Russia - Just roll the tanks in already!

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.

**Mr. Burning**

Stop beating around the bush - you know you want back in.

Russia examines 1991 recognition of Baltic independence

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33325842

The Russian chief prosecutor's office is to examine whether the Soviet Union acted legally when it recognised the Baltic states' independence in 1991.
The investigation was described as an "absurd provocation" by Lithuania's Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were occupied by Soviet communist forces in 1940. The USSR broke up in 1991.
Last week Russia's chief prosecutor declared illegal the transfer of Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in 1954.
At the time Russia and Ukraine were republics of the USSR, under communist leader Nikita Khrushchev.
Russia's annexation of Crimea in March 2014 was condemned internationally. Ethnic Russians there voted to rejoin Russia, in a highly controversial referendum.
There are large ethnic Russian minorities in Estonia and Latvia, while Lithuania has a smaller ethnic Russian minority.
Baltic tensions
A source at the prosecutor's office, quoted by Russia's Interfax news agency, said the investigation into the Baltic states' independence followed a request from two parliamentary deputies.
null
In their letter, MPs Yevgeny Fyodorov and Anton Romanov, of President Vladimir Putin's United Russia party, said the 1991 decision to recognise Baltic independence had been taken "by an unconstitutional body".
The source added that there would not be "legal consequences" if the 1991 recognition of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was deemed to be illegal.
The three Baltic states joined the EU and Nato in 2004. In recent years Russia has viewed that as a hostile challenge to its security interests.
Russian-Baltic tensions have been rising since the Crimea annexation and the outbreak of fighting in eastern Ukraine in April 2014. Heavily armed pro-Russian separatists there are clashing daily with Ukrainian government troops.
Nato has stepped up its presence in the Baltic states, responding to massive Russian military exercises, including heightened Russian air force activity in the Baltic.
Reacting to the Russian prosecutor's move, Lithuania's foreign minister called it "a provocation to say the least" and "legally, morally and politically absurd".

**Orlanth**

According to the international law the Baltic states have seen de facto nation states since 1921. The annexation by the Soviet Union as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, interrupted, rather than forfeit this status.

The Baltic States were never a legal part of the Soviet Union.

**obsidianaura**

And they're now trying to charge Mikhail Khodorkovsky with the murder of Vladimir Petukhov.

Mikhail once owned Yukos Oil and was once the richest man in Russia. He was a critic of Putin and was wrongfully convicted of theft and tax evasion and imprisoned for 10 years.

At the same time Putin seized and nationalised Yukos Oil.

The Hague ruled that Russia must compensate Yukos shareholders who lost out $50 billion.

Now "new evidence" has been found by Russia linking Mikhail to a murder of Petukhov who was leading a campaign against Yukos over alleged tax arrears.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-kremlin-critic-khodorkovsky-named-as-murder-suspect-in-russia-2015-6?r=US

**Sigvatr**

Orlanth wrote:
According to the international law the Baltic states have seen de facto nation states since 1921. The annexation by the Soviet Union as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, interrupted, rather than forfeit this status.

The Baltic States were never a legal part of the Soviet Union.

Implying Russia cares about any law, let alone human rights.

**djones520**

We've been posting military equipment throughout these countries recently. Putin is going to have to tread MUCH more carefully this time.

**Frazzled**

djones520 wrote:
We've been posting military equipment throughout these countries recently. Putin is going to have to tread MUCH more carefully this time.

Where did my post go?
To restate. Its my understanding these are actual NATO countries. Further, the US has announced placement of heavy combat units in several of them. If Putin wants to watch his

hole country burn in atomic fire, then he can start some crap.

In the words of Fats Domino: Suck it!

**Iron_Captain**

Orlanth wrote:
According to the international law the Baltic states have seen de facto nation states since 1921. The annexation by the Soviet Union as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, interrupted, rather than forfeit this status.

The Baltic States were never a legal part of the Soviet Union.

Legality is decided by tanks, not by laws. Sad, but it is true.
Nonetheless, I highly doubt Russia plans on actually retaking the Baltic region. It is a provocation, to intimidate Estonia and Latvia and a show of support for ethnic Russians trapped there. Nothing more.

**Wyrmalla**

obsidianaura wrote:
And they're now trying to charge Mikhail Khodorkovsky with the murder of Vladimir Petukhov.

Mikhail once owned Yukos Oil and was once the richest man in Russia. He was a critic of Putin and was wrongfully convicted of theft and tax evasion and imprisoned for 10 years.

At the same time Putin seized and nationalised Yukos Oil.

The Hague ruled that Russia must compensate Yukos shareholders who lost out $50 billion.

Now "new evidence" has been found by Russia linking Mikhail to a murder of Petukhov who was leading a campaign against Yukos over alleged tax arrears.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-kremlin-critic-khodorkovsky-named-as-murder-suspect-in-russia-2015-6?r=US

Because a murder charge overrules having to pay compensation back to the guy? Sure Russia, that's how the law works. ...Ah wait, no that's apparently how the law works in that country actually.

Aye this is presumably just Putin's government trying to scare the locals. NATO's been building up the region, so Russia's pushing back the other way. I doubt Russia will be dumb enough to invade another country this soon, as they're already attempting to manage what land they grabbed in Ukraine and the war there. ...Plus the umpteen other smaller wars that they're fighting with the other states which they've stolen land from in the past two decades. You never though of course, I mean clearly the Russians operate on a whole other level given their handling of Ukraine. Meh, Putin needs to appease all his amped up Nationalists somehow, and a wee bit of war goes a long way for that (...sorry can I Godwin this thread now or should we wait a few pages).

**NuggzTheNinja**

Frazzled wrote:
djones520 wrote:
We've been posting military equipment throughout these countries recently. Putin is going to have to tread MUCH more carefully this time.

Where did my post go?
To restate. Its my understanding these are actual NATO countries. Further, the US has announced placement of heavy combat units in several of them. If Putin wants to watch his hole country burn in atomic fire, then he can start some crap.

In the words of Fats Domino: Suck it!

We should be very careful not to underestimate our enemies. "'MERICA!!!!!!" doesn't really cut it anymore, and at some point we have to recognize that we aren't an island of capability in a sea of ineptitude - other countries have some bite to their bark as well.

**Frazzled**

Russia's GDP is less than Brazil.

**PhantomViper**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
djones520 wrote:
We've been posting military equipment throughout these countries recently. Putin is going to have to tread MUCH more carefully this time.

Where did my post go?
To restate. Its my understanding these are actual NATO countries. Further, the US has announced placement of heavy combat units in several of them. If Putin wants to watch his hole country burn in atomic fire, then he can start some crap.

In the words of Fats Domino: Suck it!

We should be very careful not to underestimate our enemies. "'MERICA!!!!!!" doesn't really cut it anymore, and at some point we have to recognize that we aren't an island of capability in a sea of ineptitude - other countries have some bite to their bark as well.

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Frazzled wrote:
Russia's GDP is less than Brazil.

Brazil doesn't have a ton of nuclear-equipped ICBMs aimed at us.

**Wyrmalla**

Aye and the UK would have trouble fighting a country larger than the Vatican these days with the amount of budget cuts. That's the thing if one country's been bankrolling their army, they're going to be in a better situation than a lot of NATO countries who have been cutting theirs for years. Politicians can be all bluster, but the joke will be on them if they try and start a war only for them to discover that they've cut the military to the bone. If Russia did invade somewhere more than a few countries would have to go into the fight undermanned and just hope that they'd have enough support from the other cut down armies to hold long enough to rebuild. =P

**NuggzTheNinja**

PhantomViper wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
djones520 wrote:
We've been posting military equipment throughout these countries recently. Putin is going to have to tread MUCH more carefully this time.

Where did my post go?
To restate. Its my understanding these are actual NATO countries. Further, the US has announced placement of heavy combat units in several of them. If Putin wants to watch his hole country burn in atomic fire, then he can start some crap.

In the words of Fats Domino: Suck it!

We should be very careful not to underestimate our enemies. "'MERICA!!!!!!" doesn't really cut it anymore, and at some point we have to recognize that we aren't an island of capability in a sea of ineptitude - other countries have some bite to their bark as well.

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

Granted, but the whole "It's OK, we will just nuke them" outlook isn't very productive. I don't know any active duty US personnel who are really looking forward to a war with Russia.

**PhantomViper**

Wyrmalla wrote:
Aye and the UK would have trouble fighting a country larger than the Vatican these days with the amount of budget cuts. That's the thing if one country's been bankrolling their army, they're going to be in a better situation than a lot of NATO countries who have been cutting theirs for years. Politicians can be all bluster, but the joke will be on them if they try and start a war only for them to discover that they've cut the military to the bone. If Russia did invade somewhere more than a few countries would have to go into the fight undermanned and just hope that they'd have enough support from the other cut down armies to hold long enough to rebuild. =P

Hold against what exactly?

We are talking about the same country that has suffered so many casualties fighting in a limited border war against an almost failed state like Ukraine that they decided to make those casualty numbers classified, aren't we?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Germany made moves to start getting its tanks out of mothballs and buying new tanks, a few months ago.

Britain on the same side as Germany, against Russia...feels weird

On a more serious note, who uses tanks these days anyway? I thought Apache helicopters had made tanks redundant?

**PhantomViper**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

Granted, but the whole "It's OK, we will just nuke them" outlook isn't very productive. I don't know any active duty US personnel who are really looking forward to a war with Russia.

Nobody is going to nuke anyone, that is just internet bluster.

**NuggzTheNinja**

PhantomViper wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

Granted, but the whole "It's OK, we will just nuke them" outlook isn't very productive. I don't know any active duty US personnel who are really looking forward to a war with Russia.

Nobody is going to nuke anyone, that is just internet bluster.

Agreed, which is why certain posters saying so amounts to "'MERICA!!!!"

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

Granted, but the whole "It's OK, we will just nuke them" outlook isn't very productive. I don't know any active duty US personnel who are really looking forward to a war with Russia.

Nobody is going to nuke anyone, that is just internet bluster.

Agreed, which is why certain posters saying so amounts to "'MERICA!!!!"

Agree to a certain extent with this, but in reality, America does have a lot to shout about.

For starters, they wouldn't be fighting Russia alone, if it all kicked off. They have Europe backing them up = multiple fronts invading USS...I mean Russia

America could invade Russia via Alaska. and NATO would be attacking from Turkey, Scandinavia, the Baltics, and of course, from Central Europe, driving straight for Moscow.

And this time, there would be a pause for the Russian winter!

**Frazzled**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Russia's GDP is less than Brazil.

Brazil doesn't have a ton of nuclear-equipped ICBMs aimed at us.

or we at them. These are NATO countries. Touching them is global nuclear war time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

Granted, but the whole "It's OK, we will just nuke them" outlook isn't very productive. I don't know any active duty US personnel who are really looking forward to a war with Russia.

Nobody is going to nuke anyone, that is just internet bluster.

Agreed, which is why certain posters saying so amounts to "'MERICA!!!!"

Agree to a certain extent with this, but in reality, America does have a lot to shout about.

For starters, they wouldn't be fighting Russia alone, if it all kicked off. They have Europe backing them up = multiple fronts invading USS...I mean Russia

America could invade Russia via Alaska. and NATO would be attacking from Turkey, Scandinavia, the Baltics, and of course, from Central Europe, driving straight for Moscow.

And this time, there would be a pause for the Russian winter!

No. It would be nuclear war.

**Wyrmalla**

Because it would be a war against Russia alone, or would Russia's foreign allies not hop on too? Hmn, though that situation has me reminded of Germany asking Mexico to invade the US...

But aye, Russia's fine to invade former satellite states with no nuclear weapons, but a war against nuclear states is just asking for one party to use them in a tactical capacity at some point. Nukes these days aren't the Tsar Bomba things, but yes, anyone using one is just asking for trouble, though eventually, someday, someone's going to have the bright idea of setting one off. =P

**Prestor Jon**

Wyrmalla wrote:
Because it would be a war against Russia alone, or would Russia's foreign allies not hop on too? Hmn, though that situation has me reminded of Germany asking Mexico to invade the US...

But aye, Russia's fine to invade former satellite states with no nuclear weapons, but a war against nuclear states is just asking for one party to use them in a tactical capacity at some point. Nukes these days aren't the Tsar Bomba things, but yes, anyone using one is just asking for trouble, though eventually, someday, someone's going to have the bright idea of setting one off. =P

Russia is never going to invade a NATO country. The whole premise of NATO is to create a tripwire to discourage precisely that kind of aggression. Russia invades Estonia and it guarantees that the other 27 NATO nations declare war on Russia. Once Russia instigates a war against 28 other countries, nobody else is going to jump in to help Russia. Russia doesn't have enough conventional forces to fight NATO alone and it would serve no purpose for Russia to start a nuclear war against the only countries capable of nuking Russia into extinction in retaliation.

Plus, in today's world of interconnected global trade nobody is going to commit national economic suicide by starting another world war.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Frazz, you're forgetting NATO's good luck charm: CANADA

The Canadians have never lost a war, and certainly not to those damn Yankees

**Frazzled**

As noted, I salute our maple drinking brethren on their Canada Day. Gimme some bacon!

**Spetulhu**

Wyrmalla wrote:
[Sure Russia, that's how the law works. ...Ah wait, no that's apparently how the law works in that country actually.

Sadly for our nice peaceful neighbors that is actually how law works in Russia. Do you recall ever seeing those YouTube videos with crazy traffic accidents from Russia? There wouldn't be that many unless there was reason to have a camera in your car, and when the difference between innocence and guilt in an accident otherwise is who bribes the police more you really want picture evidence. And top interest cases like the murder of politicians? It would seem someone tells the police who is guilty, then they collect evidence supporting that scenario.

It's really a shame that a country filled with mostly generous, kind and polite people is still ruled by the worst sort of bandits. :-(

**djones520**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
djones520 wrote:
We've been posting military equipment throughout these countries recently. Putin is going to have to tread MUCH more carefully this time.

Where did my post go?
To restate. Its my understanding these are actual NATO countries. Further, the US has announced placement of heavy combat units in several of them. If Putin wants to watch his hole country burn in atomic fire, then he can start some crap.

In the words of Fats Domino: Suck it!

We should be very careful not to underestimate our enemies. "'MERICA!!!!!!" doesn't really cut it anymore, and at some point we have to recognize that we aren't an island of capability in a sea of ineptitude - other countries have some bite to their bark as well.

But its not just "Murica", those countries are actually part of the EU and of Nato and have both European and NATO forces stationed in them so any Russian invasion would instantly come in direct confrontation with these international forces.

Heck, even my crappy country has F-16's stationed in Estonia covering their air space.

Granted, but the whole "It's OK, we will just nuke them" outlook isn't very productive. I don't know any active duty US personnel who are really looking forward to a war with Russia.

I'd much prefer it to China or even N. Korea.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Plus, in today's world of interconnected global trade nobody is going to commit national economic suicide by starting another world war.

Everyone said this before WW1... just sayin.

**chaos0xomega**

The world was also more economically globalized prior to WW1 than it is today (especially Europe). I.E.-The "but they're a major trading partner" argument is invalid.

**Iron_Captain**

Spetulhu wrote:
Wyrmalla wrote:
[Sure Russia, that's how the law works. ...Ah wait, no that's apparently how the law works in that country actually.

Sadly for our nice peaceful neighbors that is actually how law works in Russia. Do you recall ever seeing those YouTube videos with crazy traffic accidents from Russia? There wouldn't be that many unless there was reason to have a camera in your car, and when the difference between innocence and guilt in an accident otherwise is who bribes the police more you really want picture evidence. And top interest cases like the murder of politicians? It would seem someone tells the police who is guilty, then they collect evidence supporting that scenario.

It's really a shame that a country filled with mostly generous, kind and polite people is still ruled by the worst sort of bandits. :-(

Actually, the primary reason for the dashcams in Russian cars is that they are demanded by insurance companies and courts. They need solid proof. That makes them almost mandatory in a car.
Of course, that does not take away that the police can be very corrupt (though this varies between departments and individual officers), but the scenario you describe above is pretty extreme (the one with the accident, the one about the politicians is entirely accurate, altough that is more the hand of the FSB). More common is that police officers will try to fine you for offenses you did not commit, so they can earn some extra money. Corruption has also decreased noticeably after the most recent reforms (which raised police salaries etc.). But regardless, dashcams come in handy in corrupt police scenarios too, altough that is not their primary purpose.

It is great to see a Finn saying something positive about Russians for a change though. Finland is pretty popular with Russians, but from my experience that feeling is usually not mutual.

**Dreadclaw69**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I thought Apache helicopters had made tanks redundant?

And AAA can make a mess of helicopters. There is no 'Smith & Wesson beats four aces", everything has it's advantages and disadvantages.

**CptJake**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I thought Apache helicopters had made tanks redundant?

And AAA can make a mess of helicopters. There is no 'Smith & Wesson beats four aces", everything has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Yep, ask the 11th AHR how their attack against the Iraqi Medina division in Karbala went.