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

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I did. And I'm still laughing.

At what?

Dear Co'tor, please do not take this personally, but your comments were a bit... naive...

If you want to make the conflict stop, the worst thing you possibly could do is threatening Russia or escalating the conflict. That will only make things much worse. The only road to peace is diplomatic compromise.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I did. And I'm still laughing.

At what?

Dear Co'tor, please do not take this personally, but your comments were a bit... naive...

If you want to make the conflict stop, the worst thing you possibly could do is threatening Russia or escalating the conflict. That will only make things much worse. The only road to peace is diplomatic compromise.

That's why I had other thing in there as well, and that was my last suggestion. I really don't know the politics of this. That's why I said, "If it would work, then use it. If it wouldn't, then don't.".


Also, no offence taken.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
What makes you think Russia wants to incorporate Donetsk and Lugansk? Putin just wants to have his frozen conflict so he can have his buffer zones.

I agree, which is why Ukraine would have to countenance abandoning it. If such happened (along with Ukraine's claim on Crimea), Ukraine would have no territorial conflicts preventing it from joining NATO, and it would appear likely that popular pressures would force Putin's absorption of the Donbass, as I do not think they'd simply let it float about in its own, particularly when many within the region want to join Russia.

It would work... until 'little green men' suddenly show up in Kharkov and Odessa that is. Russia needs its buffer zone, Ukraine is that buffer zone (the name even translates to 'border lands'). Ukraine joining NATO is unacceptable for Russia, as that would mean they would share a direct border with NATO. As Russian history has shown, having a direct border with your greatest enemy is a very, very bad thing.

PhantomViper wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

n their zeal to denounce Russia for putting pressure on Ukraine over gas supplies, Western commentators usually neglected to mention that, through cheap gas and lenient payment terms, Russia was in fact subsidising the Ukrainian economy to the tune of several billion dollars each year - many times the total of Western aid during this period.

This allowed the same commentators not to address the obvious question of whether Western states would be willing to pay these billions in order to take Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence and into that of the West.



Finally, very few Western commentators indeed have mentioned what is perhaps the most significant aspect of the Ukrainian-Russian relationship, namely that Ukrainians are entirely free to move to Russia to work, and to work in the vast majority of jobs and professions.

As a result of Russia's much more successful economy, more than three million Ukrainians are now working in Russia, and sending remittances to their families in Ukraine - a vital contribution to the economies of several Ukrainian regions.

Do you think Europe can afford another Greece? Where are all these Ukrainians going to work in the EU. Whose jobs are they having.

What does any of that has to do with Russia invading Ukraine?

It's what started it all.


The student protests organised to force President Viktor Yanukovych and Prime Minister Mykola Azarov to sign an association agreement with the EU developed into a revolution that overthrew the government and sparked a counter-revolution in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.

The fact that a corrupt and poverty stricken Ukraine joining the EU is the last thing we need.

 loki old fart wrote:

It's what started it all.


The student protests organised to force President Viktor Yanukovych and Prime Minister Mykola Azarov to sign an association agreement with the EU developed into a revolution that overthrew the government and sparked a counter-revolution in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.

The fact that a corrupt and poverty stricken Ukraine joining the EU is the last thing we need.

And that was never a real hypothesis to begin with. What the Association Agreement had were provisions for reforms that Ukraine had to implement to even be considered for membership. As Turkey can attest, that is a long way out from actually becoming a member of the EU.

And all of that doesn't matter one bit on the face of Russia's illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, hopefully, Holland and Merkel don't cave and keep up the sanctions until Russia retreats from the Crimean Peninsula.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That will only make things much worse. The only road to peace is diplomatic compromise.

I seem to recall that sentiment has been stated about numerous expansionist powers in the past, particularly those who used small ethnic groups as a justification to annex territory. Said treaties sometimes lasted long enough for the ink to dry.

I don't expect Russia to suddenly over run Poland in the near future, but this current policy elicits a knee jerk reaction in those of us who still have negative associations with the name 'Joseph Stalin'. I know many Russians think he was great, but a lot of people still think Hitler had the right idea too.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That will only make things much worse. The only road to peace is diplomatic compromise.

I seem to recall that sentiment has been stated about numerous expansionist powers in the past, particularly those who used small ethnic groups as a justification to annex territory. Said treaties sometimes lasted long enough for the ink to dry.

I don't expect Russia to suddenly over run Poland in the near future, but this current policy elicits a knee jerk reaction in those of us who still have negative associations with the name 'Joseph Stalin'. I know many Russians think he was great, but a lot of people still think Hitler had the right idea too.

You are referring to appeasement again. Given their situation, appeasement was the right choice for the British at that time. World War 2 already was inevitable, no amount of "appeasement" or "though measures" could have changed that. If the Allies would have chosen for escalation instead of appeasement, it only would have gotten the War started sooner.
This conflict is very, very different from World War 2, so drawing comparisons to it has little value. It is not too late for diplomacy here, and the whole West/Ukraine/Russia conflict can be turned back and avoided if people are willing to take solid measures to resolve the points that cause tension.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You are referring to appeasement again.

What else would you exactly call it? The sheer amount of brand new Russian tech that even most Russian troops don't have yet and the number of Russian troops dying mysteriously has reached the point that one must ask who Putin thinks he's fooling when he claims that the Russian military has not invaded the Ukraine. I mean, honestly, the elected leaders and military commanders have all mysteriously been replaced by Putin's hand picked man, who had also previously overseen Russian actions in Crimea, Moldova, Lithuania, and Georgia.

A Russian bear with a paper bag over it's head is still a Russian bear.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31279621\

In other news, Obama seeks escalation, maybe.

Ruslan Kotsaba, a journalist in western Ukraine, has been detained for 60 days on charges of high treason, according to his family. In a video last month, Kotsaba called on Ukrainian citizens to avoid the military draft and to not kill their compatriots.

Kotsaba is from Ivano-Frankovsk, located in the western part of the country which is loyal to Kiev. He has been accused of treason and espionage, his wife wrote on her Facebook page. She also reported that police searched their house and seized the journalist's personal belongings.

The journalist himself has only admitted to attempting to wreck the draft.

"I find it easier to serve in prison two to five years, than going to the civil war, to kill or assist in killing my compatriots who live in the east,” he said in a video released on January 17. “Even if they think different and believe that the Kiev government is not worthy to be obeyed.”

The Ukrainian intelligence service has accused Kotsaba of not only draft disruption, but also for giving interviews to Russian media. The maximum punishment for treason is 15 years in prison.

The Ukrainian government is working to hush anti-mobilization protests. Authorities in Mariupol, eastern Ukraine, have promised to detain anyone who attends meetings calling against the draft.

Local members of parliament have also prepared a bill which would impose criminal responsibility on those who publicly oppose and call for disruption of the draft.

However, a considerable number of people have refused to show up at enlistment offices, and some have even left the country. Over 7,000 people were already facing criminal charges for evading military service by the end of January.

The Ukrainian government has imposed a temporary restriction on leaving the country for men bound to military service.

 loki old fart wrote:
Ruslan Kotsaba, a journalist in western Ukraine, has been detained for 60 days on charges of high treason, according to his family. In a video last month, Kotsaba called on Ukrainian citizens to avoid the military draft and to not kill their compatriots.

Please link to articles rather than quote the whole thing.

and, reading through what he did, producing videos espousing fleeing rather than serving during a war is, by definition, aiding and abetting the enemy, also known as treason (It's the same in the US and Russia, by the way, both not known for necessarily waiting for a guilty verdict before the execution). I'd say they're not wrong. It also shows the difference between the Ukraine and Russia, where he would have mysteriously died of polonium poisoning rather than be held under arrest and face trial.

The actual 'considerable' number is 40% btw. The numbers are actually pretty good for a Civil War. To compare them to the US Civil war: between July 1863 and April 1865, four national drafts resulting in a call of 776,829 men took place, but of these men only 46,347 were held to service.

So now you're in favour of forced conscription?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Please link to articles rather than quote the whole thing.

Fair enough
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31107456

Ukraine conflict: Bombings go beyond battle zone

A bomb attack in the southern port city of Odessa targeted a collection point for donations to Ukraine's military on 4 January

The National Guard has been deployed to Odessa.

Kharkiv, in north-east Ukraine but well away from the battle lines, has seen the lion's share of the attacks.
BBC good enough for you.

 loki old fart wrote:

Kharkiv, in north-east Ukraine but well away from the battle lines, has seen the lion's share of the attacks.

Does not surprise. Between genuine local partisans and Russian imports, there's bound to be some terrorism along the way.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So now you're in favour of forced conscription?

Being in favor of it is immaterial. It's a reality during either invasion or civil war. Or should I condemn all the allied powers of WW2 as nazi tyrants? Or damn the US for using the draft during it's civil war? Both sentenced people to death for interfering with conscription, sometimes without a trial.

England has, historically, rarely been shy about executing those who have aided the enemy, even if just in the way of producing propaganda. Which this most certainly would qualify as.

BTW, I don't know if it has been mentioned already, but this map is great for tracking the conflict: http://liveuamap.com/

 Iron_Captain wrote:
BTW, I don't know if it has been mentioned already, but this map is great for tracking the conflict: http://liveuamap.com/

Who's updating that map. ? Shelling in Rivne ? REALLY that far west?
Bombs in Odessa again, I see.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
BTW, I don't know if it has been mentioned already, but this map is great for tracking the conflict: http://liveuamap.com/

Who's updating that map. ? Shelling in Rivne ? REALLY that far west?
Bombs in Odessa again, I see.

Yeah, one round connected, light weight rocket from the looks of things, broke a window in the military recruitment center.

and if you think that's far west, Russian TV is bragging about how Russian tanks can be in Warsaw in 24 hours.

Cease fire and aid to Ukraine agreed to:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/12/385692785/ukraine-cease-fire-is-reached-along-with-40-billion-aid-deal

 Frazzled wrote:
Cease fire and aid to Ukraine agreed to:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/12/385692785/ukraine-cease-fire-is-reached-along-with-40-billion-aid-deal

So porky gets paid to stop fighting

I think they were already in a "cease-fire".

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I think they were already in a "cease-fire".

It broke and Ukraine got it's ass handed to them. And the same will happen with this ceasefire.

 Tyran wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I think they were already in a "cease-fire".

It broke and Ukraine got it's ass handed to them. And the same will happen with this ceasefire.

Its probably in their best interests not to break it then.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I think they were already in a "cease-fire".

It broke and Ukraine got it's ass handed to them. And the same will happen with this ceasefire.

Its probably in their best interests not to break it then.

And what happens when the insurgents break it?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I think they were already in a "cease-fire".

It broke and Ukraine got it's ass handed to them. And the same will happen with this ceasefire.

Its probably in their best interests not to break it then.

And what happens when the insurgents break it?

They "find" more Russian tanks.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I think they were already in a "cease-fire".

It broke and Ukraine got it's ass handed to them. And the same will happen with this ceasefire.

Its probably in their best interests not to break it then.

And what happens when the insurgents break it?

You'd have to ask Putin.

Putin's Russia. Looks like he wants to make it Soviet Union 1975 all over again.

Human rights violations and strong-arming the neighbors.

Is it just me or is the world in a very similar position, principally speaking, to where things were prior to WW1?

I just watched "The Guns of August" the other day and even though things are not exactly the same in terms of countries and treaties and pacts etcetra, there is the same feeling I have of being in a tinderbox just ready to go. I am looking at Ukraine and Crimea along with what is going on with ISIL (Daesh) as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia and It just looks like there are a lot of lines being drawn that will bring things crashing up all together and exploding at once.

Anyone else get this feeling as well, I mean us wargamers are a pretty well-real lot on these things, does anyone else here see the similarities or am I just a crazed nutter?

Oh there's similarities, but there's also the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over any potential war. The whole "we'll crush them by Christmas!" deal that was so prevalent during WWI is going to be a lot harder to find when several of the major actors can destroy all human life on Earth.

The question then becomes, "Who gets sick and tired enough to push the button". Or "how crazy does someone have to be to launch an attack that will not only kill their enemy, but also themself as well?"

Would pacts and treaties give nuclear coverage to allies or just those nations with the weapons already?

OTOH Pakistan and India both have access to nukes and they have been in a state of conventional war for years yet haven't put up the balloon yet.

How crazy is Putin, would he use an atomic option?
Counterpoint: The US is the only nation to have deployed atomic weapons against an enemy nation.

Interesting times, indeed.

Good to see the threat of Nuclear war is starting to raise its head again.

Remember to be a good citizen and not complain too much when the inevitable and "justifiable" freedom sanctions roll in.

All for our own protection of course.

The question is does this make any war pointless,
how far do you push the enemy, before he hits the button.
How far would you retreat before using nukes.
On allied territory, or on your own soil.??

No idea, and no one wants to push enough to find out.