Politics, politics, politics

[scaramanga]

So you would go to war with Russia over the Ukraine? That's insane imo and I would say that there is no chance of that actually happening.

I'd say there's no chance of the war happening.

You'll spot a theme in my posts here, but early and decisively, a decision should have been made to send large troop numbers on training exercises into Ukraine. Get regular air patrols going and send some ships up through the Bosphorus.

Russia wouldn't attack a NATO member, they'd be well and truly fudged if they did. For all of Putin's typical short man bravado, there's no way he'd risk complete destruction like that.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Even if I don't agree with the view point I do try and see things from others point of view and if I was Russian I would feel justified in flexing my muscles in my own backyard. Nato has been moving further east and will be seen as a threat, with the fall of the soviet union they have lost their buffer. Look at US with the Cuban crisis when Russia were setting up in a comparable location.

http://one-europe.info/eurographics/usnato-anti-missile-shield-in-Europe

Because of the huge nuclear arsenal Russia can do pretty much what it likes and they will not be open to complete destruction, will have a cold war again and they will be excluded on the financial markets but no country will invade Russian land/air,

 

[braineclipse]

Even if I don't agree with the view point I do try and see things from others point of view and if I was Russian I would feel justified in flexing my muscles in my own backyard. Nato has been moving further east and will be seen as a threat, with the fall of the soviet union they have lost their buffer. Look at US with the Cuban crisis when Russia were setting up in a comparable location.

http://one-europe.info/eurographics/usnato-anti-missile-shield-in-Europe

Because of the huge nuclear arsenal Russia can do pretty much what it likes and they will not be open to complete destruction, will have a cold war again and they will be excluded on the financial markets but no country will invade Russian land/air,

One of the potential upsides to Trump is that he seems to want to improve relationships with Russia and might stop antagonizing Russia in ways that no dormant superpower would accept.

 

[scaramanga]

Even if I don't agree with the view point I do try and see things from others point of view and if I was Russian I would feel justified in flexing my muscles in my own backyard. Nato has been moving further east and will be seen as a threat, with the fall of the soviet union they have lost their buffer. Look at US with the Cuban crisis when Russia were setting up in a comparable location.

http://one-europe.info/eurographics/usnato-anti-missile-shield-in-Europe

Because of the huge nuclear arsenal Russia can do pretty much what it likes and they will not be open to complete destruction, will have a cold war again and they will be excluded on the financial markets but no country will invade Russian land/air,

NATO hasn't really been moving East in the way Russia moved to Cuba though, there are just more countries joining either NATO or the EU.

If Russia wants to line up troops on their own border then let them - they have every right to do so. that doesn't justify invading Ukraine though. It amazes me just how bad politicians sometimes are at reading people - Putin will take whatever we allow him to but will stop at the first sign of any real conflict.

 

[braineclipse]

NATO hasn't really been moving East in the way Russia moved to Cuba though, there are just more countries joining either NATO or the EU.

If Russia wants to line up troops on their own border then let them - they have every right to do so. that doesn't justify invading Ukraine though. It amazes me just how bad politicians sometimes are at reading people - Putin will take whatever we allow him to but will stop at the first sign of any real conflict.

http://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-270-poking-the-bear/

I do really like Dan Carlin. Listened to this episode some time ago, but still remember it. Now seems to only be available for a small fee, but it really was an excellent episode on a very important topic I thought.

Highlights as I remember them:
- NATO has been expanding.
- There was "an understanding" that NATO wouldn't expand during Russia's period of weakness post Soviet Union.
- There were covert actions to move Ukrainian politics in a more NATO friendly direction and plans to include Ukraine in NATO.
- Including Ukraine in NATO would mean an attack from Russia (or someone else) immediately also puts NATO and the US at war.
- Russia understandably does not want Ukraine in NATO.

-----------------------------------

They will stop at the first sign of any real conflict was essentially the thinking at the start of both world wars. Why the fudge are you joining a huge conflict over <insert name of country here>? Can we afford a game of brinkmanship with Russia?

 

[the dza]

I'd say there's no chance of the war happening.

You'll spot a theme in my posts here, but early and decisively, a decision should have been made to send large troop numbers on training exercises into Ukraine. Get regular air patrols going and send some ships up through the Bosphorus.

Russia wouldn't attack a NATO member, they'd be well and truly fudged if they did. For all of Putin's typical short man bravado, there's no way he'd risk complete destruction like that.

And when was the window for that exactly? Before the revolution in Ukraine, the government was pro-Russia, so no chance of large numbers of NATO troops being able to perform such exercises in Ukraine. As the revolution happened, Russia moved very quickly, almost immediately annexing Crimea. They had their forces on the border, ready to go, no chance getting in earlier than them. Add to that the pro-Russia support that is in the East of Ukraine anyway.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Putin will take whatever we allow him to but will stop at the first sign of any real conflict.

What makes you say that? I have seen nothing to back that up and I wouldn't want "gut feeling" to dictate a potentially disastrous policy,

 

[scaramanga]

http://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-270-poking-the-bear/

I do really like Dan Carlin. Listened to this episode some time ago, but still remember it. Now seems to only be available for a small fee, but it really was an excellent episode on a very important topic I thought.

Highlights as I remember them:
- NATO has been expanding.
- There was "an understanding" that NATO wouldn't expand during Russia's period of weakness post Soviet Union.
- There were covert actions to move Ukrainian politics in a more NATO friendly direction and plans to include Ukraine in NATO.
- Including Ukraine in NATO would mean an attack from Russia (or someone else) immediately also puts NATO and the US at war.
- Russia understandably does not want Ukraine in NATO.

-----------------------------------

I don't think that either NATO or Russia should be deciding on Ukraine's political stance - that's their own decision to make.

They will stop at the first sign of any real conflict was essentially the thinking at the start of both world wars. Why the fudge are you joining a huge conflict over <insert name of country here>? Can we afford a game of brinkmanship with Russia?

We can because there's no win for Russia. If there's a NATO/Russia war, the end result is no Russia.

Putin has all the hallmarks of an angry little man, but none of a nutjob who would guarantee his own country's destruction over some wilderness in the arse end of Europe.

 

[scaramanga]

And when was the window for that exactly? Before the revolution in Ukraine, the government was pro-Russia, so no chance of large numbers of NATO troops being able to perform such exercises in Ukraine. As the revolution happened, Russia moved very quickly, almost immediately annexing Crimea. They had their forces on the border, ready to go, no chance getting in earlier than them. Add to that the pro-Russia support that is in the East of Ukraine anyway.

We should have just moved the troops in.

Russian troops would have had the option of firing or allowing passage - they would have had to allow passage.

 

[scaramanga]

What makes you say that? I have seen nothing to back that up and I wouldn't want "gut feeling" to dictate a potentially disastrous policy,

Because there is no win situation for Russia if it comes to war with NATO.

 

[braineclipse]

I don't think that either NATO or Russia should be deciding on Ukraine's political stance - that's their own decision to make.

But the US did try to influence/change that decision.

We can because there's no win for Russia. If there's a NATO/Russia war, the end result is no Russia.

Putin has all the hallmarks of an angry little man, but none of a nutjob who would guarantee his own country's destruction over some wilderness in the arse end of Europe.

What happens when Putin is seen as losing face and an angrier man takes the populist route to power promising a harder line against NATO and threatens to nuke anyone who gets in his way? A destabilized would be a major concern for international security - one of the biggest possible actually.

Again, Dan Carlin quote: Why would you poke the bear? Why, why, why?

 

[scaramanga]

But the US did try to influence/change that decision.

And I agree that they shouldn't have. That doesn't justify sending in the military and opening fire though.

What happens when Putin is seen as losing face and an angrier man takes the populist route to power promising a harder line against NATO and threatens to nuke anyone who gets in his way? A destabilized would be a major concern for international security - one of the biggest possible actually.

Again, Dan Carlin quote: Why would you poke the bear? Why, why, why?

If the bear is that dangerous then it needs sedating or its claws removed. If it's genuinely that close to attacking then doing nothing is only marginally less dangerous than poking it.

Of course, poking it really hard with a really big stick would also solve the problem.

 

[the dza]

We should have just moved the troops in.

Russian troops would have had the option of firing or allowing passage - they would have had to allow passage.

Russia immediately annexed Crimea and secured it's navel base there, they have a lot of support from Ukranians in the east of the country and obviously, a land border with that part of the country. So they can easily support Pro-Russian Ukranians in the east. All your solution does is create a larger proxy war between Russia and the US (and makes the Ukraine even more of a dangerous battleground), with the potential of full-scale conflict between the two nations (and nobody wants that).

 

[scaramanga]

Russia immediately annexed Crimea and secured it's navel base there, they have a lot of support from Ukranians in the east of the country and obviously, a land border with that part of the country. So they can easily support Pro-Russian Ukranians in the east. All your solution does is create a larger proxy war between Russia and the US (and makes the Ukraine even more of a dangerous battleground), with the potential of full-scale conflict between the two nations (and nobody wants that).

Only if the Russians are stupid enough to want a war with NATO, and I don't see any reason to think they are.

They did what they did because they knew we'd sit around with our thumbs up our arses and watch.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Because there is no win situation for Russia if it comes to war with NATO.

What do NATO win with a war against Russia - we would just go back to a Cold war situation with the doomsday clock ticking. I have seen nothing to imply that Putin would back down, have you seen anything specific to indicate he would?

 

[the dza]

Only if the Russians are stupid enough to want a war with NATO, and I don't see any reason to think they are.

They did what they did because they knew we'd sit around with our thumbs up our arses and watch.

I don't think either side would let it escalate to direct conflict, that didn't even happen in the cold war. It would be pro-Russia backed East Ukraine v Nato backed West Ukraine, a bit like now but even worse, with Ukranians getting the worst of it. A bit like in Syria right now.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I don't think either side would let it escalate to direct conflict, that didn't even happen in the cold war. It would be pro-Russia backed East Ukraine v Nato backed West Ukraine, a bit like now but even worse, with Ukranians getting the worst of it. A bit like in Syria right now.

Russia is a waning power, especially as the bottom drops out of the oil industry. Putin is also in his mid-60s and won't be around for ever. I think they'll soon be continuing the path to democracy and westernisation, and Crimea will be seen as a last gasp reflex of the Soviet Union. The problems in eastern Ukraine are as much about deindustrialisation as anything

 

[the dza]

Russia is a waning power, especially as the bottom drops out of the oil industry. Putin is also in his mid-60s and won't be around for ever. I think they'll soon be continuing the path to democracy and westernisation, and Crimea will be seen as a last gasp reflex of the Soviet Union. The problems in eastern Ukraine are as much about deindustrialisation as anything

IMO, this only makes it more dangerous to get into conflict with them, therefore making less sense for us to go and intervene in Ukraine.

 

[braineclipse]

And I agree that they shouldn't have. That doesn't justify sending in the military and opening fire though.


If the bear is that dangerous then it needs sedating or its claws removed. If it's genuinely that close to attacking then doing nothing is only marginally less dangerous than poking it.

Of course, poking it really hard with a really big stick would also solve the problem.

Russia with their land mass, manpower and military is never going to be easy to "declaw". Accepting that they will continue to be a power worth considering in the world is the way forward imo. Economic (and where possible) political cooperation.

Russia is a waning power, especially as the bottom drops out of the oil industry. Putin is also in his mid-60s and won't be around for ever. I think they'll soon be continuing the path to democracy and westernisation, and Crimea will be seen as a last gasp reflex of the Soviet Union. The problems in eastern Ukraine are as much about deindustrialisation as anything

Possibly, but the future is hard to predict. Even as the Soviet Union was failing the CIA didn't actually know that it was going on. Changes in the climate, energy sources and economy makes the future at least as hard to predict at this point.

What happens post-Putin is a very interesting question. Again I think a destabilized Russia could be a very dangerous thing. For me I think the west should be fairly happy with Putin, but perhaps Russians have more to be upset about.

We have seen enough times what poverty, unemployment and security concerns combined with nationalism can do to be cautious about predictions of a continued democratic development in many countries.

 

[braineclipse]

Only if the Russians are stupid enough to want a war with NATO, and I don't see any reason to think they are.

They did what they did because they knew we'd sit around with our thumbs up our arses and watch.

Just like you can be sure as fudge NATO doesn't want a war with Russia - wanting that would be tremendously stupid.

Putin correctly judged that a very swift NATO response was probably impossible and that once the takeover what in process a war declaration was extremely unlikely.

Just like Russia wouldn't be able to stop the US if they tried to annex Northern Mexico it's really difficult for NATO to respond quickly enough to stop something from happening in Crimea.

I don't quite understand why you think playing chicken with the Russian army wouldn't be extremely dangerous.