’s not up to the US to decide who gets cake and who doesn’t. It’s European cake not American cake.

Of course, it is very much European cake! And the Russian's are eating it. (Well threatening to.)

Tugg

Just a thought, if Russia moved in and sanctions where put in place might Russia ban Western airline overflights from its airspace, that would prove very costly of many airlines, and in the short term to Russia.

Kiwirob wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

The US has no right to sanction Nordstream2, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with them. I used to work for a company who supplied equipment to the pumping stations in Germany, why should they be sanctioned, they sold the equipment to German companies.

The Germans and other NordStream2 beneficiaries cannot have their cake and eat it to. Considering Russian actions to destabilize Europe to date entirely outside the current Ukraine situation, any business dealing has to be seen as directly benefiting a nation whose intelligence operatives are brazenly doing illegal acts all over Europe. The idea that Gazprom is somehow insulated from the highest organs of Russian government is laughable on its face.

It’s not up to the US to decide who gets cake and who doesn’t. It’s European cake not American cake.

Indeed, so how about the US pull out of Europe and tell show them the middle finger when Russia attacks and they attempt to invoke NATO Article 5? Without the US Military in Europe Russia would have taken over Western Europe decades ago.

readytotaxi wrote:

Just a thought, if Russia moved in and sanctions where put in place might Russia ban Western airline overflights from its airspace, that would prove very costly of many airlines, and in the short term to Russia.

They might but it would stop flights, just make certain ones more expensive. The market would adjust. When it was the Soviet Union flights weren't allowed (mostly) and global air travel just kept growing.

Tugg