War with Russia next?
In a move against the whole of the Ukraine, rather than just its interests in the Crimea.
That democracy didn't last long. Ah well, the Iron Curtain was drawn when I joined, so no real change.
That democracy didn't last long. Ah well, the Iron Curtain was drawn when I joined, so no real change.
Putin at the moment holds all the cards, the Duma has ratified his actions, his troops are in situ, control of Sevastopol naval base and the airspace over the country and his 'nuclear' option of turning western Europe's gas off. It may not be winter but you still need gas everyday and what could the west do to stop him, absolutely nothing.
NATO does not have enough ground troops and supporting arms of tanks artillery helicopters and material. Not enough SEAD/DEAD, tankers transports C4 and C4int close air support and air superiority aircraft. A very long logistics chain and lack of stocks. Involvement in that s**thole Afghanistan, Mali and the CAR continue to require forces time and money.
He has a superiority of men and space to manoeuvre, remember the last two to take on Russia and what happened to them. Maybe the old lessons are about to be re-learnt that numbers have a quality all of there own. What's the use of 100 Brimstones hitting their targets when your opposition has another 100 and more and you have exhausted your stocks.
Are the politicians willing to risk poking the Russian bear sat in his big dark cave, or have in the words of Yamamoto merely 'woken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve'.
If this does go horribly wrong, politicians who started this in the frontline or field hospitals please to see the consequences of their actions or decisions and the effects on other peoples sons and daughters.
Peace dividend, my a**e, just an excuse for politicians to grandstand and misuse my hard earned taxes.
NATO does not have enough ground troops and supporting arms of tanks artillery helicopters and material. Not enough SEAD/DEAD, tankers transports C4 and C4int close air support and air superiority aircraft. A very long logistics chain and lack of stocks. Involvement in that s**thole Afghanistan, Mali and the CAR continue to require forces time and money.
He has a superiority of men and space to manoeuvre, remember the last two to take on Russia and what happened to them. Maybe the old lessons are about to be re-learnt that numbers have a quality all of there own. What's the use of 100 Brimstones hitting their targets when your opposition has another 100 and more and you have exhausted your stocks.
Are the politicians willing to risk poking the Russian bear sat in his big dark cave, or have in the words of Yamamoto merely 'woken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve'.
If this does go horribly wrong, politicians who started this in the frontline or field hospitals please to see the consequences of their actions or decisions and the effects on other peoples sons and daughters.
Peace dividend, my a**e, just an excuse for politicians to grandstand and misuse my hard earned taxes.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An international treaty signed on February, 5, 1994, in Budapest between Ukraine, USA, Russia, and the United Kingdom concerning nuclear disarmament of Ukraine and security assurances of her independence.
According to the treaty Ukraine has abandoned her nuclear arsenal to Russia, while Russia, USA, and the UK have promised (1) to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within her borders; (2) to protect Ukraine from outer aggression and not to conduct aggression toward Ukraine; (3) not to put economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence her politics; (4) not to use nuclear arms against Ukraine."
Unlike in the case of Georgia, in Ukraine the signatories are obliged by the agreement to protect it, ironic that it might be to have to be done against one of the signatories.
The question now is: will the other signatories, USA and UK, live up to their promise? Probably not!
Bob C
According to the treaty Ukraine has abandoned her nuclear arsenal to Russia, while Russia, USA, and the UK have promised (1) to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within her borders; (2) to protect Ukraine from outer aggression and not to conduct aggression toward Ukraine; (3) not to put economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence her politics; (4) not to use nuclear arms against Ukraine."
Unlike in the case of Georgia, in Ukraine the signatories are obliged by the agreement to protect it, ironic that it might be to have to be done against one of the signatories.
The question now is: will the other signatories, USA and UK, live up to their promise? Probably not!
Bob C
Bob C:
Only as long as Obama and Cameron or maybe Major and George H Bush as they signed them, lead the first charge. I suspect many of these treaties have this sort of clause, just the signatories never expected them to be called in.
Only as long as Obama and Cameron or maybe Major and George H Bush as they signed them, lead the first charge. I suspect many of these treaties have this sort of clause, just the signatories never expected them to be called in.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and his 'nuclear' option of turning western Europe's gas off.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or something.
Expecting foresight from politicians who don't know if they'll still be around in five years is brave, to say the least. They do whatever is most likely to win the next election, regardless of whether it makes the country worse off in the long term.
Problem is, they've been doing it at least since the end of WWII, so today is the long term.
Money could be a secondary matter, his country has vast natural resources and land space that the west needs in respect to his resources. The average Russian is still very much pro mother Russia and is used to very harsh conditions to both preserve and protect it.
Putin was 'elected' by people who wanted a strong man heading the country after the disasters of Yeltsin and Chernyenko to name but two, even Gorbachov came up against the hard-liners and nearly paid for it with his life.
Putin was 'elected' by people who wanted a strong man heading the country after the disasters of Yeltsin and Chernyenko to name but two, even Gorbachov came up against the hard-liners and nearly paid for it with his life.
I agree to a point. Someone, somewhere will fill the void of shipping gas to Europe, nature abhors a vacuum. The progress Russia has made will all be undone without the cash coming in. The Russian society you mention may not be the same stoic society of past. They've had a taste of a better life, I would be curious the reaction to a decision Putin makes that threatens the long term.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is surreal.
There wont be a bloody war with Russia, get a grip! Literally hundreds of reasons why not. the entire invasion has been like watching a slow car crash. Russia telegraphed its moves to the west days ago. Its got tacit approval from the west anyway.
How either the USA or UK can criticise Russian and keep at straight face amazes me and about 50 million other Britons.
How either the USA or UK can criticise Russian and keep at straight face amazes me and about 50 million other Britons.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,845 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
Do you think the caption contest will get scored before we all glow in the dark?
Totally agree on that one Hangarshuffle,
There will be no war. All Putin needs to do to shut Camoron and Co down is turn the gas off. Within a week, questions will be asked. But I believe, as I think you suggest, that the downright hypocrisy of both UK and US governments on this are relevant. In 2003 Blair and Bush ignored the UN, lied to their electorates and invaded a sovereign country. That gave Putin all the justification he needs for what is happening now. I've just seen a report that the newly "appointed" deputy security minister in Kiev, is tweeting for help from some radical Muslim terrorist group based in the Caucuses. It's looking a lot like Syria, our politicians jump in on the wrong side, and we find ourselves funding terrorists. Best we lock our pollies up until it blows over I think!
Smudge
There will be no war. All Putin needs to do to shut Camoron and Co down is turn the gas off. Within a week, questions will be asked. But I believe, as I think you suggest, that the downright hypocrisy of both UK and US governments on this are relevant. In 2003 Blair and Bush ignored the UN, lied to their electorates and invaded a sovereign country. That gave Putin all the justification he needs for what is happening now. I've just seen a report that the newly "appointed" deputy security minister in Kiev, is tweeting for help from some radical Muslim terrorist group based in the Caucuses. It's looking a lot like Syria, our politicians jump in on the wrong side, and we find ourselves funding terrorists. Best we lock our pollies up until it blows over I think!
Smudge
It's nonsense to lnk Iraq to this. What happened and what will happen is a perceived imperative of the Russians in their sphere of influence. If Saddam was still in power as of a few days ago, the actions of the Russians wouldn't be any different.
West coast,
Exactly my point. Its nothing to do with Saddam, in or out of power. It's about the actions of our governments. The "fact" is that Blair and Bush ignored the UN, lied to their respective electorates, and invaded a sovereign country in 2003. Causing many civilian deaths in the process. Whatever happens in the Crimea, any criticism from our government (UK, Cameron voted with Blair in 2003) would be hypocritical. I'm not sure how Obama voted in the USA with the Bush "push for war", You may know. I just believe that UK and USA are probably not the best arbiters of respecting a nations territorial integrity.
Smudge
Exactly my point. Its nothing to do with Saddam, in or out of power. It's about the actions of our governments. The "fact" is that Blair and Bush ignored the UN, lied to their respective electorates, and invaded a sovereign country in 2003. Causing many civilian deaths in the process. Whatever happens in the Crimea, any criticism from our government (UK, Cameron voted with Blair in 2003) would be hypocritical. I'm not sure how Obama voted in the USA with the Bush "push for war", You may know. I just believe that UK and USA are probably not the best arbiters of respecting a nations territorial integrity.
Smudge
Smudge
Hypocritical, and the point would be? If debating righteousness is a prerequisite then its going to be a quiet conversation.
Ask yourself, If the west preached from the high ground, as in Iraq never happened, would the actions, outcome and political aftermath of what's happening be any different?
Hypocritical, and the point would be? If debating righteousness is a prerequisite then its going to be a quiet conversation.
Ask yourself, If the west preached from the high ground, as in Iraq never happened, would the actions, outcome and political aftermath of what's happening be any different?