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.

Why is everyone so surprised?

The world not acting the way Liberals think it should?

Putin will take that country in the 5 days..

Then he will look around for the next one and China will be watching. So will North Korea....

This is what you get when you cut your real armed forces to give to welfare recipients whose only purpose in life is to feth, smoke and vote democrat...

You create a glass canon army of snake eaters instead of armored forces and people notice....

Welcome to the real world when countries get taken over and people die due to poor choices based on how people would like the world to be instead of as it is.

 Ketara wrote:
Last time I checked the elected President had been ousted by a mob. A mob that booted all the members of Pariliament they didn't like, and seized control.

Technically, restoring the status quo could be seen as them meeting their obligations under that treaty. At the very least, its something that could take two lawyers a very long time to wrangle out the exact definitions/obligations of.

So taking over a part of a country unilaterally, and under protest from the country being occupied, is preserving the integrity of the nation state? Preserving the integrity of the Ukraine would have involved offers to mediate between the rival groups, leading an international force to restore peace, sending in medical teams to treat the wounded. Russia has done none of those things.
To pretend that a military incursion against a sovereign nation to shore up Russian interests in the region is an attempt to preserve the territorial integrity of the Ukraine is absolutely farcical, and I sincerely hope that you have not typed the above with a straight face.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Why is everyone so surprised?
The world not acting the way Liberals think it should?
Putin will take that country in the 5 days..
Then he will look around for the next one and China will be watching. So will North Korea....
This is what you get when you cut your real armed forces to give to welfare recipients whose only purpose in life is to feth, smoke and vote democrat...
You create a glass canon army of snake eaters instead of armored forces and people notice....
Welcome to the real world when countries get taken over and people die due to poor choices based on how people would like the world to be instead of as it is.

I don't think the events in the Ukraine have anything to do with democrats and the reduction of US forces.
The US army is still more than large enough after those reductions.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Last time I checked the elected President had been ousted by a mob. A mob that booted all the members of Pariliament they didn't like, and seized control.

Technically, restoring the status quo could be seen as them meeting their obligations under that treaty. At the very least, its something that could take two lawyers a very long time to wrangle out the exact definitions/obligations of.

So taking over a part of a country unilaterally, and under protest from the country being occupied, is preserving the integrity of the nation state? Preserving the integrity of the Ukraine would have involved offers to mediate between the rival groups, leading an international force to restore peace, sending in medical teams to treat the wounded. Russia has done none of those things.
To pretend that a military incursion against a sovereign nation to shore up Russian interests in the region is an attempt to preserve the territorial integrity of the Ukraine is absolutely farcical, and I sincerely hope that you have not typed the above with a straight face.

For the Russians, protection of ethnic Russians in their former territory that is now taken over by hostile forces takes priority over everything else. That is how most Russians feel about it. And do not forget that the local authorities in the Ukraine actually asked the Russians to come over.
Also, in the eyes of most Russians, the Ukraine still belongs to Mother Russia.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Regardless who leads the Ukraine it is a sovereign nation, with clear international borders. Simply because you do not like the current regime does not mean that you get to ignore international law at will. Sending a military force into another country without an invitation is a clear act of aggression. It has yet to be determined that there is indeed a threat to anyone in the Crimea from the new regime. To date it is only the ethnic Russians and the Russians themselves who have put on a show of force. Perhaps others need to be protected from them.

If a bunch of protestors seized the White House, chased the President out, assaulted all the members of Congress/Senate they didn't like, freed a number of corrupt ex-politicians to join them, and declared themselves the Government, would you regard them as the 'current regime'?

So taking over a part of a country unilaterally, and under protest from the country being occupied,

No. Under protest from a revolutionary group which ejected the previous administration through force and has yet to hold elections or indeed prove their democratic legitimacy in any way.

is preserving the integrity of the nation state?

Putting the President back in power and suppressing dissidents would be preserving it. Not in a way you would personally like though, probably.

Preserving the integrity of the Ukraine would have involved offers to mediate between the rival groups, leading an international force to restore peace,

Why does it need to be international? They can argue they're just sending in the force to make sure everything stays the way it should be.

To pretend that a military incursion against a sovereign nation to shore up Russian interests in the region is an attempt to preserve the territorial integrity of the Ukraine is absolutely farcical, and I sincerely hope that you have not typed the above with a straight face.

Half and half. No, I don't think that's the Russian intention, but yes, I do regard it as technically being within the treaty they signed if interpreted an entirely legitimate way.

 Ketara wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Regardless who leads the Ukraine it is a sovereign nation, with clear international borders. Simply because you do not like the current regime does not mean that you get to ignore international law at will. Sending a military force into another country without an invitation is a clear act of aggression. It has yet to be determined that there is indeed a threat to anyone in the Crimea from the new regime. To date it is only the ethnic Russians and the Russians themselves who have put on a show of force. Perhaps others need to be protected from them.

If a bunch of protestors seized the White House, chased the President out, assaulted all the members of Congress/Senate they didn't like, freed a number of corrupt ex-politicians to join them, and declared themselves the Government, would you regard them as the 'current regime'?

I'll let you look up the word 'regime' and see what it actually means.
Regardless, would you think it permissible that Mexico or Canada invade US territory, and seize strategic assets, under the pretext that they are protecting their ethnic citizens in spite of no threat against them?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Regardless who leads the Ukraine it is a sovereign nation, with clear international borders. Simply because you do not like the current regime does not mean that you get to ignore international law at will. Sending a military force into another country without an invitation is a clear act of aggression. It has yet to be determined that there is indeed a threat to anyone in the Crimea from the new regime. To date it is only the ethnic Russians and the Russians themselves who have put on a show of force. Perhaps others need to be protected from them.

If a bunch of protestors seized the White House, chased the President out, assaulted all the members of Congress/Senate they didn't like, freed a number of corrupt ex-politicians to join them, and declared themselves the Government, would you regard them as the 'current regime'?

I'll let you look up the word 'regime' and see what it actually means.
Regardless, would you think it permissible that Mexico or Canada invade US territory, and seize strategic assets, under the pretext that they are protecting their ethnic citizens in spite of no threat against them?

Are they doing it after the above situation I outlined? If so, then maybe. I wouldn't have a problem with Canada seizing chunks over the border if a bunch of nutters tried to seize power in the US.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Regardless who leads the Ukraine it is a sovereign nation, with clear international borders. Simply because you do not like the current regime does not mean that you get to ignore international law at will. Sending a military force into another country without an invitation is a clear act of aggression. It has yet to be determined that there is indeed a threat to anyone in the Crimea from the new regime. To date it is only the ethnic Russians and the Russians themselves who have put on a show of force. Perhaps others need to be protected from them.

If a bunch of protestors seized the White House, chased the President out, assaulted all the members of Congress/Senate they didn't like, freed a number of corrupt ex-politicians to join them, and declared themselves the Government, would you regard them as the 'current regime'?

I'll let you look up the word 'regime' and see what it actually means.
Regardless, would you think it permissible that Mexico or Canada invade US territory, and seize strategic assets, under the pretext that they are protecting their ethnic citizens in spite of no threat against them?

If the population of those areas somehow were asking for Mexican/Canadian help, and Mexico/Canada somehow had a military capable of defeating the US one then yes.

It is essentially Texas again, but inverted.

Ok. So we have established that you have no problem with unilateral invasions of other countries undergoing political strife, in violation of treaty agreements and ignoring international law and borders. Even those countries in which previously peaceful protesters have been assaulted by organs of the State, and been subjected to live ammunition.

Russia called back their Diplomats....seems Obama has to call Putin

Whoever said the US Army big enough to deal with Russia is off their rocker

 Tyran wrote:
If the population of those areas somehow were asking for Mexican/Canadian help, and Mexico/Canada somehow had a military capable of defeating the US one?

It is essentially Texas again, but inverted.

But those populations cannot lawfully petition for outside parties to invade. Nor can they legally give permission for a foreign country to deploy troops inside internationally recognized borders. What you are proposing completely undermines any idea of national sovereignty. Especially when it has not been demonstrated that there is any legitimate threat to people in the areas affected. Again I would say that in the Crimea the only show of force has been from the ethnic Russians, and the Russians themselves. The protesters in Kiev have not made any push towards this region.

 Jihadin wrote:
Russia called back their Diplomats....seems Obama has to call Putin

Whoever said the US Army big enough to deal with Russia is off their rocker

The US expend 7 times more in military than Russia. Your economy doesn't need a larger army.

Head on fight between Armies Tyran

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ok. So we have established that you have no problem with unilateral invasions of other countries undergoing political strife, in violation of treaty agreements and ignoring international law and borders. Even those countries in which previously peaceful protesters have been assaulted by organs of the State, and been subjected to live ammunition.

And we've established that you have no problem with coup members breaking criminals out of jail, assaulting elected representatives of the people, claiming governance of the country, and requesting international support for a non-democratic violent regime change. See? I can play with words too.

If it was a case of the Russian tanks rolling into Finland totally unprovoked, I'd be right with you. But here? It's like Syria all over again. No 'good' side to support.

 Jihadin wrote:
Head on fight between Armies Tyran

But that won't happen will it. Remember the pundits before Desert Storm? All the talk of months of conflict, the US airpower greased the pride of Iraq without breaking a sweat.

Same as Desert Storm, Air Superiority. The ex-soviet army is a backwards and antiquated rabble.

And the US isn't by it's self, there are a number of extremely advanced armies sitting in Western Europe and a fair number of less advanced armies sat nearer to Russia with a vested interest in not going back to being puppets of an evil empire.

If we do as we're just done and threaten Putin with the horror of not attending a summit in protest... well I don't think he's going to sweat that.

He will start thinking more seriously if we start flyovers and openly stating support for a free Ukraine.

 Breotan wrote:
Obama could, if he wanted, work with other nations to put economic pressure on Russia to stop with the invasion stuff or be prepared to suffer unnecessary hardship should they continue. Obama doesn't even need to go through the UN to do this.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Just to bring Palin into the discussion, people are saying she predicted this years ago:

http://www.examiner.com/article/sarah-palin-predicted-the-ukraine-situation-2008

Of course she did, she could see it from her house.

You do know that line is from Saturday Night Live and not something Palin actually said, right?

And you do know that there was a basis for that statement, right?

Not really on topic of course, but it's not like this thread is really discussing the situation but rather "Why isn't Obama fixing it!" or anything.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Same as Desert Storm, Air Superiority. The ex-soviet army is a backwards and antiquated rabble.

Not so much. Putin's spent a lot of time and money reorganising, retraining, and re-equipping the Russian military over the last decade or so. Twenty years ago, you'd have been right, but things have changed somewhat.

Sign The Ukraine into NATO immediately and then see how hungry Putin is.

I think he'd back off a country mile. He's all about pushing into conflicted or tiny nations, like the steamrollering he gave in Georgia, but that steamroller was only impressive because it had no opponents, the Georgians just pulled out, largely, and even with little to no opposition, the Georgian militias shot down several Russian aircraft.

Who would sign the agreement? The problem is that the people sitting in Kiev aren't an elected government, half of their own country doesn't listen to them, and the other half has Russians hanging around in it.

There's a very large power vacuum in the Ukraine at the moment. The generals are all sitting to one side in their own districts and seeing what will happen, the Kiev lot are making edicts that nobody is listening to, and the previous administration has fled or had the crap kicked out of them.

 Ketara wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Same as Desert Storm, Air Superiority. The ex-soviet army is a backwards and antiquated rabble.

Not so much. Putin's spent a lot of time and money reorganising, retraining, and re-equipping the Russian military over the last decade or so. Twenty years ago, you'd have been right, but things have changed somewhat.

Twenty years ago the entire nation was teetering on total collapse and the possibility of military insurrections. I know he's been throwing cash at it for a while, but most everything I've read suggests that it's still a corruption riddled, morale lacking and highly disorganized force. NATO forces, removing the use of nukes, which I don't think would be seen deployed over a foreign soil grab, would kick the seven shades out of the Russian Army. Especially given NATO love of taking apart lines of communication and infrastructure first.

As to massed armour, mentioned by that amusing poster earlier, again, air superiority totally neutralizes that and we'd be seeing roads full of dead tanks soon enough, gutted by depleted uranium rounds and such.

Russia is a tough cookie when you hold it up to it's former conquests, it really doesn't rank up when you put it against the technological superiority of the West.

It ranks beneath the US in terms of technological superiority, certainly. Then again, who doesn't?

It outstrips China on the other side of the fork however, and matches a good number of sophisticated European nations. I'd say we in the UK are ahead of them, as are certain aspects of the French military, but other than those exceptions, they maintain a decent parity, and are doing their best to catch up fast. I estimate another ten years, and they'll be level with the French/UK.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Russia is a tough cookie when you hold it up to it's former conquests, it really doesn't rank up when you put it against the technological superiority of the West.

And the fact that we train to survive and fight in cold winters, unlike the armies of Napoleon and Hitler. The Germans in WWII also seemed to lack air support. I expect that won't be an issue if we were to fight Russia.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Same as Desert Storm, Air Superiority. The ex-soviet army is a backwards and antiquated rabble.

Not so much. Putin's spent a lot of time and money reorganising, retraining, and re-equipping the Russian military over the last decade or so. Twenty years ago, you'd have been right, but things have changed somewhat.

Twenty years ago the entire nation was teetering on total collapse and the possibility of military insurrections. I know he's been throwing cash at it for a while, but most everything I've read suggests that it's still a corruption riddled, morale lacking and highly disorganized force. NATO forces, removing the use of nukes, which I don't think would be seen deployed over a foreign soil grab, would kick the seven shades out of the Russian Army. Especially given NATO love of taking apart lines of communication and infrastructure first.

As to massed armour, mentioned by that amusing poster earlier, again, air superiority totally neutralizes that and we'd be seeing roads full of dead tanks soon enough, gutted by depleted uranium rounds and such.

Russia is a tough cookie when you hold it up to it's former conquests, it really doesn't rank up when you put it against the technological superiority of the West.

For one thing; the US would be on its own, Europe does not have the desire nor the capabillities to threaten Russia.
Secondly, the technological superiority of the West does not come into question here. We are not talking about some 3rd world country using outdated Soviet equipment, this is Russia itself we are talking about. The latest Russian technology is as advanced, if not more so than any Western tech. The only thing the US has above Russia is larger numbers. The US has more soldiers, more aircraft and more ships than Russia.
Russia has a lot more tanks, and those are still the deciding factor in a war. Aircraft have a good supporting role, but they do not win wars on their own. America could never bring its entire airforce to Russia, while Russia has its entire airforce available. Coupled with the fact that Russia has the most advanced anti-aircraft measures in the world, I would say that America would have a hard time wresting air superiority. Especially considering Russia could sink any American ship close to Russian shores with its massive array of anti-ship missiles and submarine fleet.
The 1st rule on the 1st page of the Book of War states: 'Do not march on Moscow.' Underestimating Russia and attacking it on its own soil has been the last mistake of everyone to ever attempt that. Fighting Russia on its own territory is madness. There are few peoples that are so stubborn and fanatical in the defense of their 'Sacred Motherland' as the Russians are.
Russia's military has really made vast changes the last decade. I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Trust me, the US is not capable of militarily defeating Russia on its own territory.
Anyone who thinks so is a madman and should join the likes of Napoleon and Hitler.

 Breotan wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Russia is a tough cookie when you hold it up to it's former conquests, it really doesn't rank up when you put it against the technological superiority of the West.

And the fact that we train to survive and fight in cold winters, unlike the armies of Napoleon and Hitler. The Germans in WWII also seemed to lack air support. I expect that won't be an issue if we were to fight Russia.

Sure, please tell me how you are going to magically teleport your entire airforce to Europe while being harrassed by the Russian Airforce, Air defenses and Navy. You will need to establish a beachhead to begin with, do not expect any European nations to help out. We know where wars against Russia always end, and we have no desire to be dragged into WW3 by the US.
Also, German soldiers in WW2 were trained in winter combat as much as their Russian adversaries. They also had plenty of air support. Also, the average US conscript is not trained in winter warfare, the professional US army is way too small to even scratch Russia after it mobilises its army.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
If the population of those areas somehow were asking for Mexican/Canadian help, and Mexico/Canada somehow had a military capable of defeating the US one?

It is essentially Texas again, but inverted.

But those populations cannot lawfully petition for outside parties to invade. Nor can they legally give permission for a foreign country to deploy troops inside internationally recognized borders. What you are proposing completely undermines any idea of national sovereignty. Especially when it has not been demonstrated that there is any legitimate threat to people in the areas affected. Again I would say that in the Crimea the only show of force has been from the ethnic Russians, and the Russians themselves. The protesters in Kiev have not made any push towards this region.

The law in this situation doesn't matter, Crimea doesn't recognize the new government. What can Ukraine do in this situation? invade Crimea? lol no because then it would be a repeat of Georgia. In this moment the ones that will decide the future of Crimea is the Crimeans, and if the new administration in Kiev is unable to improve the way they are perceived in Crimea then the country is going to tear itself apart. Russia needs the support of Crimea and the declarations of the new government only push Crimea more in Russia's arms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And for Russia vs the West.

The West would win in a proxy war, but an invasion of the Russian mainland would be hilarious stupid.

It doesn't matter as the West isn't going to fight for Ukraine.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Why is everyone so surprised?
The world not acting the way Liberals think it should?
Putin will take that country in the 5 days..
Then he will look around for the next one and China will be watching. So will North Korea....
This is what you get when you cut your real armed forces to give to welfare recipients whose only purpose in life is to feth, smoke and vote democrat...
You create a glass canon army of snake eaters instead of armored forces and people notice....
Welcome to the real world when countries get taken over and people die due to poor choices based on how people would like the world to be instead of as it is.

I don't think the events in the Ukraine have anything to do with democrats and the reduction of US forces.
The US army is still more than large enough after those reductions.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Last time I checked the elected President had been ousted by a mob. A mob that booted all the members of Pariliament they didn't like, and seized control.

Technically, restoring the status quo could be seen as them meeting their obligations under that treaty. At the very least, its something that could take two lawyers a very long time to wrangle out the exact definitions/obligations of.

So taking over a part of a country unilaterally, and under protest from the country being occupied, is preserving the integrity of the nation state? Preserving the integrity of the Ukraine would have involved offers to mediate between the rival groups, leading an international force to restore peace, sending in medical teams to treat the wounded. Russia has done none of those things.
To pretend that a military incursion against a sovereign nation to shore up Russian interests in the region is an attempt to preserve the territorial integrity of the Ukraine is absolutely farcical, and I sincerely hope that you have not typed the above with a straight face.

For the Russians, protection of ethnic Russians in their former territory that is now taken over by hostile forces takes priority over everything else. That is how most Russians feel about it. And do not forget that the local authorities in the Ukraine actually asked the Russians to come over.
Also, in the eyes of most Russians, the Ukraine still belongs to Mother Russia.

As we know from history, the U.S. has no moral high horse in a situation like this, and it seems like no one has learned a damn thing in the thousands of years these kind of situations occur.

Think we need to back out of the "US vs Russia". We all know its not going to happen and if it were to happen Putin Armored/Infantry column will be going through Poland. Which I might add whose units have more combat experience then Russia. It'll come down to Quality vs Quantity. Putin not that greedy. He acquires Crimea...why do I keep having Conan come to mind....justification being the huge Sevastapol(SP) Naval Base there. That slab of land is easily defended with basically two land routes over two Penninsula.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

For one thing; the US would be on its own, Europe does not have the desire nor the capabillities to threaten Russia.

I hate to stop you dead there, but if the combined forces of all the European nations mobilised to crush Russia, it would be crushed. France and Britain combined have as many people as Russia alone.

Secondly, the technological superiority of the West does not come into question here. We are not talking about some 3rd world country using outdated Soviet equipment, this is Russia itself we are talking about. The latest Russian technology is as advanced, if not more so than any Western tech.

Not quite. As I said earlier, we do still have something of a march on Russia. They've come along very nicely of late, but the fifteen year stopgap in R&D is still holding them back, as is the fact that the West shares technological secrets somewhat. If Britain makes a discovery, the Americans tend to be kitted out with it shortly afterwards, and vice versa. Russia has to develop everything itself.

When Russia has a 5th Gen fighter in the field, or access to the new stealth plating for ships, maybe then.

The only thing the US has above Russia is larger numbers.

And technology. And a larger economy.

Russia has a lot more tanks, and those are still the deciding factor in a war.

No. Tanks have not been a deciding factor in war for about sixty years. Too many hand-propelled weapons, mines, aircraft, and drones. There's even been talk of late of scrapping tanks altogether. Whilst I believe they still have a role, we're a long way from Liddell-Hart and Guderian's wet dreams.

America could never bring its entire airforce to Russia, while Russia has its entire airforce available.

Between the Wasps and the Nimitz's, America can haul at least a quarter as many aircraft as Russia has available to it. Add in German airbases, and other places in Europe, and America could match it numerically without too much effort. When you realise that a good half of the Russian airforce is more then a little technically inferior, you realise that they wouldn't even need a parity of force.

Coupled with the fact that Russia has the most advanced anti-aircraft measures in the world,

Source?

I would say that America would have a hard time wresting air superiority. Especially considering Russia could sink any American ship close to Russian shores with its massive array of anti-ship missiles and submarine fleet.

No.

The 1st rule on the 1st page of the Book of War states: 'Do not march on Moscow.'

Who marches these days? We drive. Or fly. Or take the train.
Not to mention that the days of dirt track roads are long gone. There won't be another mudbath to hold back the tide.

Underestimating Russia and attacking it on its own soil has been the last mistake of everyone to ever attempt that. Fighting Russia on its own territory is madness. There are few peoples that are so stubborn and fanatical in the defense of their 'Sacred Motherland' as the Russians are.
Russia's military has really made vast changes the last decade. I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Trust me, the US is not capable of militarily defeating Russia on its own territory.
Anyone who thinks so is a madman and should join the likes of Napoleon and Hitler.

Napoleon took Moscow. He just didn't know what to do afterwards, and didn't have air supply.

US and EU I'm sure after Iraq and Afghanistan are not willing to exchange lead with Russia. Putin knows that.

 Jihadin wrote:
US and EU I'm sure after Iraq and Afghanistan are not willing to exchange lead with Russia. Putin knows that.

It depends. Not over something like this, certainly. If he started pulling a Hitler, and pushed the tanks into members of the EU, we probably would. Which is kind of what all this is about, keeping the Ukraine out of our sphere of influence, so we don't get involved further down the line.

The West isn't going to invade Russia because nukes.
Now lets go back to Ukraine and Crimea, which I doubt the West would risk a war for it.

 Tyran wrote:
The West isn't going to invade Russia because nukes.
Now lets go back to Ukraine and Crimea, which I doubt the West would risk a war for it.

*snaps fingers*

Give the man a prize. Or an exalt at least. He sees to the crux of it.