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.
2014/09/12 19:46:16
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
If France does not deliver those ships, it has to pay back the original price to Russia, plus the fine for breaching the contract, which is even more expensive than the cost of those ships. And they are left with 4 useless ships.
Glad I am not a French taxpayer...
Nonetheless, putting a arms contract on hold for the duration of a conflict is a reasonable decision. Just have to see how Russia will take it.
I'm sure they could find buyers elsewhere, the Mistral class are very modern and the capabilities they offer to a Navy/Marine Corps are something that is in high demand in certain parts of the world, particularly southeast asia.
People in the USSR realised the West had it better and decided to try and break away from the USSR. The rest is history.
Yes. Everyone in the Soviet Union realised that they wanted Uncle Sam's apple pie, and so they overthrew their rulers to break away and form the democratic capitalistic Russia that they'd always wanted.
Pull the other one.
You do know that the USSR was more than Russia, right? East Germany, Poland, Hungary etc.
Are you willing to die for Estonia? Are you willing to risk the lives of your children for Estonia?
Yes. In a nutshell. That's what NATO means. Russia will get away with it in ukraine, and maybe in Belarus or Kazakhstan. But a NATO member? That WOULD spark a full scale war. I think Britain proved that when it jumped in for Belgium and Poland in the past. To quote Lord Palmerston:
Lord Palmerston wrote:
England has no eternal friendships and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests.
And having Russia rampaging through Europe again would be heavily in breach of those interests.
I personally don't believe NATO would respond properly. I'm sure they WOULD respond in some manner, but I think, realistically speaking, the NATO response would be too minimal and too cautious, rather than an actual military campaign it would be some sort of combo of sanctions, humanitarian aid, strong condemnation, and show of force in the Baltic Sea. The outcome of that lack of response, I think, will be more dangerous for the world than if NATO did actually respond properly and attack. Rather than a unified response via NATO against Russia, I foresee the outcome of inaction to be a fracturing of NATO, a heavy arms race/buildup amongst eastern european states, followed later by rearmament in Germany and France, old ethnic tensions and geopolitical rivalries will work their way out of the woodwork and gak will hit the fan.
One protest. One City. One Day. 3 million people.
And that is naturally only a tiny fraction of the people who opposed the Iraq War.
I may have been 12 at the time, and not particularly interested in politics or the War beyond thinking all the soldiers, tanks and fighter jets on the news were cool, but even I was aware at the time that the Iraq war was almost universally reviled.
The city of Rome doesn't even have a population of 3 million people and the greater metro area is only slightly above that, so I find that hard to believe.
Those 1,551,038 men are divided over many small national armies with only a limited amount of cooperation. And judging from the difficulty the EU has with even setting up small military missions, most of those are far from battle-ready. Meanwhile, Russia has about a 100.000 in mechanised and armoured divisions that only need a single command to get rolling. They will have covered a huge amount of territory before Europe will be able to put up an effective resistance.
And American soldiers are not that great of a help when they are an ocean away. It will take a lot of time before they will arrive. And that is if they arrive. Should Russia attack NATO, it is likely China will take its chance as well and invade US allies in the Far East.
Iron_Captain is right about this. 1.5 million men split across what, 2-3 dozen national militaries? There is a heavy, heavy, heavy amount of duplication and redundancy built into that number, tens (If not hundreds) of thousands of redundant support, administrative, logistics, and headquarters personnel never intended for frontline duty. Also, simple analysis of a lot of those forces will reveal that -for the most part- those militaries are underfunded, underequpped, often not fully in compliance with NATO STANAG's (particularly in the east/balkan region where many member states are still operating Russian equipment), and simply not built for anything other than limited peacekeeping and security operations among border regions. On top of that, simply put, the US would have a lot of trouble operating against Russia, its too much real estate for too few men to take, let alone hold. On top of that Russian missile tech, particularly in the anti-ship realm, isn't anything to scoff at, we'd have a hard time getting naval assets close enough to do their job, any deployment of US forces against Russia would have to be primarily overland from our forces based in Western Europe and Turkey (and likely Norway since the USMC has an arsenal of equipment there for just that occasion). It's a pretty long way to the Russian border from Ramstein AFB, its an even longer way to Moscow.
It is only logical. Look at large-scale convential wars of the past. Weapons have only gotten deadlier since then. It is actually a pretty conservative estimate.
Indeed look at Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands died as a result of much smaller and more limited military operations than what would result should europe go to war with russia.
Russia has about a 100.000 in mechanised and armoured divisions that only need a single command to get rolling.
I don't think you understand how modern armed forces work. Nothing that size happens that quickly. You better believe the Russian sparkies and grease monkeys are as behind on their maintenance quotas as everyone else in the world, that the queys want everything filled out 20 times before it shifts and inch, and that you just generally can't say 'go' to 100,000 men and get them rolling, simply because you can't keep 100,000 men at the ready condition that long.
I think you're the one who doesn't quite understand how it works. Its not 1914, or 1939, or even 1990 anymore. In the past it could take up to a year for a nation to mobilize for a war effort, modern conflicts are characterized by rapid deployment and rapid response. Hell, USFK has kept tens of thousands of US troops on the Korean peninsula in a combat ready state for the better part of 6 decades now.
What such event? The EU leaving NATO and creating a military of its own? How would that not make NATO outdated? An organisation should never outlive its purpose. What does the EU need NATO for? Isn't the EU much better of taking the reins in their own hands? Not only would Europe be rid of the jingoistic NATO, while still capable of properly defending its borders, it would also make Russia feel much less threatened and would take the wind out of the sails of the Russian nationalists.
The stronger the NATO response is, the more threatened Russia will feel, which will only fuel radical nationalism and agression on their part. It is much better to disband dangerous divisive organisations like NATO. What people in the West may not realise is that NATO indirectly has a very large part in causing the current conflict in Ukraine, as well as the earlier conflict in Georgia. Russia feels very threatened by the needless (and illegal, as they had promised never to do so) NATO expansion towards its borders, for seemingly no other purpose but to work against Russia. It is a major cause for why Russia has been acting so agressive in defending its interests lately.
The irony here is that a unified EU military would probably be more capable and pose a bigger danger to Russia than NATO currently does.
If Russia built up its forces properly, called up the reservists, lubricated the tanks, etc, and made a general push through Europe, to quote myself, they'd probably get about a third of the way into Germany before they were stopped. But then they'd be pushed back and ground up into pieces from there.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, simply because Russia takes a very different view to WMD's from the west, one which the US and other European nations don't have an adequate response for, thats one of the big points of international nuclear policy and treaties between the US and Russia. They define tactical nuclear weapons differently, and are far more willing to utilize them in a limited fashion against military targets which we would be hard pressed to justify a nuclear response to, particularly since our own tactical nuclear arsenal has grown increasingly more limited since the end of the Cold War leaving us only with a strategic option which only the most hawkish imbecile could justify. Beyond that, don't kid yourself into thinking that NATO could itself make it to Moscow. Beyond that, I dont see WHY they would push for Germany, particularly when their goal is to reacquire areas of the Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, etc.
Are you forgetting the Queen Elizabeth??
Left dry dock in July. Plus we have F-35's and some Typhoons to play with currently.
If by 'left drydock' you mean 'launched' which just means that the structure has been completed and she's watertight, the ship hasnt been fitted out yet and won't reach IOC for another 5 years at least. I'll let you think that over a bit before you decide to commit a non-combat ready ship to the fight... also, you don't have a single F-35 yet, unless you're referring to the ones that the brits are using in FLORIDA to train pilots in, which have yet to be certified as combat capable themselves...
American troops are stationed several places around Europe, notably Germany.
Do you know how far it is to the Russia border from Germany?
1. Total Population: 142,517,670 – 313,847,465
2. Manpower available: 69,117,271 – 142,212,012
3. Military reserve: 20,035,000 – 1,458,000
4. Total aircraft strength: 4,500 – 15,2936
5. Navy ship strength: 224 – 2907
6. Submarines: 58 – 71
7. Total aircraft strength: 4,500 – 15,293.
8. Total helicopter strength: 1,635 – 6,665
...ish.
I dont know where you got these numbers from... but some of them are wrong... one of them isn't even a real number (15,2936)
You do realise that if we are talking about nuclear war there really is no point in sending any troops.
Do you really think Putin would launch a nuclear attack on US troops massing in the Baltics? Do you really have that low of an opinion of him that you think he would willingly end all life on Earth for a few hundred square kilometers of Baltic soil? Because, you may not realize this, but the US has nuclear weapons, too. You might say we invented them.
To be fair that idea of nuking is one of the most slowed things I've read in this thread so far.
We're not talking about nuclear war. A lot of people have this concept that all nuclear weapons are made the same, and the use of one nuclear weapon of any sort will precipitate a full nuclear exchange at the strategic level. This is not the case. So long as the ICBM's on both sides remain in their silos, and the SLBM's remain in their submarines, a limited exchange against military targets by tactical arms isn't completely out of the question, particularly as the primary nuclear arsenals (US and Russia) would not be fighting what is essentially an existential conflict wherein one side could cease to exist as a sovereign nation state as an outcome of the conflict, rather it would be a fight to conquer/defend limited territories along the border. As I've stated before, the official Russian position on nuclear armaments is very different to our concept of it in the west.
f it is open warfare and the US is invading the Russian-held Baltics? I think nuclear weapons would be a serious consideration. And I don't think it would end all life on Earth. Firing a few tactical nukes at concentrations of enemy troops is quite a few steps below nuking enemy cities in mutual assured destruction and a display of tragic stupidity.
Iron_Captain has illustrated exactly what I mean... that opinion right there ^^ is pretty much spot on for what you could expect to hear from Russian military and political leadership.
They will make it their own war. There is no love lost between the Chinese and the Americans and their allies in the Far East, and winning said war would mean China gets rid of the hated US influence in the region while establishing itself firmly as the #1 regional and world superpower. China could gain a lot in such a war. Much more than it could ever gain from investments in the US. The Chinese have been pursueing a policy of confrontation for some years now, while strenghtening (military) ties with Russia. China and the Soviet Union were at odds. China and the Russian Federation like each other very, very much. There was a large joint Chinese-Russian military drill only a few weeks ago.
This however is still inaccurate. The Russians and Chinese are just as much at odds now as they were in the 70s. As a side note, there have been joint Chinese/American military exercises as well, the Chinese even participated in RIMPAC a few weeks ago.
The Chinese wouldn't start a war with the US because they dearly love owning our debt. A war would mean all that debt goes away.
Ugh, they really don't own that much of the debt, we're talking less than 10% of the total...
The US servicemen in Europe might not be able to stop Russia if they committed to a large scale invasion. But god help the Russians if they killed those servicemen. Everyone derides the US as weak and disunified, but everyone sane - hopefully including Putin - realizes we are one great tragedy away from flipping into straight up Vengeance Death mode. If the US ever fully pulled out the stops and got really mad - screw everything else, we need to end you mad - well, I wouldn't want to be on the other side. The whole sleeping giant quote, but even worse nowadays.
We're not what we once were and the world has changed. We dont have the money or the industrial base to mobilize 10 million troops anymore, nor would we have the time to train them in the event that we needed to. That being said, yes, we would strike back hard, but we wouldn't be a 'giant' by any means.
China has always played a long term game. It's culturally ingrained, as is the tendency to view China as 'The World', and everything outside it as uncultured barbarians at the gates. China wants local dominance, but quite frankly doesn't care beyond that. So they're content to bide their time and build up slowly in an inscrutable sort of way. They're certainly less worrying that the Russians, historically speaking.
This, China can achieve global superpower status by becoming the dominant regional power of the area. Theres a reason why they are pushing for a ridiculous EEZ and theres a reason why its arming itself to fight the US in its backyard rather than to try to bring the fight to the US. Chinese troops will never touch US soil, and its doubtful that US troops would ever touch Chinese soil either, simply put China doesn't have to come here to beat us, they just have to keep us out, which is far easier to do than most people realize.
If the Russians launch nukes as a matter of standard warfare, then we're all going to die. The whole initial concept is ridiculous for that very reason. There is no way on God's earth the Americans would allow the Russians to wipe out a quarter of a dozen fleets, and NOT incinerate most of Russia as an automatic response.
Which in turn means Russia will respond, and then we all die. MAD is a bit of a drag, but it's what would happen.
This statement shows a total lack of understanding of reality. Besides the fact that we would never see such a large grouping of naval assets to warrant a nuclear attack such as described (seriously, the ships would be too spread out for even a strategic warhead to adequately neutralize them), barring the appealing targets that are American supercarriers, they are - ultimately - a military target, one which would NOT justify a response by strategic missile forces. Sure you'd get some nutjobs in Congress who demand it, but the Joint Chiefs aren't stupid, and I doubt (more hope really) that we would elect a president dumb enough to do so.
Are you so shockingly naive to think that russian nuclear strikes against US troops would go unanswered? That Putin could nuke American soldiers and the US would... what? Say, "Oh, fiddlesticks. We got nuked. I guess we should stand in this corner and think about what we did wrong." Seriously? Because if anyone fires a nuke at US troops, the US fires a nuke (or more) right back. Which means the first guy will retaiate with more nukes, which means the US retaliates with even more and then somebody just presses that big, red, candy-like button and humanity gets the bad end (or the good end, if you're a big enough fan of the Fallout games, I guess). No two nations that posess nuclear arms have ever gone to war with each other because of the threat of mutually assured destruction. You are too young to remember the Cold War, but some of us here lived it. The first side to use nukes in a war doesn't win. They are just the second to get wiped out. There is a reason that the US never nuked the USSR. There is a reason that the last time India and Pakistan got into a shooting match was before they both had the bomb.
Also shows a lack of understanding. Tactical and strategic nuclear forces doesn't just refer to yields, it also refers to targets. Those missiles we have sitting in silos aren't built to hit the X Mechanized Guards Battalion operating along the Polish frontier, they are built to hit Moscow and Kapustin Yar. If the Russians hit US forces with a tactical nuke, we would likely respond in kind, it wouldn't escalate beyond that unless we gave Russia reason to fear that its continued existence as an independent state was in jeopardy, and the opposite is likewise true. MAD was a STRATEGIC concept used to keep the use of strategic forces (aka world-ending big melon-fething bombs) in check, it had nothing to do with the use of multi kiloton warheads, and for that reason both sides went crazy building tactical nuclear weaponry such as nuclear anti-aircraft missiles, nuclear depth charges, nuclear torpedos, nuclear RPG's, and nuclear artillery. That being said, I'd hate to be a resident of one of the areas in which this hypothetical conflict would be fought...
I don't think you understand the Chinese.
There is more important things than economy, far more important things. How many people worried about the economy during WW2? In fact, WW2 turned out to be actually very good for the economy. Don't forget that the loss of trade with China would hurt the rest of the world as much as it hurts China, as a staggering amount of stuff has 'made in China' on it.
Chinese power has grown immensely over the past decade, and they are increasingly dissatified with the US presence in the Far East, as well as having a large score to settle with surrounding US allies like Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. China wants to be recognised as a great superpower break out of the threathening American encirclement and replace the US as the world's leading nation. A war with the US would allow them to accomplish these goals, and while damaging the economy in the short term, in the long term winning a war is highly profitable. And if China can get the US to fight on two fronts, both in Europe and Asia (and maybe opening a third front in Alaska?), they stand a serious chance of succes.
Tensions in the Far East have been mounting for some years now, and China's behaviour has become increasingly hostile. It is not without reason that since a few years, minor incidents between China and its neighbours suddenly escalate to large diplomatical rows, while the major border disputes between Russia and China have suddenly been settled.
China grows more powerful every day, while the US is waning. There comes a time when the Chinese will take over the position the US has now. Whether that will involve war remains to be seen, but it seems likely.
While I dont think you understand the Chinese either, you are correct in your statement that economic arguments as to why war won't occur are flawed. Economic ties have never once been shown to prevent an outbreak of war between two nations. Prior to WW1 Europes economy was more internationally integrated than China's and the United States is today, we see how that worked out. Likewise there were various economic ties and interests stretching across border prior to WW2... still didn't prevent the outbreak of war, nor did it stop Hitler from invading his largest/primary oil suppliers and lenders.
Japanese/Chinese tensions have risen a great deal recently though, and that's because they're the only potential local opposition to Chinese regional domination. They have a sizeable population, a strong economy, well developed technology, and a decent sized defence force. Where Vietnam or Malaysia more or less have to shut up and put up with Chinese intrusions into their waters, you'll note you don't get hordes of Chinese surveyors and fishermen off Okinawa.
The Vietnamese and Malaysians are also stepping up their game, especially Vietnam.
Not really. The Chinese don't have a desire to be global police like America, or have a finger in every pie like the EU. Their foreign policy is completely insular and always historically has been for many cultural reasons. The Chinese perfect view of the world involves them having a free hand in Asia to do as they will with the other local countries subservient to them, and a large overseas market to export to. Beyond that, they have no desire to become involved in foreign affairs.
Basically this.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2014/09/13 05:43:40
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Iron_Captain wrote: You have a weird view of the region if you think that hundreds of people get killed there in peace time as well.
There are like 5000-7000 dead from "non-natural" cause per year in Donezk region alone.
Also has to note - a week ago i've asked for any trusted account of deliberate bombing of civilians by ukrane army, got plenty of gibberish, but still doesn't get what I asked.
Automatically Appended Next Post: About "russian tank march trought Europe" - friends, I recommend you to read accounts from Illovaisk encirclenment. It was small operation with perfect intelligence information, plenty of preparation time, virtually no opposition and elite partisipants. Still it was logistical and organizational nightmare with accounts of tank regiments losing pitched battles to militia infantry, frendly fire, units forgotten in the position with no water supply and other crasy things.
If Putin will try to mobilize all ~mil of his troops there is large chanse, that they will collapse by themselfs even before leaving russia.
And obviously he won't do it - read/watch any of his propaganda. His narrative is "US is forsing Europe into confrontaion with Russia". So his main geopolitical goal is to "defeat" US and close allies (England, scandinavians?) after which (and he is probably right) EU will be easily controlled by just political means.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/13 06:33:18
2014/09/13 06:38:50
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
yeah the whole russia invading western europe thing is, at least for now, wishful thinking as is the idea that NATO or the US will intervene in Russias games of empire.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2014/09/13 10:20:16
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
I may have been 12 at the time, and not particularly interested in politics or the War beyond thinking all the soldiers, tanks and fighter jets on the news were cool, but even I was aware at the time that the Iraq war was almost universally reviled.
The city of Rome doesn't even have a population of 3 million people and the greater metro area is only slightly above that, so I find that hard to believe.
How is that relevant? The protesters came from all over the country, some may even have come from other countries. You do know how a protest works right? Political protests don't just consist of the local population of the city in which the protest is taking place.
And that source is Wikipedia btw. I didn't just make it up, or pull it from some questionable Op-Ed in a 2nd rate tabloid.
Iron_Captain wrote: You have a weird view of the region if you think that hundreds of people get killed there in peace time as well.
There are like 5000-7000 dead from "non-natural" cause per year in Donezk region alone.
*citation needed. As you're so fond of saying yourself.
Also has to note - a week ago i've asked for any trusted account of deliberate bombing of civilians by ukrane army, got plenty of gibberish, but still doesn't get what I asked.
And accounts were provided. Its not our fault if you ignored them.
Its all there, all over the news, examples of the Ukraine Air Force ostensibly bombing rebels in densely populated civilian areas but killing many civilians in the process. When you bomb a target in a civilian area, knowing full well that there will be collateral damage but you do it anyway, that amounts to recklessness if not deliberate intent.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/09/13 10:37:26
2014/09/13 11:23:42
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
If France does not deliver those ships, it has to pay back the original price to Russia, plus the fine for breaching the contract, which is even more expensive than the cost of those ships. And they are left with 4 useless ships.
Glad I am not a French taxpayer...
Nonetheless, putting a arms contract on hold for the duration of a conflict is a reasonable decision. Just have to see how Russia will take it.
I'm sure they could find buyers elsewhere, the Mistral class are very modern and the capabilities they offer to a Navy/Marine Corps are something that is in high demand in certain parts of the world, particularly southeast asia.
But they are specifically tailored to Russian specifications. They would need to be heavily refitted to fit other nations.
What such event? The EU leaving NATO and creating a military of its own? How would that not make NATO outdated? An organisation should never outlive its purpose. What does the EU need NATO for? Isn't the EU much better of taking the reins in their own hands? Not only would Europe be rid of the jingoistic NATO, while still capable of properly defending its borders, it would also make Russia feel much less threatened and would take the wind out of the sails of the Russian nationalists.
The stronger the NATO response is, the more threatened Russia will feel, which will only fuel radical nationalism and agression on their part. It is much better to disband dangerous divisive organisations like NATO. What people in the West may not realise is that NATO indirectly has a very large part in causing the current conflict in Ukraine, as well as the earlier conflict in Georgia. Russia feels very threatened by the needless (and illegal, as they had promised never to do so) NATO expansion towards its borders, for seemingly no other purpose but to work against Russia. It is a major cause for why Russia has been acting so agressive in defending its interests lately.
The irony here is that a unified EU military would probably be more capable and pose a bigger danger to Russia than NATO currently does.
True. But the difference would be important to Russia nonetheless. The EU is not a purely military organisation, which despite the many disagreements, Russia usually has had good relations with and which has never shown any real agression or hostility towards Russia. The NATO on the other hand is a purely military organisation created specifically to fight Russia. Also, the EU does not involve the US.
The difference is mainly a political and psychological one. Russia would feel less threatened by a unified EU military than by a NATO military, even if the first one is a far more capable force
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2014/09/13 11:32:30
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
I agree. I say scrap NATO; its a two decade outdated jingoistic relic of the Cold War designed to combat the Soviet Union. it should have been scrapped when the USSR collapsed.
Let the EU be responsible for European security and defense. It should be better able to have a more positive, less antagonistic relationship with Russia than an outdated aggressively expansionist anti-Russian military alliance.
2014/09/13 12:07:02
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Are you seriously claiming that the accounts of civilian casualties of Ukrainian air strikes are lies?
No way I'm entering this idiotic game "give us evidence that we are liying" which Putins propaganda is playing for the whole conflict.
If you are fine with eating garbage, feed to you by them, it's not my business to judge you.
I just asked for any account of it by somebody, who haven't been caught blatant liying before. Let's say for plain curiosity.
2014/09/13 14:41:27
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Are you seriously claiming that the accounts of civilian casualties of Ukrainian air strikes are lies?
No way I'm entering this idiotic game "give us evidence that we are liying" which Putins propaganda is playing for the whole conflict.
If you are fine with eating garbage, feed to you by them, it's not my business to judge you.
I just asked for any account of it by somebody, who haven't been caught blatant liying before. Let's say for plain curiosity.
So what are you going to do next, deny the holocaust? Media on both sides of the conflict reports large amounts of civilian casualties, there are videos on Youtube showing streets covered in dead bodies. There is an official report of the UN about civilian casualties. How much evidence do you need? Do you seriously believe the UN and the Kyiv Post to be infiltrated by Putinists and reporting propaganda? Take of your tinfoil hat and open your fething eyes!
You see that? This information comes from the Ukrainian government and was quoted in the Kyiv Post. Still Putin's propaganda?
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2014/09/13 15:07:48
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Interestingly enough, this graphic includes Crimea, which makes the refugee numbers a bit larger (by more than a million, due to all the Tartars and Ukrainians fleeing the new regime in Crimea, which has boasted that soon they will be 99% Russian). The separatists have issued a proclamation that no man between the ages of 16 and 60 is permitted to leave. Despite this, according to a UN report back in August, 285,000 people have fled the fighting in the east. 114k of these have fled further into the Ukraine, while 168k have fled into Russia. (which fairly closely matches the Ukrainians/Russians demographics in the region). Interestingly, even if the fighting ceases, those fleeing into Russia are not permitted to leave again under Russian law for at least one year.
You see that? This information comes from the Ukrainian government and was quoted in the Kyiv Post.
My english is not soo good, maybe, help me please - where in this information Ukrainian government said, that those civilians was killed by their "aerial bombing campaign"? We are discussing it, if you forgotten.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/13 19:30:28
2014/09/13 20:41:21
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
You see that? This information comes from the Ukrainian government and was quoted in the Kyiv Post.
My english is not soo good, maybe, help me please - where in this information Ukrainian government said, that those civilians was killed by their "aerial bombing campaign"? We are discussing it, if you forgotten.
Don't worry, your English seems to fine, compared to most Russians. But well, of course not all of them have been killed by aerial bombing. But looking at the evidence available on the internet, we see that most civilian casualties seem to caused by air and artillery bombardments of Donetsk, Luhansk and surrounding cities. It is also quite logical that most casualties are caused by this, it is obvious that you will cause a lot of civilian casualties if you fire weapons like a missile or artillery shell on a place where a lot of people are grouped together.
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2014/09/13 23:27:02
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Iron_Captain wrote: . It is also quite logical that most casualties are caused by this, it is obvious that you will cause a lot of civilian casualties if you fire weapons like a missile or artillery shell on a place where a lot of people are grouped together.
The number one killer of civilians in a siege or FIBUA situation is disease and accidents. Hot on it's heels and related to those, is contaminated water and food. With poorly trained forces like the separatists have, you have a lot of stray fire, a lot of accidental discharges, and so on. Stray artillery can kill more in a single incident, but as time and fighting drags on it gets eclipsed by stray fire, and improvised mortars and rockets in particular, since those tend to be wildly inaccurate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/13 23:40:02
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2014/09/19 15:10:39
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
And the source is the Ukrainian President himself, who claims the threat was made in a "private conversation" so I'd take that with a bucket of salt. Lots of "Ifs" and "Buts" and "Alleged remarks" and "Claims". This is little more than hearsay.
What does the Polish Government, and the governments of the other countries named have to say?
Spoiler:
German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung reports that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko told European Commission that Putin made the threat in a recent conversation
By Justin Huggler, Berlin
6:48PM BST 18 Sep 2014
President Vladimir Putin privately threatened to invade Poland, Romania and the Baltic states, according to a record of a conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart.
"If I wanted, in two days I could have Russian troops not only in Kiev, but also in Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, Warsaw and Bucharest," Mr Putin allegedly told President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, reported Süddeustche Zeitung, a German newspaper.
If true,this would be the first time that Mr Putin has threatened to invade Nato or EU members. Any threat to send Russian troops into the capitals of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and Romania would cause grave alarm among Western leaders.
If Mr Putin were to act on this, Britain could find itself at war with Russia. All five countries mentioned in this alleged conversationare members of both the EU and Nato. They are covered by the security guarantee in Article V of Nato's founding treaty, which states that "an attack on one is an attack on all". In a speech in Tallinn earlier this month, President Barack Obama confirmed Nato's commitment to this doctrine.
Mr Putin's alleged threat bears similarities to remarks he made to Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, in which he warned: "If I want to, I can take Kiev in two weeks".
Süddeustche Zeitung claims to have seen a European Union memorandum of a meeting between Mr Barroso and Mr Poroshenko in Kiev last week, during which the latter is said to have described Mr Putin's threat.
The Russian president made these remarks in series of telephone conversations with Mr Poroshenko over the current ceasefire in eastern Ukraine.
Mr Putin also warned Mr Poroshenko not to put too much faith in the EU, saying that Russia could exert its influence and bring about a "blocking minority" among member states.
On Tuesday, Ukraine ratified a historic Association Agreement with the EU, placing the country on the path towards eventual EU membership. It was the refusal of the former president, Viktor Yanukovych, to sign this agreement last year that triggered the Ukraine crisis.
The EU recently announced further sanctions against Russia, focusing on the energy, financial and arms sectors. But there have been divisions among member states over sanctions, with many worried about the impact on their own economies.
The Baltic states are particularly nervous about Russian intentions, and Mr Obama sought to reassure them with his speech in Tallinn earlier this month.
"If you ever ask again 'Who will come to help?' you'll know the answer: the Nato alliance, including the armed forces of the United States of America," he said. "We'll be here for Estonia. We will be here for Latvia. We will be here for Lithuania."
Mr Poroshenko is the only alleged source for Mr Putin's latest threat, and there will be concerns he might be motivated to exaggerate in order to strengthen EU and Nato support for Ukraine.
The European Commission refused to confirm or deny whether Mr Barroso had held such a conversation with Mr Poroshenko. "We will not conduct diplomacy in the press or discuss extracts of confidential conversations," said Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen, the Commission spokesperson. "What matters to the EU and the Commission is to contribute to lasting peace, stability and prosperity in Ukraine."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/19 15:58:26
2014/09/19 22:08:35
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
If there is, indeed, a record of this private conversation, as the article suggests, then it's more than just hearsay. However, since it's authenticity will probably never be confirmed by Russia,
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2014/09/20 08:50:34
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Of course, this is just Rusophobia and NATO conspiracies designed to smear Russia's reputation.
Sarcasm aside, if Russia doesn't want NATO to expand, perhaps they shouldn't be bullying their neighbours? Finland's had similar violations recently as well.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2014/09/20 10:11:27
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
RAF fighters were scrambled from a base in Scotland this week to see off a Russian aircraft in International Airspace.
Of course, this is just Rusophobia and NATO conspiracies designed to smear Russia's reputation.
Straw man.
Sarcasm aside, if Russia doesn't want NATO to expand, perhaps they shouldn't be bullying their neighbours? Finland's had similar violations recently as well.
NATO has been expanding for the last two decades, ever since the USSR collapsed. You can't blame recent incidents of Russian aggression for NATO expansion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: If there is, indeed, a record of this private conversation, as the article suggests, then it's more than just hearsay. However, since it's authenticity will probably never be confirmed by Russia,
It is and will remain hearsay until someone can prove that this "record" exists. All we have atm is an anonymous source who claims to have seen a memorandum. And in any case, even if the memorandum does exist, the source of the memorandum was the President of Ukraine himself, a known biased entity with every motive to lie or distort events.
Its like an anonymous source claiming to have read a memorandum of Vladimir Putin complaining to another National Leader about a "private conversation" he had with Poroshenko in which the Ukraine President threatens to nuke Russia, or have Ukrainian Army soldiers and para-military militants hunt down and murder ethnic Russians in Donetsk.
We should wait until this is confirmed by an impartial third party source, rather than immediately jumping on this as "Aha! Russia threatens to invade Europe!" You naturally and rightly wouldn't take such flimsy and circumstantial evidence as gospel if it was Russia that was being threatened by Ukraine, so why are you doing it now?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/20 10:22:27
2014/09/20 12:07:10
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
We should wait until this is confirmed by an impartial third party source, rather than immediately jumping on this as "Aha! Russia threatens to invade Europe!" You naturally and rightly wouldn't take such flimsy and circumstantial evidence as gospel if it was Russia that was being threatened by Ukraine, so why are you doing it now?
Well, it could be because Russia has developed something of a track record for this, and Putin himself has stated on several occasions that he wishes to rebuild the old Soviet Union. By the time a third party source could confirm such a thing, if ever, Russia could be bombing Krakow. Or invading Finland. Or any number of other things that would be detrimental to the EU in general and hte nation being smacked around in particular.
Much the same reason that if Germany started calling for lebensraum and massed several divisions on the Polish or French boarders, we might not buy it they were there for 'training purposes'.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2014/09/20 12:32:31
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
We should wait until this is confirmed by an impartial third party source, rather than immediately jumping on this as "Aha! Russia threatens to invade Europe!" You naturally and rightly wouldn't take such flimsy and circumstantial evidence as gospel if it was Russia that was being threatened by Ukraine, so why are you doing it now?
Well, it could be because Russia has developed something of a track record for this, and Putin himself has stated on several occasions that he wishes to rebuild the old Soviet Union. By the time a third party source could confirm such a thing, if ever, Russia could be bombing Krakow. Or invading Finland. Or any number of other things that would be detrimental to the EU in general and hte nation being smacked around in particular.
Much the same reason that if Germany started calling for lebensraum and massed several divisions on the Polish or French boarders, we might not buy it they were there for 'training purposes'.
Putin has never said such a thing.
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2014/09/20 12:35:40
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
We should wait until this is confirmed by an impartial third party source, rather than immediately jumping on this as "Aha! Russia threatens to invade Europe!" You naturally and rightly wouldn't take such flimsy and circumstantial evidence as gospel if it was Russia that was being threatened by Ukraine, so why are you doing it now?
Well, it could be because Russia has developed something of a track record for this, and Putin himself has stated on several occasions that he wishes to rebuild the old Soviet Union. By the time a third party source could confirm such a thing, if ever, Russia could be bombing Krakow. Or invading Finland. Or any number of other things that would be detrimental to the EU in general and hte nation being smacked around in particular.
Much the same reason that if Germany started calling for lebensraum and massed several divisions on the Polish or French boarders, we might not buy it they were there for 'training purposes'.
*Citation needed.
2014/09/20 13:08:58
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Let me amend that: Putin is quick to deny that he's rebuilding the 'Soviet Union' but also quick to glorify it and propose plans to get back to that state. He brought back the red star, and hammer and sickle, as symbols of the 'Russian Federation'. He promised, in a 2012 speech that Moscow would become a 'new axis of influence' in the world
"It is my deep conviction that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a national tragedy on a massive scale. I think the ordinary citizens of the former Soviet Union and the citizens in the post-Soviet space, the CIS countries, have gained nothing from it. On the contrary, people have been faced with a host of problems."
"Our objectives on the international stage are very clear – to ensure the security of our borders and create favourable external conditions for the resolution of our domestic problems. " (Italics mine)
"We plan to go beyond that, and set ourselves an ambitious goal of reaching a higher level of integration – a Eurasian Union.
How do we understand the prospects for this project? What shape will it take?
First, none of this entails any kind of revival of the Soviet Union. It would be naïve to try to revive or emulate something that has been consigned to history. But these times call for close integration based on new values and a new political and economic foundation.
We suggest a powerful supranational association capable of becoming one of the poles in the modern world and serving as an efficient bridge between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific region."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/20 13:21:56
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2014/09/20 13:21:19
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
NATO has been expanding for the last two decades, ever since the USSR collapsed. You can't blame recent incidents of Russian aggression for NATO expansion.
Except there must be a reason that these countries want to join NATO. I wonder what that could be?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2014/09/20 13:21:24
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Let me amend that: Putin is quick to deny that he's rebuilding the 'Soviet Union' but also quick to glorify it and propose plans to get back to that state. He brought back the red star, and hammer and sickle, as symbols of the 'Russian Federation'. He promised, in a 2012 speech that Moscow would become a 'new axis of influence' in the world
"It is my deep conviction that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a national tragedy on a massive scale. I think the ordinary citizens of the former Soviet Union and the citizens in the post-Soviet space, the CIS countries, have gained nothing from it. On the contrary, people have been faced with a host of problems."
"Our objectives on the international stage are very clear – to ensure the security of our borders and create favourable external conditions for the resolution of our domestic problems. " (Italics mine)
He seems to forget that the USSR dissolved because the countries which made it up voted for independence.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=
