Iron_Captain wrote:Russia has confirmed that its soldiers are operating in Crimea.
Didn't I tell you?
Those uniforms were an obvious giveaway.
And he didn't really say anything. Just the usual vague words. How typical...
The US used to have kick-ass Presidents... sadly, Obama isn't one of them... I would like to apologize to you, the Russian people, on behalf of my great nation, for the severe lack of badassery on the part of our President, but to be fair Putin sets the bar unbelievably high by doing things like piloting nuclear bombers and driving tanks. I must admit I am kind of jealous, though he is a bit too thugnificent and gangstalicious for my taste, also not a fan of his authoritarian leanings and his anti-gay/freedom agenda.
The Obama admin knows how to "nuance" things eh?
Says to something of the effect that Russian troops rolling into Ukraine an “uncontested arrival,” not an “invasion”…
*groan*
That treaty from 1994 kinda means both the US and the UK have to intervene... unless they don't an basically invalidate any other treaty they have ever made.
And therein lies the rub. We are, seemingly, treaty bound to defend Ukraine. The whole world is watching. We have similar treaties with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Arguably these treaties are part of the reason for the 'Pax Americana', as they have given the signatories cause to not arm themselves, and deterred would-be aggressors from doing the same (mostly). If the US fails to act here, then suddenly many (if not most/all) of those nations will no longer feel they are under the American umbrella, and they will start arming themselves. Likewise, would-be aggressors will feel less threatened by the risk of American intervention. I don't think I need to tell you what will happen if these states all begin military buildups, nor do I have to explain what a state like North Korea or Iran, whom we are barely keeping in check as it is, no longer feels as though the US is an existential threat to them... Gentlemen, this business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
Anyway, some good news for the Ukraine: Canada stands with them.
That awkward moment when Harper/Canada has bigger balls than Obama/America
Well, the bigger issue is that Crimea is largely sympathetic to the notion of Russian control. Kiev would likely do well to just let them have it, as they've had problems with political dissent on the peninsula for a long time. Pretty much since it was transferred to Ukrainian control in the 50's, and especially since the fall of the Soviet Union. This is demonstrated by the fact that it is an autonomous region under Ukrainian authority, rather than an explicit part of the Ukraine in the sense that the various provinces (extensions of Ukraine's unitary state) are.
I always figured that was more a result of Russian social/cultural beliefs about government structure than it was political. To illustrate, of the Russian Federations 83 federal subjects, there are 21 semi-autonomous republics, 4 autonomous territories (okrug), and 1 autonomous oblast.
What can you do? Send in the marines! Hell, it makes more sense invading a coastline with marines than landlocked Afghanistan!
That fights been brewing for a long time now...
Europe isn't about to cut off its power supplies just because Obama has a problem with Russia. Putin has no interest in photo opportunities with Obama, because he's never needed the Obama fairydust. And as he has the second most nukes in the world and the largest country in terms of landmass, military intimidation is not an option.
In other words, he's as far outside the sphere of American influence as it is possible to get. He is dependent on them for nothing whatsoever. It seems somewhat unfair to rag on Obama for 'being found wanting', when his options are essentially making tut tut noises, ignoring Putin, or declaring war. So basically, looking incompetent, looking weak, and committing suicide(of the political variety at a minimum).
I'd argue that during the Soviet years the Russians were even further out, yet Presidents then managed to keep them at least somewhat 'in line'. Look at Kennedy and the missile crisis. In any case, ever here of the Bosphorous? You know, its pretty much the one way in and out of the Black Sea for the Russian naval forces stationed at Sevastopol... I know US/Turkish relations aren't necessarily the best, but I'm sure Turkey could be persuaded to close the waterway to Russian military transit...
It's something of a uniquely American trait right now that Americans generally think that every single international situation calls for a US response, and that the US needs to have a 'side', and that if the American President doesn't take some sort of a stand, or it shows him off as being weak.
You mad, bro? I think you're totally just jealous.
Ketara wrote:
Seaward wrote:The interim Government is a bunch of unelected thugs, and half of them are as corrupt as Yanukovych. America has no trade interests there, and it's nowhere near America geographically. What point is there in causing strife with Russia, when there's nothing to gain and plenty to lose? Other than just doing it 'to show Russia who's boss'. Which has never really worked particularly well.
Very narrow view, as I stated previously, this has a lot to do with the repercussions of failing to honor what is being called a 'defense pact'.
Your allies in Europe are not particularly fond of you and we are fine without you. So thanks for helping us out after World War 2, but we'd like to be good friends with Russia instead of having the US lead us into a new Cold War. And thanks to the EU, we really don't need the Americans for anything anymore.
I'll keep that in mind when it all falls apart for you...
PS, brush up on your German and French.
Iron_Captain wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:The problem here is that Russia does not really view Ukraine as a sovereign state, and certainly not since its legitimate leaders have been overthrown in an extremist coup and there are ethnic Russians that need to be protected.
Well unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether or not Russia thinks Ukraine is a sovereign state or not, the fact of the matter is that it is.
The US army is still more than large enough after those reductions.
Large enough for what exactly?
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.
So, by that logic, if the 'local authorities' in say... Kaliningrad were to ask the Germans to come over, you would be okay with it?
Ketara wrote:
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'?
Current regime, yes. Legitimate government, no, but that doesn't mean I would want Canada, Mexico, or Cuba stepping in to something that is entirely a domestic matter.
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 then yes.
It is essentially Texas again, but inverted.
So by that reasoning, it would be okay for the US to invade Mexico, considering there have been some requests by Mexican citizens for the US to intervene and aid them. While we're at it, how about Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the
UK, Albania, and any of the other numerous nations that have pro-statehood political parties (however small and irrelevant they may be).
The US expend 7 times more in military than Russia. Your economy doesn't need a larger army.
Dollar value is not proportional to size/strength/capability. Russia is spending 1/7th the amount of money the US, but is in the process increasing the size of its air and naval forces with modern cutting edge technology, and modernizing its land forces with new anti-air systems, armored vehicles, artillery, etc. etc. Meanwhile, the US is spending 7 times more and receiving significantly less. The same analysis holds true with China. There is the argument that US tech is of better quality and higher capability, but this is largely a myth instigated during the 80s by imagery of rusting soviet naval vessels and aircraft and crumbling facilities, and propagated in the 90s by testing of export variants of Russian equipment (which was always known to be inferior to the actual Russian domestic variants, and even then the gap wasn't necessarily as big as we would have liked to have believed). Russia has spent the past decade modernizing, and while it may not always be on-par to ours, in some areas it exceeds our technology (helicopters and missiles especially), and in many cases its good enough. US equipment costs are horribly inflated and grossly overvalued, don't ever think that spending more means we're getting more proportionally.
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.
Iraq and Russia are VERY different animals. Despite the fact that the equipment might look/sound the same, they aren't, and dont even get me started on the training/doctrine.
Same as Desert Storm, Air Superiority. The ex-soviet army is a backwards and antiquated rabble.
10 years ago, I would agree. Also, air superiority would be difficult to achieve with Russia's new S-400
AA systems coming online in greater numbers. We (at present) don't really have an answer to them, except possibly the F-22 which has no real means of performing the SEAD role. Growlers could (theoretically) get it done, but the Russians claim that their systems are like quadruple redundant against jamming...
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.
I wouldnt count on them for much, politically there isn't much support, and practically, while they are advanced and well trained, they have a focus on humanitarian/peacekeeping operations, not warfighting, its a very different animal.
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
I would disagree. What I would say is that its variable. The modernization has come in 'waves', with the most visible and prestigious units getting all the shiny toys, etc. first, and the backwater/rear-elechon/second-line/reserve units not getting much til later. While that gap still exists now, the 'gap' has become much smaller, and the opposition forces US/western troops would be most likely to encounter would be the ones that have been modernized.
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.
Interestingly, the most recent budget proposal would scrap the entire A-10 fleet. So much for that.
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.
Myth.
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.
I'd place them on par or ahead of any country in Europe (depending on what specific area we're discussing) technologically, and behind only in training/doctrine. Their missile tech is superior, the French and Germans might have a leg up in (diesel-electric) submarine design, but there are inherent advantages to nuclear propulsion, Russian torpedo tech I think is superior (though I'm not well versed in it), aircraft design I'd say its close. The current generation of Russian fighters I'd say are slightly inferior to things such as the Eurofighter, Rafale, etc. but thats made up for by missile tech, I think the next generation of Russian aircraft will be a step up. Helicopter design is another close one, I think I have to give the edge to the Russians since their platforms tend to be more robust and survivable, as well as the fact that they are typically armed to the gills. Comms/Logistics equipment I think Europeans have a strong advantage in, and i think the most modern European AFV's have a big leg up over the current Russian equivalents, but if what I'm hearing of the 'next
gen' systems is true, thats not going to be the case by the end of this decade (barring unforeseen circumstances). Naval-wise, its a tough call, Russia has some capable ships, but they aren't very well maintained, but theyve been buying up French warships to make up for their shortcomings in some areas. I'd have to give the advantage to NATO though for doctrine, not because of the US, but because of Scandinavia and Germany who have been building small, fast, and stealthy missile-boats that hit far-above their weight class and would, in theory, give even the US Navy a run for their money if we were trying to fight them in their backyard.
In any case, its irrelevant because of Russias not insignificant tactical nuclear arsenal and associated doctrine, which is something that the West doesn't really have much of an answer to anymore.
Anyway, point of all this: we could beat Russia in a fight (though we could never occupy it), but its not going to be the like the Gulf War, it would be bloody, violent, and there would be a lot of people dead on both sides.
America's air superiority isn't just number one, it's number one by a vast degree, it would own the skies in short order.
It would, but at a much greater cost than you realize.
Why wouldn't China want to defeat the US? It would dramatically enhance their prestige, give them an enormous economical boost and give them practical hegemony over the entire world.
The only thing stopping them is the fact that China is not yet strong enough to invade and defeat the US. But combined with Russia, who knows?
Thats the logical fallacy in every argument ever about a Sino-American war. China does not want to, nor does it need to, invade the US in order to defeat the US. Any war between the US and China would be a fight in China's backyard, which is what China is and has been preparing for technologically and doctrinally. The loss of an American aircraft carrier, something that isn't completely unreasonable, will be enough for China to assert dominance regionally. Considering all the resources that China has available in its back yard (aka its ever-expanding sphere of influence), China will effectively control the lions share of global trade, natural resources,
raw material, etc. etc. effectively elevating it to the number one global economic power on Earth, and by virtue of the fact that it will be virtually untouchable defensively also the
de facto military power on earth as well.
Unrealistic, i dont believe Ukraine really has the means of producing nuclear weapons, and they sure as gak won't be getting them from Russia or the US... the best they could muster i think would be to make a dirty bomb from the soil around Pripyat.
The nation persists, but the nation-state does not. Indeed, as I noted a few pages ago, Russia's move into Crimea is likely based on a lack of confidence that the present "government" will honor the Russian lease in Sevastopol.
Considering how much money Ukraine makes/doesn't spend (depending on how you want to look at it) by having that base there, I very much doubt they would have reneged on that lease... well... they wouldn't have, though the whole invasion thing probably wont sit well anymore...
Jihadin wrote:Hold one. I'm under the impression its Russian Marines from Sevastapol Naval Station being used. Took control of both airports and a comm center. One airport is near Sevastopol Naval Station itself and the other airport located near the intersection of two major highways of M17and M18 located at Simferpol. Pretty much keeping a logistical lifeline from both Airport to the Naval Station by Air. Under 50 miles. If so then that's pretty much it. Unless they roll across the Russian border into Crimea and literally drive down M17.
How I know? I can read a map from a military perspective
http://www.alpina.cz/images/zajezdy/krym-cyklo/krym-mapa.jpg
Simferpol is also the site of the Crimean parliament, aka, the Crimean capital, and as I understand it, there are Russian troops there too.
the ethnic Russians on the Crimea are genuinely afraid of the new government in Kiev.
"Genuinely afraid"? How, are the big bad Ukrainians going to come and slaughter all the poor little Russian speakers? Unless I'm mistaken, ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians have got along fairly well in Ukraine for the past 2 decades, and there certainly hasn't been any evidence of the predominantly Ukrainian/pro-Western Kiev governments of the past having done anything to give ethnic Russians cause to be 'legitimately afraid' of them.
It is curious the similarities with the American-Mexican war, a land grab started because a part of a weaker country secedes because internal conflict in the capital (and because Texas loves slavery) and then asks a stronger neighbor help.
Check your facts, you fought a civil war with Texas, Texas broke away, and became an independent nation, without American help. OVER a decade later, that now independent nation pursued annexation into the US (something that it had been favor of all along, and something which the US declined to do 10 years prior), and succeeded.
Anywho...
This situation has turned out to be far more interesting than I ever thought it would be, and did not... at all... end up the way I thought it would, and as such, I propose a new title:
Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
