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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or that Putin is egging Turkey into a Syrian fight.

WW3 might be his goal if he can disband Nato.

Both NATO and Russia would prefer if Turkey didn't do anything stupid in Syria.

Like shoot down Russian jets?

There are far worse things than shooting down a jet, like actually invading Syria.

 Tyran wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or that Putin is egging Turkey into a Syrian fight.

WW3 might be his goal if he can disband Nato.

Both NATO and Russia would prefer if Turkey didn't do anything stupid in Syria.

Like shoot down Russian jets?

There are far worse things than shooting down a jet, like actually invading Syria.

Indeed. Turkey could frame it as to protect the ethnic Turks in Aleppo, pretty much the Russian's argument for their Crimea shenanigans.

Then, Russia would be forced to attack the Turkish invasion force (they're defending Assad) to keep their sphere of influence.

Then, Turkey will invoke article 8 to try to bring in the rest of the NATO nations.

Aaand... anyone what to bet that the US or other NATO nations would come to Turkey's defense?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

You said 'you' and I corrected you. That's not being narrow minded. Because I come from a country that experienced pretty much that, I can say that Russia's actions disturb me. Right now, Joe Stalin is being called a hero in the streets of Russia and hte russian government seems ot have reached the point they're believing their own propaganda. I find that as disturbing as I would the German government hailing the accomplishments of Adolf Hitler, and building statues to him in front of the Reichstag.

And how is "you" living in the USA is soooo different from USA that you don't associate yourself with the country you live in even a bit? Do you have your own representation in UN? No? Why is that? Because no one likes you? Why Russia's action disturb you? Do you have a degree in political science or world history? Do you work for the US government in the Intel community and you know a lot more than an average citizen of your country who is being brainwashed every day since his/hers birth by you mass media propaganda? I'll tell you a little secret, "Joe Stalin" was a hero for Russian people all this time without dropping in popularity whatsoever. If anything still living Gorbachev and dead Yeltsin are hated so much more by the Russians that there is no even a comparison between them. Russian government is anti-Russian. It does everything to be friends with the Western "partners" (that's how Putin officially calls other leaders from the West, when Russia itself is put on the same list with Ebola and ISIS by Obama) and only sheer stupidity, ignorance and just plain bigotry by the West pushes him to incite "patriotism" of his kind. I bet you didn't know that any Russian political group that can be even closely associated with any type "supremacist" idea gets a hammer by Putin in no time, even something benign like organizing a political party to protest giving away the Russian citizenship to a herd of immigrants from the former Soviet -stans is seen by Putin and his party as "extremist". Also, comparing Hitler to Stalin and putting an equals sign between them shows how little you know about the subject you posting your opinion about.

HUH?

I hate to point this out, but all Catherine did was refuse to join Great Britain in the war and insist on a diplomatic solution, and ignore British trade policy with the Colonies (which they had been doing before the revolution anyway). Russia remained neutral throughout the American Revolution. Now, if we were talking France, I'd cede the point, but Russia? No.

I was talking about your war of 1812 and I meant Tsar Alexander I

I'm sure Stalin was all fine and dandy.

Meanwhile, back in reality: What did I just read?

EDIT: And, as someone who's finishing up his degree in political science: who is Russian, and who is the arbiter of Russian-ness?

 whembly wrote:

Aaand... anyone what to bet that the US or other NATO nations would come to Turkey's defense?

The same countries which ignored their defense pacts with Ukraine you mean?

text removed.

Reds8n

 Wyrmalla wrote:


The same countries which ignored their defense pacts with Ukraine you mean?

There was a "Defense pact with Ukraine"? O_o Who the hell promised to protect that artificial conglomerate of illegally and temporary occupied Russian territories?

That reminds me, there was a defense pact once in Europe but then Czechoslovakia got divided in 1938 between Germany, Hungary and Poland. Only USSR was opposed to that when UK and France basically blackmailed Czechoslovakian government into surrender and giving up their territory. Czechoslovakia was able to get some of this territories only after WW2 when USSR crashed Germany and it's "United Europe".

 Yaraton wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:


The same countries which ignored their defense pacts with Ukraine you mean?

There was a "Defense pact with Ukraine"? O_o Who the hell promised to protect that artificial conglomerate of illegally and temporary occupied Russian territories?

Dude, please, just stop.

Ukraine gained its independence from the USSR. You're speaking about it like it, and all the other former Soviet states should still be owned by Russia. If they're that illegitimate then sure, that'd explain the dozen wars and insurgencies the Russians have been fighting with its formed client states since the fall of the Soviet Union, at least from a Russian perspective.

Hey Canada, Britain used to own you. See all those areas where British descendants live, yeah we're taking the back over night.

I think we found the oppressed Russian minority in Canada, better watch out for the Russian special forces.

Though does anyone find it ironic that a Canadian is railing on the US about its treatment of its indians?

There's a difference between intercepting radio signals and violating the sovereign territory of another state. I'm sure we do awful things too (and this isn't sarcasm), but Whataboutism isn't a valid excuse.

Further, Sweden hasn't ever said that we want to join NATO; we'd have joined by now if that were the case. Even if we did, there's no "right" to threaten other nations with nuclear weapons unless we're using fascism to decide what is right.

NATO in Eastern Europe is only aggressive if one assumes that Russia has a right to dictate to other nations in the region what to do and what not to do. In the Middle-east there'd be an argument for NATO aggression, but Russia's the one invading countries in Europe, not NATO.

There's certainly an argument to be made that the collapse of the USSR was handled poorly (to say the least) by "the West". There's legitimate grievances. That all goes down the drain when one starts waving nukes around and trying to bully people into obedience. Threatening people with nukes because some people on one side of a discussion have the "wrong" opinions is positively dictatorial, though.

 Yaraton wrote:

And how is "you" living in the USA is soooo different from USA that you don't associate yourself with the country you live in even a bit?

*points to his 'location'* Because this ISP routes my traffic through the US, I get a little US flag on this board.

 Yaraton wrote:

Do you have your own representation in UN? No? Why is that? Because no one likes you?

Actually we do, but we are not, as of yet, a member state.

 Yaraton wrote:

I'll tell you a little secret, "Joe Stalin" was a hero for Russian people all this time without dropping in popularity whatsoever.

Funny, between his death and now most of his statues were torn down, and something called 'десталинизация'? Someone named Nikita Khrushchev gave a long speech about it, I seem to recall.

 Yaraton wrote:

I bet you didn't know that any Russian political group that can be even closely associated with any type "supremacist" idea gets a hammer by Putin in no time, even something benign like organizing a political party to protest giving away the Russian citizenship to a herd of immigrants from the former Soviet -stans is seen by Putin and his party as "extremist".

Last I checked, National Bolshevik Front and the Eurasia Party are both still open for business, LPDR is still calling for a Russian version of the Reconquesta and, IIRC still holds seats in the Duma. While Slavic Union did get the hammer, that seems to have only encouraged them.

 Yaraton wrote:

Also, comparing Hitler to Stalin and putting an equals sign between them shows how little you know about the subject you posting your opinion about.

If you want to see Iron Captain do some fancy reasoning, go to an earlier point in this thread where we discuss that. If you don't, in a nutshell, it supposedly not genocide if it's against an occupation rather than an ethnic group or religion. Personally, The only real difference I see was the Nazis sent you to a camp where you either got gassed or starved to death, and took your house and stuff. (in a hurry they shot you in a ditch) Stalin took your food and stuff, and then worked you to death at home until you starved, with the shooting in ditches and death camps reserved for people who mattered, sort of.

 Yaraton wrote:

I was talking about your war of 1812 and I meant Tsar Alexander I

Our war of 1812 we would have been very happy to see Russia not help at all. We were on the other side, fighting against the US.

I'm not really clear what you're talking about here, since as Alexander spent most of that time period dealing with Napoleon on his doorstep, he was not in much position to aid anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yaraton wrote:
That reminds me, there was a defense pact once in Europe but then Czechoslovakia got divided in 1938 between Germany, Hungary and Poland. .

We'll quietly forget about that 'Ribbentrop Pact' in Europe to divide Poland between Germany and Russia, where Russia invaded other countries in support of the Nazis

 Ustrello wrote:
I think we found the oppressed Russian minority in Canada, better watch out for the Russian special forces.

So there is a Russian minority in Canada? And they are oppressed?

Translation:
You!
Do you speak Russian?
Then I come to save you


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Yaraton wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:


The same countries which ignored their defense pacts with Ukraine you mean?

There was a "Defense pact with Ukraine"? O_o Who the hell promised to protect that artificial conglomerate of illegally and temporary occupied Russian territories?

Dude, please, just stop.

Ukraine gained its independence from the USSR. You're speaking about it like it, and all the other former Soviet states should still be owned by Russia. If they're that illegitimate then sure, that'd explain the dozen wars and insurgencies the Russians have been fighting with its formed client states since the fall of the Soviet Union, at least from a Russian perspective.

Hey Canada, Britain used to own you. See all those areas where British descendants live, yeah we're taking the back over night.

It is true that many, if not most Russians see Ukraine and other parts of the Soviet Union/Russian Empire not as actual, legitimate countries. Those places have been part of Russia for centuries, and in the case of Ukraine, for pretty much forever. It is only a matter of time before Russia takes its lost territories back.
It is not really comparable to Canada and Great Britain. The situation between Canada and Britain is more comparable to the situation between Russia and Finland than to the situation between Russia and the other former Soviet Republics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Or maybe if Russia didn't feel the need to flex it's muscles there wouldn't be talk of bolstering NATO etc etc. Especially considering NATO countries by and large were scaling back military spending.

You can bet that Russia had not planned on starting to act this soon. The public uprising in Crimea after the overthrowing of Yanukovych forced Putin's hand. The Crimeans were actually inviting Putin to come along and take over, it was an opportunity he could not refuse.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Last I checked, National Bolshevik Front and the Eurasia Party are both still open for business, LPDR is still calling for a Russian version of the Reconquesta and, IIRC still holds seats in the Duma. While Slavic Union did get the hammer, that seems to have only encouraged them.

If you want to see Iron Captain do some fancy reasoning, go to an earlier point in this thread where we discuss that. If you don't, in a nutshell, it supposedly not genocide if it's against an occupation rather than an ethnic group or religion. Personally, The only real difference I see was the Nazis sent you to a camp where you either got gassed or starved to death, and took your house and stuff. (in a hurry they shot you in a ditch) Stalin took your food and stuff, and then worked you to death at home until you starved, with the shooting in ditches and death camps reserved for people who mattered, sort of.

Russia's domestic politic is kinda scary when you realize that Putin is as moderate as they can get, and there are factions that call him a puppet of the West.

The very big difference is that Hitler led the country to losing the war, being dismantled and then suffering the shame of the Holocaust. Stalin, while still a monster, pretty much won the largest war in history and turned the USSR in a superpower.

And even then the views about Stalin in Russia are complicated, he is mostly used and twisted by different groups for their different agendas, even if their agendas would make Stalin's corpse rise from the grave to send the bunch of them to a gulag.

IIRC the ones that see Stalin as a hero are the Georgians.

 Tyran wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Last I checked, National Bolshevik Front and the Eurasia Party are both still open for business, LPDR is still calling for a Russian version of the Reconquesta and, IIRC still holds seats in the Duma. While Slavic Union did get the hammer, that seems to have only encouraged them.

If you want to see Iron Captain do some fancy reasoning, go to an earlier point in this thread where we discuss that. If you don't, in a nutshell, it supposedly not genocide if it's against an occupation rather than an ethnic group or religion. Personally, The only real difference I see was the Nazis sent you to a camp where you either got gassed or starved to death, and took your house and stuff. (in a hurry they shot you in a ditch) Stalin took your food and stuff, and then worked you to death at home until you starved, with the shooting in ditches and death camps reserved for people who mattered, sort of.

Russia's domestic politic is kinda scary when you realize that Putin is as moderate as they can get, and there are factions that call him a puppet of the West.

Yeah, after Putin, the next two most popular political leaders in Russia are Gennady Andreyevich "let's bring back the USSR" Zyuganov and Vladimir Volfovich "let's drop nukes in the Atlantic to flood Britain" Zhirinovsky. Have your pick...
Other candidates for the 2018 elections so far include: Mavrodi, a criminal known for being behind one of the world's largest pyramid schemes; Okhlobystin, a crazy Orthodox priest; Kasyanov, aka "Misha 2%", a sidelined politician widely known for being corrupt as feth and last but not least Demushkin, leader of the Slavic Union, a banned neo-nazi organisation.
And some people still think fraud is the reason Putin keeps getting elected every time... If you thought that the US had crazy politicians, Russia is worse.

 Tyran wrote:

And even then the views about Stalin in Russia are complicated, he is mostly used and twisted by different groups for their different agendas, even if their agendas would make Stalin's corpse rise from the grave to send the bunch of them to a gulag.

IIRC the ones that see Stalin as a hero are the Georgians.

Stalin is a very complicated and sensitive issue in Russia, yes. Suffice to say that he is still hugely popular by many people.

Despite already having an embargo on Russian goods, it looks like all land routes into Europe via Russia are now being sealed up.

Article doesn't say so explicitly, but that's the routes shut via Poland (after the Russians threatened to invade them/ victim blamed them for WWII), Turkey (after the Russians allied with their enemy/ shot at them) and Ukraine (...after the Russians invaded them for overthrowing their puppet government).

Russia Blocking Ukraine Trucks in Response to Protests


Russia's Transport Ministry has ordered that Ukraine-registered trucks be stopped from entering in Russia, in response to growing efforts by protesters in Ukraine to block Russian trucks.

The ministry's order on Sunday comes as Ukrainian news media reported trucks being blocked by activists in at least 10 areas, along the borders with Belarus and Western countries.

The Ukrainian Cabinet has ordered the interior, foreign and trade ministries to develop a plan by Monday to resolve the blockages.

As tensions persist in eastern Ukraine between government forces and Russia-backed rebels, Ukraine and Russia have imposed tit-for-tat bans on food product imports on each other and cut air connections.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Despite already having an embargo on Russian goods, it looks like all land routes into Europe via Russia are now being sealed up.

Belarus is laughing all the way to the bank.

 Iron_Captain wrote:


Russia's domestic politic is kinda scary when you realize that Putin is as moderate as they can get, and there are factions that call him a puppet of the West.

I like to say that the one thing you can count on Putin being is pro-staying in power.

Agiel wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:


Russia's domestic politic is kinda scary when you realize that Putin is as moderate as they can get, and there are factions that call him a puppet of the West.

I like to say that the one thing you can count on Putin being is pro-staying in power.

You got your quote messed up (Tyran said that, not me), but thanks anyways for your great, in-depth insight into Putin. It shows clearly that you are very knowledgeable about Russian politics.

Agiel wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:


Russia's domestic politic is kinda scary when you realize that Putin is as moderate as they can get, and there are factions that call him a puppet of the West.

I like to say that the one thing you can count on Putin being is pro-staying in power.

You could say the same about the majority of Western politicians too, so thats a pretty vacuous statement.

 Ustrello wrote:

Though does anyone find it ironic that a Canadian is railing on the US about its treatment of its indians?

Whaaatt? Noooooo

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Agiel wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:


Russia's domestic politic is kinda scary when you realize that Putin is as moderate as they can get, and there are factions that call him a puppet of the West.

I like to say that the one thing you can count on Putin being is pro-staying in power.

You could say the same about the majority of Western politicians too, so thats a pretty vacuous statement.

It kind of illustrates the point. Some could say there's a romantic way of looking at the actions of Putin, re-asserting Russian prominence in what it considers its sphere, then there's the simple way of looking at it: he's just a politician operating under the influence of political inertia, lurching from one crisis to the next at the cost of diplomatic relations going down the tube. So far it's working _okay_ insomuch that general war hasn't really broken out from it, but you'd have a difficult time convincing me that as a result of Putin's actions Russia's strategic position has improved from 2013. Russia used to have the whole of Ukraine in its pocket, now it has an enclave and a rump state that _was_ an open air industrial museum. Putin has the Russian army flexing its muscles on a near bi-weekly basis? Well, crap, now the US moved heavy armour to the Baltics and put a huge injection of money into its European defence budget. Putin doubles down on commodities? Well, China now has Russia over the rakes on that energy deal, oil is on a downslope, and everything else that's not guns has fallen by the wayside.

As Sir Humphrey Appleby once said: "Diplomacy is about surviving into the next century; politics is about surviving into next week!"

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Aaand... anyone what to bet that the US or other NATO nations would come to Turkey's defense?

The same countries which ignored their defense pacts with Ukraine you mean?

There's some other pact than the infamous article #5 of NATO that doesnt' actually quarantee any military aid as markedly demonstrated by USA themselves not trying to utilize that clause?

(That article cracks me up. Pro-NATO guys in Finland are always trying to use that as justification that Finland would be soooo much safer under NATO. Well no...That article might grant you moral support in form of "boo you are evil! Don't invade" sent to any attackers but that's about all it actually quarantees. Anybody expecting military aid from NATO just like that is optimistic to extreme. They only give if they feel it's to their advantage. Legally there's no requirement for them to do that)

tneva82 wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Aaand... anyone what to bet that the US or other NATO nations would come to Turkey's defense?

The same countries which ignored their defense pacts with Ukraine you mean?

There's some other pact than the infamous article #5 of NATO that doesnt' actually quarantee any military aid as markedly demonstrated by USA themselves not trying to utilize that clause?

(That article cracks me up. Pro-NATO guys in Finland are always trying to use that as justification that Finland would be soooo much safer under NATO. Well no...That article might grant you moral support in form of "boo you are evil! Don't invade" sent to any attackers but that's about all it actually quarantees. Anybody expecting military aid from NATO just like that is optimistic to extreme. They only give if they feel it's to their advantage. Legally there's no requirement for them to do that)

Well specifically there was a pact signed in 1994 regarding were Ukraine to be invaded, though yes the language is very wishy washy (and I'm not sure the intent was for one of the parties signed up to the defend the country to be invader):

6. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

Agiel wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Agiel wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:


Russia's domestic politic is kinda scary when you realize that Putin is as moderate as they can get, and there are factions that call him a puppet of the West.

I like to say that the one thing you can count on Putin being is pro-staying in power.

You could say the same about the majority of Western politicians too, so thats a pretty vacuous statement.

It kind of illustrates the point. Some could say there's a romantic way of looking at the actions of Putin, re-asserting Russian prominence in what it considers its sphere, then there's the simple way of looking at it: he's just a politician operating under the influence of political inertia, lurching from one crisis to the next at the cost of diplomatic relations going down the tube.

That is simply not true, and again a very vacuous statement. You could describe the actions of virtually any politician in that way.

Agiel wrote:
So far it's working _okay_ insomuch that general war hasn't really broken out from it, but you'd have a difficult time convincing me that as a result of Putin's actions Russia's strategic position has improved from 2013.

It has. Russia has regained control over Crimea, which is extremely important. Russia has secured Ukraine as a buffer state, and ensured that it can never move to the West unless it is prepared to ditch the eastern part of the country. Russia has ensured that its ally Assad will prevail in Syria. The European Union is starting to show some pretty major cracks, allowing Russia to make even more political inroads in Europe. It should not be surprising that Russia is a major funder of eurosceptic parties all over Europe. The Russian army has been further modernised since 2013. Russia has shown the entire world that it is still a power to be reckoned with and that its demands and interests should not be ignored. But most importantly, Russia has shown to the West that Russia is willing to do everything if neccessary to secure its interests, including war.

Agiel wrote:
Well, crap, now the US moved heavy armour to the Baltics and put a huge injection of money into its European defence budget.

Oh wow. A few little tanks. That is cute. Maybe if you'd sent a thousand more, we'd become slightly worried. Russia has 22417 tanks, the US only 9125. Send more ships and aircraft, you can't scare Russia with tanks.

Agiel wrote:
Well, China now has Russia over the rakes on that energy deal, oil is on a downslope, and everything else that's not guns has fallen by the wayside.

That is something that would have happened anyway, and the economy is still a lot better than it was in 2009, let alone 1998.

Agiel wrote:
As Sir Humphrey Appleby once said: "Diplomacy is about surviving into the next century; politics is about surviving into next week!"

Russia has survived for over a millenium, I am sure we can survive into the next century...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


You could say the same about the majority of Western politicians too, so thats a pretty vacuous statement.

Putin, though, is the only leader who recently militarily invaded another country and still occupies it.

And will occupy it forever.

I think the British Prime Minister David Cameron is lurching from crisis to crisis at the cost of diplomatic relations too.

You can apply that statement to many, many politicians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


You could say the same about the majority of Western politicians too, so thats a pretty vacuous statement.

Putin, though, is the only leader who recently militarily invaded another country and still occupies it.

So? Thats a non-sequitor.

The statement I was responding to was "The one thing you can count on Putin being is pro-staying in power". Which is true of almost all politicians barring the ones who are planning to retire and make a fortune on the speaking circuits (I'm looking at you, Tony Blair ). I said nothing about invasions.

 Tyran wrote:
And will occupy it forever.

Nothing is forever. Though some things can feel like it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Nothing is forever. Though some things can feel like it.

With forever I meant the foreseeable future. Crimea is firmly in Russia's grasp and has no reason to return to Ukraine.