Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Provocative?

Russia moving nuclear-capable missiles into Kaliningrad.

One other thing, today I learned Kaliningrad is actually a Russian territory detached from mainland Russia.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kaliningrad,+Kaliningrad+Oblast,+Russia/@54.3561739,22.4035234,7.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x46e33d8d4b7c21a9:0x5050960016126ed3!8m2!3d54.7104264!4d20.4522144

Yup, it was one of the things snapped up by the USSR after WWII. Russia had no real claim over it. It was Prussian, then German, but really Polish the whole time, and is basically just an excuse to hold onto some ports. Same with Karelia and Petsamo (although those were just before from Finland).

Well, not entirely. The area was never Polish. The Poles tried to conquer the areas several times in the Middle Ages, but they were defeated by the pagan Prussian tribes and so called in the Teutonic Order to help. The Teutonic Order then went on a genocidal rampage and took the area for itself. Under pressure from the Reformation in the 16th century, the Teutonic Order went from catholicism to protestantism and reformed itself into the Duchy of Prussia, which eventually gave rise to the Kingdom of Prussia which in turn became instrumental in the formation of the German Empire and the modern German state.
So really, the area has always been German ever since the native Prussians conveniently "disappeared" (excepting a short episode after WW1 where Lithuania annexed the area).

In the 2nd World War, Russia conquered those lands fair and square, just like Germany conquered them in the past. That is a claim over the area just as good as that of Germany. Right of conquest was still a legally valid principle of international law at the time.

And Russia is totally allowed to place all the nuclear missiles it wants in Kaliningrad. It is not even a provocation but rather a response to Western provocations like the US building a missile shield in Poland and sending warships to the Black Sea.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Provocative?

Russia moving nuclear-capable missiles into Kaliningrad.

One other thing, today I learned Kaliningrad is actually a Russian territory detached from mainland Russia.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kaliningrad,+Kaliningrad+Oblast,+Russia/@54.3561739,22.4035234,7.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x46e33d8d4b7c21a9:0x5050960016126ed3!8m2!3d54.7104264!4d20.4522144

Yup, it was one of the things snapped up by the USSR after WWII. Russia had no real claim over it. It was Prussian, then German, but really Polish the whole time, and is basically just an excuse to hold onto some ports. Same with Karelia and Petsamo (although those were just before from Finland).

Well, not entirely. The area was never Polish. The Poles tried to conquer the areas several times in the Middle Ages, but they were defeated by the pagan Prussian tribes and so called in the Teutonic Order to help. The Teutonic Order then went on a genocidal rampage and took the area for itself. Under pressure from the Reformation in the 16th century, the Teutonic Order went from catholicism to protestantism and reformed itself into the Duchy of Prussia, which eventually gave rise to the Kingdom of Prussia which in turn became instrumental in the formation of the German Empire and the modern German state.
So really, the area has always been German ever since the native Prussians conveniently "disappeared" (excepting a short episode after WW1 where Lithuania annexed the area).

Actually, it was a fiefdom of Poland. And is far more culturally and ethnically tied to Poland than Germany. And Russia has absolutely zero cultural claim, as they didn't hold the area until near the end of WWII.

And Prussia IS Germany.

It was the largest state of the pre WWI German Empire. And the leaders of the German Empire were Prussian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_I,_German_Emperor

In the 2nd World War, Russia conquered those lands fair and square, just like Germany conquered them in the past. That is a claim over the area just as good as that of Germany. Right of conquest was still a legally valid principle of international law at the time.

I'd question calling any conquering "fair and square". And before you start, that goes to the US as well. Russia has no real claim over it, other than a military one. The only reason they hold it now is because of it's strategic position and access to open water.

And Russia is totally allowed to place all the nuclear missiles it wants in Kaliningrad. It is not even a provocation but rather a response to Western provocations like the US building a missile shield in Poland and sending warships to the Black Sea.

In response to dozens of Russian provocations (Like bombers buzzing UK airspace). Which was probably in response to some other NATO provacation, which is proebly in response to some other Russian provocations, ect. It's still a provocation, it's just in a cycle leading back to the cold war.

Also, how is missile defense a provocation? It's like saying "My neighbor just put better locks on his doors, so I'm going to set up a battering ram on the edge of my property."

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Provocative?

Russia moving nuclear-capable missiles into Kaliningrad.

One other thing, today I learned Kaliningrad is actually a Russian territory detached from mainland Russia.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kaliningrad,+Kaliningrad+Oblast,+Russia/@54.3561739,22.4035234,7.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x46e33d8d4b7c21a9:0x5050960016126ed3!8m2!3d54.7104264!4d20.4522144

Yup, it was one of the things snapped up by the USSR after WWII. Russia had no real claim over it. It was Prussian, then German, but really Polish the whole time, and is basically just an excuse to hold onto some ports. Same with Karelia and Petsamo (although those were just before from Finland).

Well, not entirely. The area was never Polish. The Poles tried to conquer the areas several times in the Middle Ages, but they were defeated by the pagan Prussian tribes and so called in the Teutonic Order to help. The Teutonic Order then went on a genocidal rampage and took the area for itself. Under pressure from the Reformation in the 16th century, the Teutonic Order went from catholicism to protestantism and reformed itself into the Duchy of Prussia, which eventually gave rise to the Kingdom of Prussia which in turn became instrumental in the formation of the German Empire and the modern German state.
So really, the area has always been German ever since the native Prussians conveniently "disappeared" (excepting a short episode after WW1 where Lithuania annexed the area).

Actually, it was a fiefdom of Poland. And is far more culturally and ethnically tied to Poland than Germany. And Russia has absolutely zero cultural claim, as they didn't hold the area until near the end of WWII.

What?
Being a fiefdom of Poland does not mean it was a part of Poland. This was a feudal relationship, which is really not comparable to any modern concept and which meant that the Duchy of Prussia was independent in every way as long as the duke paid his taxes to the Polish king. Later it became entirely independent in return for the duke sending military aid to Poland in its war against Sweden. Such feudal relationships are meaningless regarding claims in the modern world. And they especially do not say anything about culture, as the Duchy of Prussia always was very strongly German with little to no Polish cultural influences. Modern-day Britain is probably more Polish than the Duchy of Prussia ever was. There was a significant Lithuanian minority though, especially in the east. Here you may be confusing Ducal Prussia (around Königsbergen) with Royal Prussia (around Gdansk), which was a province of Poland. But even Royal Prussia was more German than Polish, with Germans being the dominant ethnicity and German the official language. There were in fact, more Dutchmen than Poles living in Royal Prussia. So how does that give Poland a cultural claim on what was formerly Royal Prussia, let alone Ducal Prussia?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And Prussia IS Germany.

No. Just no.
Prussia was an area of Germany.
The Duchy of Prussia eventually became a kingdom that absorbed many other German areas and went on to be the most dominant force in the foundation of Germany as a state, but it was never Germany in itself. The map you so conveniently provided shows this well. Germany is the areas in light pink and blue. The blue areas are those controlled by the Kingdom of Prussia (which again, is not the same thing as Prussia as a region). Prussia was the largest and most powerful state, but Bavaria was not far behind. Saying that the largest of Germany's states is Germany is saying that England is Great Britain or that Russia is the Soviet Union. It simply is incorrect.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

In the 2nd World War, Russia conquered those lands fair and square, just like Germany conquered them in the past. That is a claim over the area just as good as that of Germany. Right of conquest was still a legally valid principle of international law at the time.

I'd question calling any conquering "fair and square". And before you start, that goes to the US as well. Russia has no real claim over it, other than a military one. The only reason they hold it now is because of it's strategic position and access to open water.

You will find that military claims are usually the only claims. If we discount military claims, then no one has a right to the area except for the original Baltic Prussians, who are all long dead. So should we just leave the land empty then?
There is nothing wrong with military claims. For millennia the right of conquest has been the most important way by which states and nations established themselves.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

And Russia is totally allowed to place all the nuclear missiles it wants in Kaliningrad. It is not even a provocation but rather a response to Western provocations like the US building a missile shield in Poland and sending warships to the Black Sea.

In response to dozens of Russian provocations (Like bombers buzzing UK airspace). Which was probably in response to some other NATO provacation, which is proebly in response to some other Russian provocations, ect. It's still a provocation, it's just in a cycle leading back to the cold war.

Also, how is missile defense a provocation? It's like saying "My neighbor just put better locks on his doors, so I'm going to set up a battering ram on the edge of my property."

There exists a military balance between Russia and the West. This balance is provided by nuclear missiles and mutually assured destruction. Anything which hinders Russian (or American) missiles upsets this balance and therefore is a major provocation, if not an outright threat or act of war.
This is the reason why the US and USSR (and later Russia) always had a treaty that forbade missile defense systems. The US withdrew from this treaty in 2002. Clearly an hostile act. Of course there is a cycle of provocations from both sides, but the problem is that the US is rapidly escalating the situation by actively attempting to upset the status quo. Russian bombers in British airspace do not upset the status quo. A missile defense system in Poland does.
How do you think the US would react if Russia was to build a missile defense system in Cuba to protect against Japan or some other non-existant threat?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, if Hungary wants the EU money they've been getting then chickening out when the EU wants them to contribute is a dick move. It's 1.2 thousand refugees in a country with 9 million-odd inhabitants. If they're a threat to Hungarian culture then Hungarian culture would die from a stiff breeze.

But the problem is...Will this 1.2 thousand refugees be it? Or will be there be another 2 thousand refugees next year, 5 thousand refugees the year after that? Didn't Germany take in a million people last year? Thats whats probably going through their minds right now.

In which case they can tell the EU to feth off in the future instead of just refusing to even try.

It's their choice to make, of course, but even as someone who's pro-EU the fact that Eastern Europe has gotten massive economic aid from our tax payers and are now trying to chicken out of helping to shoulder the responsibility is more than a little annoying; the fact that Orbán is using blatant lies about Sweden in his BS propaganda is even more so. If they don't want to play by the rules, fine, but in that case there really shouldn't be any money for them either.

But is it playing by the rules? Did they sign a bit of paper saying that the EU administration could resettle people in their country without their consent in exchange for cash sums? Because if not, you're being a bit disingenuous here. This is exactly the sort of 'mission creep' that people in the Uk were getting dicey about. Just because the EU administration decides it's in the interests of the EU to do something doesn't necessarily equate to it being in the interests of any individual nation to go along with it. The minute they sit down and allow it, they've set a precedent that will be thrown at them next time there's a bunch of refugees from Eritrea or Calais or somewhere.

It ultimately comes down to the rule involved here. Can the EU just do this without the consent of their democratic governing body or not? That's what's being established. Who has primacy within the borders of Hungary. And it will ultimately be the Hungarian government. You can threaten to try and kick them out of the EU or cut off their cash, but changing the terms of their agreement with the EU because they refuse to go along with whatever harebrained scheme has popped into Juncker's brain this month is a little bit rich and smacks of coercion more than anything. 'Do as we say or we'll do something to hurt you/stop aiding you' isn't exactly charitable.

 Ketara wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, if Hungary wants the EU money they've been getting then chickening out when the EU wants them to contribute is a dick move. It's 1.2 thousand refugees in a country with 9 million-odd inhabitants. If they're a threat to Hungarian culture then Hungarian culture would die from a stiff breeze.

But the problem is...Will this 1.2 thousand refugees be it? Or will be there be another 2 thousand refugees next year, 5 thousand refugees the year after that? Didn't Germany take in a million people last year? Thats whats probably going through their minds right now.

In which case they can tell the EU to feth off in the future instead of just refusing to even try.

It's their choice to make, of course, but even as someone who's pro-EU the fact that Eastern Europe has gotten massive economic aid from our tax payers and are now trying to chicken out of helping to shoulder the responsibility is more than a little annoying; the fact that Orbán is using blatant lies about Sweden in his BS propaganda is even more so. If they don't want to play by the rules, fine, but in that case there really shouldn't be any money for them either.

But is it playing by the rules? Did they sign a bit of paper saying that the EU administration could resettle people in their country without their consent in exchange for cash sums? Because if not, you're being a bit disingenuous here. This is exactly the sort of 'mission creep' that people in the Uk were getting dicey about. Just because the EU administration decides it's in the interests of the EU to do something doesn't necessarily equate to it being in the interests of any individual nation to go along with it. The minute they sit down and allow it, they've set a precedent that will be thrown at them next time there's a bunch of refugees from Eritrea or Calais or somewhere.

It ultimately comes down to the rule involved here. Can the EU just do this without the consent of their democratic governing body or not? That's what's being established. Who has primacy within the borders of Hungary. And it will ultimately be the Hungarian government. You can threaten to try and kick them out of the EU or cut off their cash, but changing the terms of their agreement with the EU because they refuse to go along with whatever harebrained scheme has popped into Juncker's brain this month is a little bit rich and smacks of coercion more than anything. 'Do as we say or we'll do something to hurt you/stop aiding you' isn't exactly charitable.

Well, it isn't just Juncker who decides what goes in the EU. In fact, Juncker is virtually powerless. Ultimately it is Merkel who has decided this resettlement plan, and the majority of other government leaders went along with her.
So really the question should be: can a majority of agreeing EU members force a minority of dissenting EU members to do something?

But yes, whether it comes from Juncker or from Merkel, the EU mission creep really is becoming a problem. The big question is of course: How do we reform the EU into something that everyone is happy with? Because Northern, Southern and Eastern European nations all have very different ideas about that.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, if Hungary wants the EU money they've been getting then chickening out when the EU wants them to contribute is a dick move. It's 1.2 thousand refugees in a country with 9 million-odd inhabitants. If they're a threat to Hungarian culture then Hungarian culture would die from a stiff breeze.

But the problem is...Will this 1.2 thousand refugees be it? Or will be there be another 2 thousand refugees next year, 5 thousand refugees the year after that? Didn't Germany take in a million people last year? Thats whats probably going through their minds right now.

In which case they can tell the EU to feth off in the future instead of just refusing to even try.

It's their choice to make, of course, but even as someone who's pro-EU the fact that Eastern Europe has gotten massive economic aid from our tax payers and are now trying to chicken out of helping to shoulder the responsibility is more than a little annoying; the fact that Orbán is using blatant lies about Sweden in his BS propaganda is even more so. If they don't want to play by the rules, fine, but in that case there really shouldn't be any money for them either.

But is it playing by the rules? Did they sign a bit of paper saying that the EU administration could resettle people in their country without their consent in exchange for cash sums? Because if not, you're being a bit disingenuous here. This is exactly the sort of 'mission creep' that people in the Uk were getting dicey about. Just because the EU administration decides it's in the interests of the EU to do something doesn't necessarily equate to it being in the interests of any individual nation to go along with it. The minute they sit down and allow it, they've set a precedent that will be thrown at them next time there's a bunch of refugees from Eritrea or Calais or somewhere.

It ultimately comes down to the rule involved here. Can the EU just do this without the consent of their democratic governing body or not? That's what's being established. Who has primacy within the borders of Hungary. And it will ultimately be the Hungarian government. You can threaten to try and kick them out of the EU or cut off their cash, but changing the terms of their agreement with the EU because they refuse to go along with whatever harebrained scheme has popped into Juncker's brain this month is a little bit rich and smacks of coercion more than anything. 'Do as we say or we'll do something to hurt you/stop aiding you' isn't exactly charitable.

Well, it isn't just Juncker who decides what goes in the EU. In fact, Juncker is virtually powerless. Ultimately it is Merkel who has decided this resettlement plan, and the majority of other government leaders went along with her.
So really the question should be: can a majority of agreeing EU members force a minority of dissenting EU members to do something?

That's how a top-heavy central government works in a federal union of states.

Just look at the US. There are times when the Federal Government pushes something where a clear majority opposes.

But yes, whether it comes from Juncker or from Merkel, the EU mission creep really is becoming a problem. The big question is of course: How do we reform the EU into something that everyone is happy with? Because Northern, Southern and Eastern European nations all have very different ideas about that.

The real question is whether the EU should be more than an economic union...

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Here you may be confusing Ducal Prussia (around Königsbergen) with Royal Prussia (around Gdansk), which was a province of Poland

Actually, yes I am. I was thinking of the whole Danzig/Gdańsk thing, and all it's nonsense.

No. Just no.
Prussia was an area of Germany.
The Duchy of Prussia eventually became a kingdom that absorbed many other German areas and went on to be the most dominant force in the foundation of Germany as a state, but it was never Germany in itself. The map you so conveniently provided shows this well. Germany is the areas in light pink and blue. The blue areas are those controlled by the Kingdom of Prussia (which again, is not the same thing as Prussia as a region). Prussia was the largest and most powerful state, but Bavaria was not far behind. Saying that the largest of Germany's states is Germany is saying that England is Great Britain or that Russia is the Soviet Union. It simply is incorrect.

Ever hear of the Unification of Germany? That was when the King of Prussia William I combined those those areas into the German Empire. So, yes, Prussia is Germany, In much the same way as England is the UK. I'm not saying that "Prussia, and only Prussia is Germany. " I'm saying that Prussia was the main part of the German Empire. Now that got muddled a bunch what with two world wars, but The fact still remains, Prussia as an independent state seceded to exist and became Germany. You could effectively think of it being Prussia annexing the area and changing their name (a gross simplification, but it gets the point across). I could have written that clearer, perhaps (IIRC, English is not your first language).

You will find that military claims are usually the only claims. If we discount military claims, then no one has a right to the area except for the original Baltic Prussians, who are all long dead. So should we just leave the land empty then?

I don't disagree, I was just pointing this out. It's the same way the US and the UK hold dozens of islands all over the world that they don't have any cultural claim.

There is nothing wrong with military claims. For millennia the right of conquest has been the most important way by which states and nations established themselves.

Certainly it used to work like that, but I'd hardly say that there's nothing wrong with it in this day and age. I'd hope we'd all recognize that "who has the biggest stick" shouldn't be the main way of drawing boarders in the modern world. But perhaps I am to hopeful.

There exists a military balance between Russia and the West. This balance is provided by nuclear missiles and mutually assured destruction. Anything which hinders Russian (or American) missiles upsets this balance and therefore is a major provocation, if not an outright threat or act of war.

That's one of the more ridiculous things I've read in a while. Are you saying that The US and NATO should not seek to protect it's self from threats because Russia might not be able to blow them up as well? If Russia Is worried about a missile defense system protecting NATO areas, then build defense systems over it's threatened areas. Balance restored.

This is the reason why the US and USSR (and later Russia) always had a treaty that forbade missile defense systems. The US withdrew from this treaty in 2002. Clearly an hostile act. Of course there is a cycle of provocations from both sides, but the problem is that the US is rapidly escalating the situation by actively attempting to upset the status quo. Russian bombers in British airspace do not upset the status quo. A missile defense system in Poland does.

Poor Russia, it will only be able to cause a neculear winter can cause then entire population of Europe to die of radition poisoning and starvation, rather then being disintegrated in neculear blasts.

How do you think the US would react if Russia was to build a missile defense system in Cuba

Change that to China, and then it might be realistic. And in that case, the US would probably do some stupid posturing. And it would be just as rediculous.

to protect against Japan or some other non-existant threat?

I though Russia's missiles were supposed to be a threat? What is this, Schrodinger's ICMB?

I'll be honest, when I said Juncker, I was just picking an arbitrary EU official; I'm aware his powers are somewhat circumscribed. Who 'rules' is more a matter of influence, which can change from year to year. It's Merkel at the moment, but could be the next French President or EU President just as easily in two years.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
.... .... .... ... ...

How do you think the US would react if Russia was to build a missile defense system in Cuba to protect against Japan or some other non-existant threat?

Historically the Soviets did try to position MRBMs in Cuba in the 1960s and the USA went crazy ape. MRBMs are not defensive of course, and the point of positioning them in Cuba was to get them close enough for a successful first strike capability that genuinely would upset the balance of power, which explains why the US reacted so badly.

A defensive missile site in Cuba would be completely ignorable by the USA since it couldn't possibly protect the Russian heartland against missiles launched from either Dakota or SSN submarines, and there are no Russian assets worth attacking in the whole of South America, and if the US wanted to they would move an SSBN down there to do it from under the missile shield.

The same is true of defensive missiles based in Poland; I mean they cannot possibly protect the continental USA from a Russian missile attack, though possibly they could protect Poland from a Russian attack.

The reason for putting nuclear missiles in Kalinigrad is basically Putin beating his chest. (The gorilla threat display as seen in Tarzan films, I mean.) If the defensive missiles in Poland are effective, the missiles in Kalinigrad as pointless because they would get shot down if launched at Poland.

That's what it looks like to me, anyway.