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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Lord Spartacus wrote:
NATO expansion. Taking Ukraine for Russia would allow them easier traffic in the Black Sea.

Er what? They are already in the Black Sea.

But Ukraine is right next to a NATO country, which makes it easier to attack.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Lord Spartacus wrote:
NATO expansion. Taking Ukraine for Russia would allow them easier traffic in the Black Sea.

Er what? They are already in the Black Sea.

I don't think that's right...

Look at how close the border of Ukraine to Moscow.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ukrains'k,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@51.8214139,34.767832,6z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x40de23de9f200d21:0xb998486933c0ecac

It's like 300-ish miles away

I'm confused. you're arguing that because the Ukraine is near to NATO Putin is right to invade?

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm confused. you're arguing that because the Ukraine is near to NATO Putin is right to invade?

I'm saying that Russia be like:


IF the Ukraine were to be NATO'ized.

From the border to Moscow is like driving from St. Louis to Kansas City... a 4 hour drive away.

EDIT: put it another way... how close are you to the Mexican border?

What he's saying is that Russia sees any and all NATO expansion on their boarders as a threat to their national security (for obvious reasons).

They don't see NATO as a paper tiger like some on this board do, but rather as a serious threat to them.


So, once their puppet got deposed, they tried the same thing they always do in what they see as their break away provinces, they rolled in the army and set about conquering what they could, though for diplomatic reasons tried ot muddy the water until it was a fait accompli so that NATO did not directly intervene. This would have worked if Russia had stopped at Crimea, but they got greedy, probably at the prompting of GAZPROM and tried to grab for Eastern Ukraine too, spouting the old 'protecting a related ethnic minority from persecution' yarn and replacing the rebel leadership with their own pliable puppets. It's very similar to the ploy that Hitler used to great effect in Czechoslovakia when he annexed the Sudetenland.

why?

 Frazzled wrote:
why?

Eastern Ukraine has a large amount of petrochemical resources under it, and a population that's largely of Russian decent. Or do you mean why do they see NATO as a threat?

If that's your question, it's 'Because Putin spent most of his life seeing NATO as a threat as a member of Soviet Intelligence.'

Russia being scared of NATO can mean only one of two things,

1) They are insanely insecure to be scared of the paper tiger.

2) Its just a convenient excuse to push back aggressively and expand.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Russia being scared of NATO can mean only one of two things,

1) They are insanely insecure to be scared of the paper tiger.

2) Its just a convenient excuse to push back aggressively and expand.

The Russians know their boarders are indefensible. The entire point of the Soviet Union (and by extension the Warsaw pact) was to provide Russia buffer states loyal to them to be their meat shields. Putin wants those meat shields back because yes, they are this insecure. Russia was rocked by instability after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is the pendulum swinging the other way as people try and find security in the old way of doing things.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Russia being scared of NATO can mean only one of two things,

1) They are insanely insecure to be scared of the paper tiger.

2) Its just a convenient excuse to push back aggressively and expand.

The Russians know their boarders are indefensible. The entire point of the Soviet Union (and by extension the Warsaw pact) was to provide Russia buffer states loyal to them to be their meat shields. Putin wants those meat shields back because yes, they are this insecure. Russia was rocked by instability after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is the pendulum swinging the other way as people try and find security in the old way of doing things.

Russia has the greatest border defense in the history of mankind: Winter.

Yup. Russia has been invaded twice, neither attempt was successful.

England, another country with a famed natural barrier has been invaded once. And it was successful.

So the Battle of Britain doesn't count because they prevented the land invasion? Also, Germany defeated Russia in WWI.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yup. Russia has been invaded twice, neither attempt was successful.

England, another country with a famed natural barrier has been invaded once. And it was successful.

The Mongols invaded Russia but hard.

England has been invaded a number of times, quite often successfully.

Natural barriers are useless if you don't actively defend them.

The Russian Winter might once have been a formidable barrier, back in the 40's, but today in the 21st century? Have modern military tactics and technology not advanced to the point where winter becomes irrelevant?

Which brings us back to the point about Russia's quite justified paranoia. The only effective defense for Russia's western border is defense in depth. That means meat shields buffer states. With NATO and the EU encroaching right up to Russia's own borders, Russia is bricking itself with the prospect of future invasion several decades in the future.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Which brings us back to the point about Russia's quite justified paranoia. The only effective defense for Russia's western border is defense in depth. That means meat shields buffer states. With NATO and the EU encroaching right up to Russia's own borders, Russia is bricking itself with the prospect of future invasion several decades in the future.

No country in either NATO (well, except the US) or the EU as ever invaded a foreign country. Why do you think that their paranoia is even remotely justified?

PhantomViper wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Which brings us back to the point about Russia's quite justified paranoia. The only effective defense for Russia's western border is defense in depth. That means meat shields buffer states. With NATO and the EU encroaching right up to Russia's own borders, Russia is bricking itself with the prospect of future invasion several decades in the future.

No country in either NATO (well, except the US) or the EU as ever invaded a foreign country. Why do you think that their paranoia is even remotely justified?

Pretty sure the UK went into Iraq alongside the US.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Which brings us back to the point about Russia's quite justified paranoia. The only effective defense for Russia's western border is defense in depth. That means meat shields buffer states. With NATO and the EU encroaching right up to Russia's own borders, Russia is bricking itself with the prospect of future invasion several decades in the future.

No country in either NATO (well, except the US) or the EU as ever invaded a foreign country. Why do you think that their paranoia is even remotely justified?

Iraq. Afghanistan. Kosovo/Serbia. Libya. Syria. Iraq again, and Ukraine. These are all countries that we have invaded, bombed or otherwise interfered in the capacity of our self appointed roles of World Policemen.

Meanwhile, the anti Russia military alliance NATO, which should have been disbanded when it's raison d'etre the Soviet Union crumbled, has been expanded to absorb many of the former Warsaw Pact states and is encroaching on the borders of Russia itself. As mentioned earlier, Instead of fostering democracy in the new Russian state, we turned a blind eye to if not outright colluded with the corrupt oligarchs and despots who took power.

Russia's paranoia regarding invasion goes back centuries all the way to Napoleon. Its been invaded countless times throughout i'ts history, Napoleon, the Crimean War, WW1, WW2...Russia's paranoia over invasion from the West is equivalent to France's historical paranoia over invasion from Germany. And Russia's renewed belligerence is largely a consequence of our own ineptitude. We treated them like we treated inter war Germany 1918-1933, with humiliation and contempt, and like Germany we are reaping the consequences now that a charismatic authoritarian leader has taken power with promises of restoring national pride and greatness.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yup. Russia has been invaded twice, neither attempt was successful.

England, another country with a famed natural barrier has been invaded once. And it was successful.

Actually there were numerous invasions of England, unless Saxons and Vikings don't count. As several others have pointed out, russia has endured numerous, successful, invasions. Only Hitler and Napoleon failed, and both due to their own arrogance rather than any tactical acumen on the part of the Russians. (Russia was nearly bled white by both, as happened in WW1)

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Iraq. Afghanistan. Kosovo/Serbia. Libya. Syria. Iraq again, and Ukraine. These are all countries that we have invaded, bombed or otherwise interfered in the capacity of our self appointed roles of World Policemen.

Iraq wasn't invaded in the first gulf war, Kosovo/Serbia, Libya and Syria certainly weren't invaded, much less Ukraine!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Meanwhile, the anti Russia military alliance NATO, which should have been disbanded when it's raison d'etre the Soviet Union crumbled, has been expanded to absorb many of the former Warsaw Pact states and is encroaching on the borders of Russia itself. As mentioned earlier, Instead of fostering democracy in the new Russian state, we turned a blind eye to if not outright colluded with the corrupt oligarchs and despots who took power.

If we had helped "fostering democracy in the new Russian state" then you would be here screaming that it was western interventionism... Russia is an independent nation and we shouldn't interfere with its politics but the west should just have barged in and interfered in its internal affairs?! Which one is it?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

. And Russia's renewed belligerence is largely a consequence of our own ineptitude. We treated them like we treated inter war Germany 1918-1933, with humiliation and contempt, and like Germany we are reaping the consequences now that a charismatic authoritarian leader has taken power with promises of restoring national pride and greatness.

We did? I don't recall any crippling financial burdens caused by war compensations the Russia had to pay since the fall of the Soviet Union...

You have a very strange notion of facts and reality...

PhantomViper wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Which brings us back to the point about Russia's quite justified paranoia. The only effective defense for Russia's western border is defense in depth. That means meat shields buffer states. With NATO and the EU encroaching right up to Russia's own borders, Russia is bricking itself with the prospect of future invasion several decades in the future.

Why do you think that their paranoia is even remotely justified?

It can’t be justified. The problem with NATO according to Putin isn’t so much about the perceived threat of an NATO invasion; rather it has more to do with Putin wanting to secure Russia’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

Land grapping wouldn’t have been a viable option for Putin if Ukraine and Georgia were a part of NATO, and that’s why the Russian government objects to any further eastward NATO expansion, because it’s inconvenient for them.

 Redcruisair wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Which brings us back to the point about Russia's quite justified paranoia. The only effective defense for Russia's western border is defense in depth. That means meat shields buffer states. With NATO and the EU encroaching right up to Russia's own borders, Russia is bricking itself with the prospect of future invasion several decades in the future.

Why do you think that their paranoia is even remotely justified?

It can’t be justified. The problem with NATO according to Putin isn’t so much about the perceived threat of an NATO invasion; rather it has more to do with Putin wanting to secure Russia’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

Land grapping wouldn’t have been a viable option for Putin if Ukraine and Georgia were a part of NATO, and that’s why the Russian government objects to any further eastward NATO expansion, because it’s inconvenient for them.

What I don't get is why Russia's started violating the airspace (and possibly the territorial waters) of neighboring non-NATO nations. Do they really think that will make those nations LESS likely to join NATO?

Iraq wasn't invaded in the first gulf war, Kosovo/Serbia, Libya and Syria certainly weren't invaded, much less Ukraine!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Have modern military tactics and technology not advanced to the point where winter becomes irrelevant?

In short, No.

Both Russia and Britain have been invaded innumerable times. Overall, Russia has been saved by its size, Britain by it's geographic position (being in the middle of water).

EDIT: Russian Winter is a myth. Napoleon's campaign staled out before Winter started. It was the retreat that brutalized his army in the cold, not the advance. Same with Germany. Germany invaded Russia in the summer, and their advance halted by the time winter really set in. I.E. Russia is not saved by winter, Russia is saved by being too big.

I find it odd people constantly trout NATO as a paper tiger, while utterly missing that Russia's military, is probably even worse off. Barring a few elite and well maintained units, Russia's military is decrepit and rotting from the inside out. They can put on a show of force in a place like Ukraine or Georgia, but however Paper Tiger NATO may be, it's more that Tiger enough to pose a serious threat to Russia. And NATO is big enough at this point that it has the same advantages as Russia, namely that it's too big to be suitably conquered before the Russian Army falters and collapses.

^This is why NATO is reluctant to get involved, because they know a conflict right now would become a stalemate. Likewise, Russia is acting now because they know that NATO knows any conflict would become a stalemate. Russia played the gamble that with both sides knowing the outcome of a fight, the other side would sit back and let him have what he wanted.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Iraq. Afghanistan. Kosovo/Serbia. Libya. Syria. Iraq again, and Ukraine. These are all countries that we have invaded, bombed or otherwise interfered in the capacity of our self appointed roles of World Policemen.

Iraq wasn't invaded in the first gulf war, Kosovo/Serbia, Libya and Syria certainly weren't invaded, much less Ukraine!

Strange my brother could see Bagdad through his cab window, Before they were told to turn back.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Russia being scared of NATO can mean only one of two things,

1) They are insanely insecure to be scared of the paper tiger.

2) Its just a convenient excuse to push back aggressively and expand.

Option #3: Both and its a way to keep the population in line despite a craptacular economy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yup. Russia has been invaded twice, neither attempt was successful.

England, another country with a famed natural barrier has been invaded once. And it was successful.

I would say:
*Angry Germans 1, Romans and Celts 0 Don't make me go all seaxe on your ass!
*Angry Swedes speaking Swedish-Blonds rule, burnettes drool (blood)
*Angry Swedes speaking French-Curse you Normandy - we'll get back at you in 878 years!
*French speaking French (Middle Ages). Seriously? You're French...
*Scots-Brit victory Bad Teeth 1 scary hairy legs 0
*Spanish-Kamikaze and British fire boats for Da Win
*Dutch-up the Thames shouting UP YOURS Steenking English Dutch win.
*BUffalo Bill and his Wild West Show. Sitting Bull 1 Queen Victoria 0

Russians
*Swedes (again with the Swedes! Seriously? )
*Mongols - aka the great face plant.
*Fins-another historical what? moment
*Poles (I think)
*Liberty! Egalitie! Fraternitie! Oh crap Winter run away! Bonaparte
*Crimean War-French, Brits vs. Russians vs. Turks WTF????
*Japanese. I This time with Battleships-Japan wins
*Operation Archangel - aka lets all get real cold. No one wins
*Japanese II. This Time we have Zhukov and massed artillery-USSR wins
*German race for the Volga horribly goes wrong
*Jeans invasion of the 60s. Levi wins.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Meanwhile, the anti Russia military alliance NATO, which should have been disbanded when it's raison d'etre the Soviet Union crumbled, has been expanded to absorb many of the former Warsaw Pact states and is encroaching on the borders of Russia itself. As mentioned earlier, Instead of fostering democracy in the new Russian state, we turned a blind eye to if not outright colluded with the corrupt oligarchs and despots who took power.

Agreed, but Frazzled Universal theory of Immortal Bureaucracy holds here very well.

Oh yeah, forgot about that curb-stomping that was the Russo-Japanese war. Though everyone does.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Oh yeah, forgot about that curb-stomping that was the Russo-Japanese war. Though everyone does.

Which is sad, because if the USN remembered it , they'd have never built the Zumwalt class. God, I hate that thing.

Lol just got a message from a customer in russia

Two things are fethed in russia, the president and the post office

As much as I think of Putin as an appalling despot, I think making the Ukraine part of NATO is an incredible bad idea.

We're currently remembering the centenary of the Great War; a war that escalated far beyond the original issues due to mutual protection pacts. Yet for some reason people are citing the opportunity for collective defence agreements (such as NATO) as somehow making a war within Europe less likely.

It's important to set one thing straight; no-one wants a war with Russia, and the discussion of 'invading' such a country (or them invading us) is absolutely bat-gak insane. But, sabre rattling and 'standing shoulder to shoulder' as our esteemed politicians like to quote, just increases the potential for a mistake to be made (it doesn't have to be intentional), and for it to make it far more difficult for either side to back down once the first bodies are being zipped up into bags. I honestly hope things continue as they are, and the UK at least restricts its condemnation to stopping Russian diplomats from buying Jaguars on their credit cards and having them shipped back to Moscow - it needs to be kept at 'handbags at dawn' level, as far as I'm concerned, as I honestly don't think Russia has any 'empire building' in mind beyond re-patriation of Russians living the wrong side of borders, and casting a shadow over the countries that used to lie under the Iron Curtain.