OK, so lets see if can continue to discuss what is going on in the world between Russia and Europe and the nations that border on Russia that they see as "they own" to influence. And how this desire intersects with NATO and the natural expansion of it as well as nations wishing to participate in and be part of the "western" economic success vs Russia economic success.

That means Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Moldova, even Belarus, Georgia, maybe even throw in Norway and Sweden (how about Kaliningrad? There's a place no one better touch, or... OUCHY!).

And of course The USA factors in as it likes to throw it's weight around (and can). Oh! And to be sure the thread doesn't get locked for being off topic if it is brought up, China is also a big geopolitical power that sometimes causes an issue, though they really have little care or desire to be at all involved in the power plays that are going on along the boarders of Europe.

Soo... let's see where this goes?

Tugg

It is up to those nations to decide which side they align with and most of those nations have picked NATO.
Russia is just like the wind in the story of the sun and the wind, keep scaring its neighbors into seeking better protection. They cannot blame anyone else but themselves for causing such situation. NATO didn't force those countries to join. Rather, NATO have held up their applications for many years

As for China,although there are no sign yet, they could use the time when NATO is busy with the eastern frontier of europe to achieve their own objectives militarily

I feel like it's a bit too easy for US media and politicians to take an aggressive stance and fuel the fire. They have nothing to loose. It's not their children who get sent to war, nor are their homes threatened in any way. No foreign military will ever set foot on US mainland before conquering the entirety of Europe (or Asia...). No refugees will arrive except on flights organized by the US government. It's a very comfortable position to be in.

To be fair, the same applies to large parts of Russia too. NATO would not dare to attack major targets on Russian territory short of declaring WW3.

The only ones who get fucked over are the people living in the border regions.

mxaxai wrote:

I feel like it's a bit too easy for US media and politicians to take an aggressive stance and fuel the fire. They have nothing to loose. It's not their children who get sent to war, nor are their homes threatened in any way. No foreign military will ever set foot on US mainland before conquering the entirety of Europe (or Asia...). No refugees will arrive except on flights organized by the US government. It's a very comfortable position to be in.

To be fair, the same applies to large parts of Russia too. NATO would not dare to attack major targets on Russian territory short of declaring WW3.

The only ones who get fucked over are the people living in the border regions.

In case you haven't noticed, it is those local people who sense the danger of aggressive stance, that urge supporting parties to backup them so that they can be safer
It's much less likely for Russia to attack a country full of NATO troops and equioment knowing it is a hard to win war, than a country without such as that would be deemed an easy target.

Based on all that's happened so far, do people here think some kind of shooting war will really occur ? I honestly just don't see it. I think by this time in February we'll be having a chuckle at how hysterical everybody became over this. I'll say it again, Russia has completely lost the element of surprise and Putin knows any combat operations in the Ukraine will be no walk in the park. The man is not stupid enough to spectacularly shoot himself in the foot like this. This is a massive bluff to squeeze some major concession from the Ukraine. Hell, even Ukraine is telling their citizens that no invasion is imminent and that they should stay calm. Also, on the streets of Kiev there is no panic or chaos of any kind, no rush to the markets to stock up on supplies, no run on the banks. If they aren't panicking, then why is everyone else ?

Here's a link to a story about some other countries questioning Germany's relative silence on the current crisis. It seems like the Baltic states are the most worried, for good reason. What I found most interesting is that Gerhard Schroder, a former German chancellor, is close personal friends with Putin.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/worl ... raine.html

alberchico wrote:

Based on all that's happened so far, do people here think some kind of shooting war will really occur ? I honestly just don't see it. I think by this time in February we'll be having a chuckle at how hysterical everybody became over this.

I disagree because Putin wants to annex the south east of Ukraine. And he knows he can have it because Europe is not going to fight over it. The question is if he is willing to live with the resuliting fortification of eastern NATO countries, and perhaps the expansion of NATO with Sweden and Finland.

AeroVega wrote:

The question is if he is willing to live with the resuliting fortification of eastern NATO countries, and perhaps the expansion of NATO with Sweden and Finland.

Spot on, plus the extreme (I hope) additional sanctions that would target his biggest allies and himself personally.

For me, the biggest danger is that he (Putin) might care less and less about the longer term ramifications as he becomes older.

Regarding Germany: The current picture is devastating, but realitis are slightly different. There can be no doubt Germany would react with troops in case of any agression against NATO member states. Poland is often using anti german propaganda for their own nationalist agenda.

Don't forget - while Germany is dependent on russian gas, at the same time, Germany could easily switch off Russian economy. So by saying "everything is on the table" Germany certainly also has influence.

Have a read here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60140566

Putin and Russia really collectively live in a parallel universe. It's scary indeed...

alberchico wrote:

Based on all that's happened so far, do people here think some kind of shooting war will really occur ? I honestly just don't see it. I think by this time in February we'll be having a chuckle at how hysterical everybody became over this. I'll say it again, Russia has completely lost the element of surprise and Putin knows any combat operations in the Ukraine will be no walk in the park. The man is not stupid enough to spectacularly shoot himself in the foot like this. This is a massive bluff to squeeze some major concession from the Ukraine. Hell, even Ukraine is telling their citizens that no invasion is imminent and that they should stay calm. Also, on the streets of Kiev there is no panic or chaos of any kind, no rush to the markets to stock up on supplies, no run on the banks. If they aren't panicking, then why is everyone else ?

Russian army is on the south of Ukraine at Crimea. It's now stationing on the east next to rebel area. Then they're now enetering north of Ukraine at Belarus for "exercise". Hard to omagine that's not for doing something.

alberchico wrote:

Based on all that's happened so far, do people here think some kind of shooting war will really occur ? I honestly just don't see it. I think by this time in February we'll be having a chuckle at how hysterical everybody became over this. I'll say it again, Russia has completely lost the element of surprise and Putin knows any combat operations in the Ukraine will be no walk in the park. The man is not stupid enough to spectacularly shoot himself in the foot like this. This is a massive bluff to squeeze some major concession from the Ukraine. Hell, even Ukraine is telling their citizens that no invasion is imminent and that they should stay calm. Also, on the streets of Kiev there is no panic or chaos of any kind, no rush to the markets to stock up on supplies, no run on the banks. If they aren't panicking, then why is everyone else ?

Question in this context: are there any signs about the Ukrainian army preparing for major movements? E.g. all soldiers in their barracks / airfields / ports? Elevated readyness of equipment? Or reserves called in (they list about 900,000 people being in reserve - that would be about 4-5x what RUS has mobilized so far)? These would be major signs of them expecting hot action and getting prepared for it. If nothing or only very little happens they don´t expect anything. They are closest to the action, they would know best. I have so far only seen many reports about RUS movements, but next to nothing about similar movements in the UKR. Anyone able to elaborate?

Mixed signals coming from Ukraine. On the one hand, members of parliament and others are calling for support (i. e. weapon deliveries) from NATO / EU states and mobilization, on the other hand, the official line is that nothing is happening and everybody should remain calm. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/worl ... asion.html

Flying-Tiger wrote:

alberchico wrote:

Based on all that's happened so far, do people here think some kind of shooting war will really occur ? I honestly just don't see it. I think by this time in February we'll be having a chuckle at how hysterical everybody became over this. I'll say it again, Russia has completely lost the element of surprise and Putin knows any combat operations in the Ukraine will be no walk in the park. The man is not stupid enough to spectacularly shoot himself in the foot like this. This is a massive bluff to squeeze some major concession from the Ukraine. Hell, even Ukraine is telling their citizens that no invasion is imminent and that they should stay calm. Also, on the streets of Kiev there is no panic or chaos of any kind, no rush to the markets to stock up on supplies, no run on the banks. If they aren't panicking, then why is everyone else ?

Question in this context: are there any signs about the Ukrainian army preparing for major movements? E.g. all soldiers in their barracks / airfields / ports? Elevated readyness of equipment? Or reserves called in (they list about 900,000 people being in reserve - that would be about 4-5x what RUS has mobilized so far)? These would be major signs of them expecting hot action and getting prepared for it. If nothing or only very little happens they don´t expect anything. They are closest to the action, they would know best. I have so far only seen many reports about RUS movements, but next to nothing about similar movements in the UKR. Anyone able to elaborate?

I think to mobilize is a difficult and finely balanced decision, to do so could be used as an excuse by Putin and his absurd demands and claims, as 'proof' of Ukrainian designs on Russian territory or some other BS.
So becoming a, Guns Of August style chain of events.
But with all that Russian hardware and no doubt penetration by proxies, I expect it is something being reviewed constantly, the proxies if limited to their activities, could be in theory dealt with by the forces already operational.
But if you find, engage, kill and/or capture some, is that not another excuse Putin is looking for?

mxaxai wrote:

Mixed signals coming from Ukraine. On the one hand, members of parliament and others are calling for support (i. e. weapon deliveries) from NATO / EU states and mobilization, on the other hand, the official line is that nothing is happening and everybody should remain calm. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/worl ... asion.html

Both of them are necessary signal anid tension, but are they actually spending resource on mobilization?

In all discussions about this, and wether there are real power behind Putin’s words, I believe it is important to remember that the Russian millitary budget is miniscule compared to Nato’s. The US is up in Stratosphere, of course, spending more than 10 times the amount of Russia all by itself, but there are several other Nato countries about on par with russia in spending and a lot less territory to defend with the money. In fact, both in spending per capita and spending per m2, Russia is pretty far down the list.

Keeping 100 000 soldiers warmed and fed at the Ukranian border is not cheap, and it won’t last forever.

M564038 wrote:

In all discussions about this, and wether there are real power behind Putin’s words, I believe it is important to remember that the Russian millitary budget is miniscule compared to Nato’s. The US is up in Stratosphere, of course, spending more than 10 times the amount of Russia all by itself, but there are several other Nato countries about on par with russia in spending and a lot less territory to defend with the money. In fact, both in spending per capita and spending per m2, Russia is pretty far down the list.

Keeping 100 000 soldiers warmed and fed at the Ukranian border is not cheap, and it won’t last forever.

They'd have to feed them and keep them warm, wherever they are. You also have to remember that Russian soldiers aren't anywhere near as well paid as in Western countries, so military spending levels don't equal each other.

Of course, but keeping 100,000 people in the field is insanely whichever way. Plus all other logistics, of course.

johns624 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

In all discussions about this, and wether there are real power behind Putin’s words, I believe it is important to remember that the Russian millitary budget is miniscule compared to Nato’s. The US is up in Stratosphere, of course, spending more than 10 times the amount of Russia all by itself, but there are several other Nato countries about on par with russia in spending and a lot less territory to defend with the money. In fact, both in spending per capita and spending per m2, Russia is pretty far down the list.

Keeping 100 000 soldiers warmed and fed at the Ukranian border is not cheap, and it won’t last forever.

They'd have to feed them and keep them warm, wherever they are. You also have to remember that Russian soldiers aren't anywhere near as well paid as in Western countries, so military spending levels don't equal each other.

johns624 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

In all discussions about this, and wether there are real power behind Putin’s words, I believe it is important to remember that the Russian millitary budget is miniscule compared to Nato’s. The US is up in Stratosphere, of course, spending more than 10 times the amount of Russia all by itself, but there are several other Nato countries about on par with russia in spending and a lot less territory to defend with the money. In fact, both in spending per capita and spending per m2, Russia is pretty far down the list.

Keeping 100 000 soldiers warmed and fed at the Ukranian border is not cheap, and it won’t last forever.

They'd have to feed them and keep them warm, wherever they are. You also have to remember that Russian soldiers aren't anywhere near as well paid as in Western countries, so military spending levels don't equal each other.

If life in the Russian Army is anything like it was in the late Cold War/Afghanistan era, being at the border is likely preferable to being in barracks.
In an ‘even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day’ moment, the UK PM made pointed comparisons with the experience of the Chechen war, if Russia goes into the Ukraine.
Just so happens that those N-LAWs are suitable for single person use, in more confined spaces.

c933103 wrote:

It is up to those nations to decide which side they align with and most of those nations have picked NATO.
Russia is just like the wind in the story of the sun and the wind, keep scaring its neighbors into seeking better protection. They cannot blame anyone else but themselves for causing such situation. NATO didn't force those countries to join. Rather, NATO have held up their applications for many years

As for China,although there are no sign yet, they could use the time when NATO is busy with the eastern frontier of europe to achieve their own objectives militarily

And why would Nato be interested in China? It’s the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation not the Pacific Treaty Organisation!

c933103 wrote:

It is up to those nations to decide which side they align with and most of those nations have picked NATO.
Russia is just like the wind in the story of the sun and the wind, keep scaring its neighbors into seeking better protection. They cannot blame anyone else but themselves for causing such situation. NATO didn't force those countries to join. Rather, NATO have held up their applications for many years

As for China,although there are no sign yet, they could use the time when NATO is busy with the eastern frontier of europe to achieve their own objectives militarily

Indeed. As for China, I think you're right and I also think they will provide some backing to Russia as well.

Kiwirob wrote:

c933103 wrote:

It is up to those nations to decide which side they align with and most of those nations have picked NATO.
Russia is just like the wind in the story of the sun and the wind, keep scaring its neighbors into seeking better protection. They cannot blame anyone else but themselves for causing such situation. NATO didn't force those countries to join. Rather, NATO have held up their applications for many years

As for China,although there are no sign yet, they could use the time when NATO is busy with the eastern frontier of europe to achieve their own objectives militarily

And why would Nato be interested in China? It’s the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation not the Pacific Treaty Organisation!

Your asking shows that you don't comprehend the threat that China is.

Kiwirob wrote:

c933103 wrote:

It is up to those nations to decide which side they align with and most of those nations have picked NATO.
Russia is just like the wind in the story of the sun and the wind, keep scaring its neighbors into seeking better protection. They cannot blame anyone else but themselves for causing such situation. NATO didn't force those countries to join. Rather, NATO have held up their applications for many years

As for China,although there are no sign yet, they could use the time when NATO is busy with the eastern frontier of europe to achieve their own objectives militarily

And why would Nato be interested in China? It’s the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation not the Pacific Treaty Organisation!

Not as NATO offically, but quite a few of the individual NATO countries would be concerned if China did something that they don't consider to be in their best interests

Tugger wrote:

OK, so lets see if can continue to discuss what is going on in the world between Russia and Europe and the nations that border on Russia that they see as "they own" to influence. And how this desire intersects with NATO and the natural expansion of it as well as nations wishing to participate in and be part of the "western" economic success vs Russia economic success.

That means Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Moldova, even Belarus, Georgia, maybe even throw in Norway and Sweden (how about Kaliningrad? There's a place no one better touch, or... OUCHY!).

And of course The USA factors in as it likes to throw it's weight around (and can). Oh! And to be sure the thread doesn't get locked for being off topic if it is brought up, China is also a big geopolitical power that sometimes causes an issue, though they really have little care or desire to be at all involved in the power plays that are going on along the boarders of Europe.

Soo... let's see where this goes?

Tugg

How come you forgot Finland? We have 1 300 km of same border with Russia. ???

Kiwirob wrote:

And why would Nato be interested in China? It’s the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation not the Pacific Treaty Organisation!

Because half of NATO has lived under a communist dictatorship? You know, just spitballing here.

THS214 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

OK, so lets see if can continue to discuss what is going on in the world between Russia and Europe and the nations that border on Russia that they see as "they own" to influence. And how this desire intersects with NATO and the natural expansion of it as well as nations wishing to participate in and be part of the "western" economic success vs Russia economic success.

That means Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Moldova, even Belarus, Georgia, maybe even throw in Norway and Sweden (how about Kaliningrad? There's a place no one better touch, or... OUCHY!).

And of course The USA factors in as it likes to throw it's weight around (and can). Oh! And to be sure the thread doesn't get locked for being off topic if it is brought up, China is also a big geopolitical power that sometimes causes an issue, though they really have little care or desire to be at all involved in the power plays that are going on along the boarders of Europe.

Soo... let's see where this goes?

Tugg

How come you forgot Finland? We have 1 300 km of same border with Russia. ???

Dammit!!

Now I might have to start a whole new thread....

I meant to say Finland and put Sweden. I hate that kind of stuff "Typical American. Doesn't the difference between Finland and Sweden." But I DO know the difference between the two and know of Finland's complex history with Russia. Sorry for the screw up.

Tugg

Can we stop discussing China and not get this thread locked as well? Thanks.

It is unfortunate that NATO so explicitly expanded into eastern Europe. It put Russia in a bind. Gorbachev has discussed this. I think this was a major Clinton failure. The Guardian did an update even this month.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... ters-today

Trump made some bombastic comments about not honoring these new NATO guarantees. Too bad he could not have put top notch negotiators to come up with some face-saving clarifications to Russia. This would have required some major reductions in offensive weaponry in our eastern European allies. In turn Russia could have made some sort of assurances about no military interventions in former SSRs. This would not have been impossible during the 80s and aughts.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

It is unfortunate that NATO so explicitly expanded into eastern Europe.

Since we are getting into revisionist history... it was even more unfortunate that Roosevelt let Stalin play him like a violin at Yalta.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Too bad he could not have put top notch negotiators to come up with some face-saving clarifications to Russia. This would have required some major reductions in offensive weaponry in our eastern European allies.

Endless catering to Russian paranoia and inferiority complexes and some third rate membership? Brilliant.

L410Turbolet wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

It is unfortunate that NATO so explicitly expanded into eastern Europe.

Since we are getting into revisionist history... it was even more unfortunate that Roosevelt let Stalin play him like a violin at Yalta.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Too bad he could not have put top notch negotiators to come up with some face-saving clarifications to Russia. This would have required some major reductions in offensive weaponry in our eastern European allies.

Endless catering to Russian paranoia and inferiority complexes and some third rate membership? Brilliant.

Free nations are free to choose to join various compacts and treaty entities with other nations. And it is not a bad thing to accept free nations into such things. Mutual support is a great thing.

Tugg

The US expected the USSR to remove offensive weapons from Cuba, rightfully so. I was in academic studies in New York City those days. Heady times, those were. I stayed up late* so I would see it if the bombs went off. Fortunately sanity prevailed. (I know many people were disappointed, not me) Oddly a major Fox opinion person has totally taken Russia's view on this, and expect Republican politicians to fall in step. The Monroe doctrine centuries ago almost, made it clear that the US did not want European countries threatening its security in the Western Hemisphere. What is good for the goose ...... And that also leads to a more peaceful world. But then again as James Jones has said, approx., Men say they hate war, but in fact they love it and pursue it.

edit to add a foot note
* that was just the most critical night

AeroVega wrote:

Can we stop discussing China and not get this thread locked as well? Thanks.

It was mentioned in the OP. Also, your request shows that you don't comprehend the threat that China is.

I don't mean to be rude, but what on earth are you trying to say?

L410Turbolet wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

It is unfortunate that NATO so explicitly expanded into eastern Europe.

Since we are getting into revisionist history... it was even more unfortunate that Roosevelt let Stalin play him like a violin at Yalta.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Too bad he could not have put top notch negotiators to come up with some face-saving clarifications to Russia. This would have required some major reductions in offensive weaponry in our eastern European allies.

Endless catering to Russian paranoia and inferiority complexes and some third rate membership? Brilliant.

Yet Churchill seems to get the blame, of course from guess where? Clue, not from Russia.
Stalin knew how ill FDR was, knew a long journey would make it worse, the other reason to insist on Yalta was that the ‘Man Of Steel’ was in reality terrified of flying.

It just won’t do to keep on with this whole narrative about NATO somehow ‘forcing’ itself Eastwards, the nations concerned wanted to join NATO and also the EU first chance they got.
France for De Gaulle Anglophobia/general hissy fit reasons left NATO in 1966 (to the dismay of his senior military and intel people), the US response did not even involve any economic let alone military sanctions, barely a strong word, what a contrast to Hungary in 1956, the Czechs in 1968, the Poles had troops massed on their border in ‘81/82 to ensure they cracked down on independent trade unions.

As for the smaller Baltic states, they got ‘absorbed’ in to the USSR in 1940 and had 50 years of that.
Why do some wonder why they were so keen to join organisations that they see as offering both economic assistance and protection?

One of the first well known large cyber attacks against a nation was against Estonia in 2007, from guess where?
Being better off, free and no longer a Soviet Republic or satellite nation really gets under the skin of Putin and his apologists.
That’s the real issue, everything else is BS from today’s ‘useful idiots’.

While I do not want to tarnish a whole nation bssed on a few flaky politicians and a flakier and now sacked Admiral, also I get their wider concerns but still, Germany, Putin just isn’t that into you either, your the ‘West’ and therefore the enemy too.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

It is unfortunate that NATO so explicitly expanded into eastern Europe.

GDB wrote:

While I do not want to tarnish a whole nation bssed on a few flaky politicians and a flakier and now sacked Admiral, also I get their wider concerns but still, Germany, Putin just isn’t that into you either, your the ‘West’ and therefore the enemy too.

I think it is also worth bringing up why Russia just dislike the "West"... Theoretically China should have been a bigger threat against Russia, with their proximity and also only a single 2 million population country in between the two power, yet they aren't too concerned by each other but are instead more concerned about the faraway "West".
What the West have, that these countries didn't, if you recall the fall of Berlin Wall, is liberty. Liberty in culture and liberty in economy.
It's now in different form, but governments from Minsk to Moscow to Astana to Beijing are all authoritarian, don't want to lose their grip on power, hence they have aligned goal
Yet, against the will of these rulers, liberty through democratic movement have been winning hearts closer and closer to these countries, with the change in power in Ukraine last decade and more recent attempted revolt in Belarus and Kazakhstan, and also with what have been happening in China under their watch in various marginal area, all forced these authoritarian governments to heavy handedly repell their influence, yet the idea and the mind of people cannot be changed forcefully that easily.
Hence they want to physically keep these idea away from themselves, against the modern trend. They're trying to make sure their own people wouldn't be able to get the idea that liberty and freedom through democracy protected with law is a better alternative to authoritarian ruler.
This is the reason behind Russian action in Eastern Slavic area, Southern Caucasus area, and Central Asia area, where people of their own country are close to. And also reasom behind Chinese action or desire of action against other Chinese language speaking area, as well as area they currently control.
These leaders don't want to lose their power to their own people, so they're killing examples that their own people can reference from.
As long as the West still embrace these core values like liberty, its threat against Moscow wouldn't be perceived by them as diminished, no matter how many ground the West might be ceding militarily.

GDB wrote:

As for the smaller Baltic states, they got ‘absorbed’ in to the USSR in 1940 and had 50 years of that.
Why do some wonder why they were so keen to join organisations that they see as offering both economic assistance and protection?

Random, but the documentary The Other Dream Team is a really good story about the 1992 Lithuanian Olympic basketball team and the breakaway of Lithuania from the Soviet Union.

Those from the Baltics make it abundantly clear that they are *not* Russian and want no part of being part of Russia. They will do whatever they have to do to maintain their independence.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The US expected the USSR to remove offensive weapons from Cuba, rightfully so.

Didn't you get it backwards ? Don't you mean the USSR put missiles on Cuba in retaliation for Jupiter missiles un Turkey, rightfully so ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Mis ... tification

A few years after that, ICBMs were common enough that the actual location of the missiles didn't matter...

Just a thought experiment, Poland or Germany get Konigsberg and give Russia the bit they’ve taken from Ukraine? Ukraine is pretty divided, the West being very pro-West and the East being pretty Russia oriented.

Zeppi wrote:

Have a read here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60140566

Putin and Russia really collectively live in a parallel universe. It's scary indeed...

This being said, it would seem logical that the Ukrainian government would want to regain control over the Donbas region. Doing so, that would be the ready made excuse for Russia to intervene with its own army (and possibly, push westwards until they would face some resistance). No doing so, and Russia could keep spreading the narrative that Ukraine is a failed state, undermining the authority of the Ukrainian government. A third way could be for the Ukrainian government to find a political agreement with the rebels over the status of Donbas (anything from a region with more autonomy to a possible independence from Ukraine). Russia would then loose its leverage to undermine the authority of the Ukrainian government.

tomcat wrote:

Zeppi wrote:

Have a read here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60140566

Putin and Russia really collectively live in a parallel universe. It's scary indeed...

This being said, it would seem logical that the Ukrainian government would want to regain control over the Donbas region. Doing so, that would be the ready made excuse for Russia to intervene with its own army (and possibly, push westwards until they would face some resistance). No doing so, and Russia could keep spreading the narrative that Ukraine is a failed state, undermining the authority of the Ukrainian government. A third way could be for the Ukrainian government to find a political agreement with the rebels over the status of Donbas (anything from a region with more autonomy to a possible independence from Ukraine). Russia would then loose its leverage to undermine the authority of the Ukrainian government.

That's first assuming a Russian proxy state will be willing to have a discussion result that help Ukraine instead of Russia

What would be interesting would be hearing from the people living there. But not under threat of Russian guns of course. I've seen the fence marking the border between Ukraine and Russia (not even in Donbas but further North I think) where before the border was open, families are now cut in half.

Maybe the real deterrence is the legal version of a Trident D5 warhead on his mega Dacha;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J85SA1CrmsM

No more Oligarchs paying to play tennis with Boris, (yes and it has happened even post the 2018 WMD use in a British city)
Will the governing UK party, for all the armed forces operations, sending those N-LAWS, be prepared to sacrifice......some of their funding for the nation, Ukraine and indeed, NATO and the West in general?

WTF? Are they trying to engineer a confrontation? Luckily for such a very short time but it's a clear escalation from bombers going near NATO airspace with transponders off.
Or just an intimidation, despite the risks of interception and maybe being brought down if they don't immediately comply?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian ... r-estonia/

GDB wrote:

WTF? Are they trying to engineer a confrontation? Luckily for such a very short time but it's a clear escalation from bombers going near NATO airspace with transponders off.
Or just an intimidation, despite the risks of interception and maybe being brought down if they don't immediately comply?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian ... r-estonia/

It’s seems they are trying to start a confrontation. It’s like bums from another neighborhood trying to start fights in a nicer neighborhood. They have a pretty pathetic and low existence at this point.

SL1200MK2 wrote:

GDB wrote:

WTF? Are they trying to engineer a confrontation? Luckily for such a very short time but it's a clear escalation from bombers going near NATO airspace with transponders off.
Or just an intimidation, despite the risks of interception and maybe being brought down if they don't immediately comply?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian ... r-estonia/

It’s seems they are trying to start a confrontation. It’s like bums from another neighborhood trying to start fights in a nicer neighborhood. They have a pretty pathetic and low existence at this point.

I disagree. This whole episode is nothing more than classic cold war brinkmanship with no actual intention of starting a shooting war. If anything was going to happen in the Ukraine, it would have happened by now. They would not have started a slow build up since November giving Ukraine and the West plenty of time to prepare a response. Mark my words, nothing is going to happen. This is primarily a ruse to distract the Russian people from the piss poor way the govt handled the Covid crisis.

Der Spiegel has an interesting interview with the president of Finland about Putin and the Ukraine conflict.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/wo ... 9569991c79

One of the notable quotes is that he feels that the EU has let Finland down.

Niinistö: I was disappointed and surprised by Brussels after the list of demands from Moscow was on the table. If you have a union and then someone comes from the outside and makes demands that may be directed at the U.S., but concern some countries inside the union, then there should be a reaction coming from your backbone. If someone is walking across your property, you would also react. But I’m missing this reflex. I didn't even see this kind of reaction in December from the European Parliament, which usually reacts to everything bad that happens in the world. I found that embarrassing. This disappointment sits deeper in my mind and heart than I could express.

This is a copy of a piece of dialogue from another thread that might be relevant to the topic at hand.

Aesma wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Putin also gets a buffer zone that he controls between Russia proper and NATO territory. Combined with Belarus and the Kaliningrad enclave, he pretty much controls the eastern border of Europe. Armenia is unlikely to go radically against Moscow, and Russia also controls bits of Georgia

That's a lot of square miles and people which gives strategic defensive depth from any hostile intent that may originate in Europe... and will likely last for decades. The last two attacks on major population centres in Russia have originated in Paris and Berlin. The areas near China are largely empty of people and already have strategic depth. Who knows whether liberal democracy will be around in Europe in 50 years... or if a populist demagogue will emerge.

Russia also improves its food security. In Soviet times, Ukraine was the breadbasket of the USSR

If Russia becomes dependant on Ukraine for food, then it's not a buffer anymore, it's Russian territory, that is now even closer to "enemies". Doesn't really seem logical.

As for the attack from Paris, that was more than 2 centuries ago !

I guess you don't understand russian strategic thinking, if you believe Napoleonic wars (which for russians culminate in takeover of Moscow in 1812) are old history for them. They are still very current, and influence a lot.
Basically, russian geopolitics 101 goes like this --
"russia's borders are militarily indefensible, because European Plan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Plain
the only feasible defense against invasion over European Plain is strategic depth.
Optimal borders should involve bodies of water that are difficult to ford; preferably at narrow, easily defensible, choke points. Or at very massive bodies of water.
Every border is temporary, and is subject to later revision. As new border becomes "border of russia", newly acquired territory becomes "historical russian territory", and needs more forward strategic depth to protect.
In this advance, russian states: Duchy of Muscosy (as part of Golden Horde), Grand Duchy of Muscovy, Moscow Tsardom, Russian Empire, USSR, modern russia, have intuitively figured out where their "natural Western borders" are (eastern border is understood -- in bad times -- like now, it's the Pacific; otherwise it should at the Yukon. Many Americans might be shocked, but "Alaska should be returned to us, we never sold it -- just leased it until 1999" is a very popular myth in russia)..
Basically, the minimal defensible border for russia, in their own view, is the Elba river. Better, but still suboptimal border is the Rhine river. Optimal border is at the Bay of Biscay and the English Channel.

So there you have it. If someone in West Europe (Spain and Portugal are excused, they were always reserved for "Phase 2") believes "this time it's different, let ruskies take their historical sphere of influence, for the sake of continued trade with them" -- they, again, try appeasement. Munich 2.0.

GDB wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

It is unfortunate that NATO so explicitly expanded into eastern Europe.

Since we are getting into revisionist history... it was even more unfortunate that Roosevelt let Stalin play him like a violin at Yalta.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Too bad he could not have put top notch negotiators to come up with some face-saving clarifications to Russia. This would have required some major reductions in offensive weaponry in our eastern European allies.

Endless catering to Russian paranoia and inferiority complexes and some third rate membership? Brilliant.

Yet Churchill seems to get the blame, of course from guess where? Clue, not from Russia.
Stalin knew how ill FDR was, knew a long journey would make it worse, the other reason to insist on Yalta was that the ‘Man Of Steel’ was in reality terrified of flying.

It just won’t do to keep on with this whole narrative about NATO somehow ‘forcing’ itself Eastwards, the nations concerned wanted to join NATO and also the EU first chance they got.
France for De Gaulle Anglophobia/general hissy fit reasons left NATO in 1966 (to the dismay of his senior military and intel people), the US response did not even involve any economic let alone military sanctions, barely a strong word, what a contrast to Hungary in 1956, the Czechs in 1968, the Poles had troops massed on their border in ‘81/82 to ensure they cracked down on independent trade unions.

As for the smaller Baltic states, they got ‘absorbed’ in to the USSR in 1940 and had 50 years of that.
Why do some wonder why they were so keen to join organisations that they see as offering both economic assistance and protection?

One of the first well known large cyber attacks against a nation was against Estonia in 2007, from guess where?
Being better off, free and no longer a Soviet Republic or satellite nation really gets under the skin of Putin and his apologists.
That’s the real issue, everything else is BS from today’s ‘useful idiots’.

While I do not want to tarnish a whole nation bssed on a few flaky politicians and a flakier and now sacked Admiral, also I get their wider concerns but still, Germany, Putin just isn’t that into you either, your the ‘West’ and therefore the enemy too.

It's a common anglo saxon misconception to think that France left NATO in 1966. It never did.

Instead, it left the "integrated" command since it had no voice in the decisions taken and it was "commanding" in name only, and asked for the OTAN military infrastructures to leave french soil.
On the other side, it did always support the missions that NATO did, as well as participate in the military exercices.

It's not all black and white, and France was never neutral, even tough not totally aligned with the U.S.

As for the main subject, I really don't know what Putin expects to get with this show of force, and after such ambitious demands, and remain doubtful that he can leave with his hands empty.

kelval wrote:

GDB wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

Since we are getting into revisionist history... it was even more unfortunate that Roosevelt let Stalin play him like a violin at Yalta.


Endless catering to Russian paranoia and inferiority complexes and some third rate membership? Brilliant.

Yet Churchill seems to get the blame, of course from guess where? Clue, not from Russia.
Stalin knew how ill FDR was, knew a long journey would make it worse, the other reason to insist on Yalta was that the ‘Man Of Steel’ was in reality terrified of flying.

It just won’t do to keep on with this whole narrative about NATO somehow ‘forcing’ itself Eastwards, the nations concerned wanted to join NATO and also the EU first chance they got.
France for De Gaulle Anglophobia/general hissy fit reasons left NATO in 1966 (to the dismay of his senior military and intel people), the US response did not even involve any economic let alone military sanctions, barely a strong word, what a contrast to Hungary in 1956, the Czechs in 1968, the Poles had troops massed on their border in ‘81/82 to ensure they cracked down on independent trade unions.

As for the smaller Baltic states, they got ‘absorbed’ in to the USSR in 1940 and had 50 years of that.
Why do some wonder why they were so keen to join organisations that they see as offering both economic assistance and protection?

One of the first well known large cyber attacks against a nation was against Estonia in 2007, from guess where?
Being better off, free and no longer a Soviet Republic or satellite nation really gets under the skin of Putin and his apologists.
That’s the real issue, everything else is BS from today’s ‘useful idiots’.

While I do not want to tarnish a whole nation bssed on a few flaky politicians and a flakier and now sacked Admiral, also I get their wider concerns but still, Germany, Putin just isn’t that into you either, your the ‘West’ and therefore the enemy too.

It's a common anglo saxon misconception to think that France left NATO in 1966. It never did.

Instead, it left the "integrated" command since it had no voice in the decisions taken and it was "commanding" in name only, and asked for the OTAN military infrastructures to leave french soil.
On the other side, it did always support the missions that NATO did, as well as participate in the military exercices.

It's not all black and white, and France was never neutral, even tough not totally aligned with the U.S.

As for the main subject, I really don't know what Putin expects to get with this show of force, and after such ambitious demands, and remain doubtful that he can leave with his hands empty.

CDG was very unpleasant about it, it was a breach, a full one in 1966, just once the old fool was out of power and not long after dead, did France start to roll back on the break as you say, slowly over years easing back in.
He even directed the French Commanders to assume an attack from any direction.

The arguments for it sound very much like all the stupidity that caused Brexit.
NATO itself was an idea pursued for some years not by the US but the UK, that is real influence, persuading the US who in the late 1940’s were the only ones to come out of WW2 intact and richer, to go against their own policy, long held, since independence even, of not being beholden to that sort of security alliance, let alone one with article 5.
This was to avoid a return to isolationist policies there.

The same year, on a State trip to Canada the boorish git went out of his way to offend his hosts by stirring up trouble in Quebec, calling for their ‘liberation’. The Canadian PM Pearson shot back, ‘Quebec IS free, as are all Canadians, France too is free, in no small part due to the sacrifices of Canadians Anglo and French’.

During WW2 he was like this and worse, as one historian put it, ‘his staple diet was the hand that fed him’.
Still for all his difficult often insulting behavior, Churchill resisted attempts by the US to have him sidelined as head of the Free French, since for all of his unpleasant behavior Churchill, usually who got the worst of it, knew that there was not a collaborationist bone in CDG’s body, unlike some who the US were proposing.

He never got over having to be sheltered and his beloved France being liberated by mere Anglo Saxons, which is also a shame since it has obscured the great contribution Free French forces made, not just during and post Operation Overlord either.

Just like Brexit, if you take yourself out of the organization you lose any influence, then as we have seen sadly in my own country, the ones who pushed for it bitch about not having an influence now.

Then there was the other great hypocrisy, preventing the UK from joining the EEC citing the Commonwealth, as if France did not have something similar only, in the case of many former African colonies, France never really left, expect of course for Algeria for reasons you will be all too aware of.
Troops stationed, coups organized, pliant dictators more than accommodated, dubious economic aid packages that seemed to go to said dictators and French politicians for the most part.
The UK’s decolonization was far from smooth and not without some conflict, nothing however on the scale of Indo China (where the US bankrolled France’s futile war) and Algeria.

But you are right that France never completely went away, by the early 80’s they were again taking part in NATO exercises even when under the overall command of whoever the Senior NATO commander was at the time, (it wasn’t always a US senior commander).