Ukraine Crisis 2014
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Putin could attack Baltic states warns former Nato chief
Vladimir Putin has dangerous ambitions beyond Ukraine and aims to test Western resolve in the Baltic states, the former head of Nato has warned.Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former secretary-general of the Atlantic alliance, said the Kremlin’s true goal is to shatter Nato solidarity and reassert Russian dominance over Eastern Europe.
“This is not about Ukraine. Putin wants to restore Russia to its former position as a great power,” he told The Telegraph. “There is a high probability that he will intervene in the Baltics to test Nato’s Article 5,” he said, referring to the solidarity clause that underpins collective security.n“Putin knows that if he crosses the red line and attacks a Nato ally, he will be defeated. Let us be quite clear about that. But he is a specialist in hybrid warfare,” he said.
The fear is that the Kremlin will generate a murky conflict in Estonia or Latvia where there are large Russian minorities, using arms-length action or “little green men” without insignia to disguise any intervention. This may tempt weaker Nato members to play down the incident, either to protect commercial ties with Russia or because of pro-Kremlin sympathies as in Hungary or Greece.......
Article 5 states that a military attack on any one Nato country is an attack on all of them, triggering collective mobilization. It has been invoked just once in the 66-year history of the alliance, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York.
Nobody knows what would happen if one of the Baltic states invoked Article 5 protection but was turned down by the Nato Council. Failure to respond would devastate Nato’s credibility and undermine the principle of deterrence, though allies could still act as a coalition of the willing outside the treaty structure......
Vladimir Putin has dangerous ambitions beyond Ukraine and aims to test Western resolve in the Baltic states, the former head of Nato has warned.Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former secretary-general of the Atlantic alliance, said the Kremlin’s true goal is to shatter Nato solidarity and reassert Russian dominance over Eastern Europe.
“This is not about Ukraine. Putin wants to restore Russia to its former position as a great power,” he told The Telegraph. “There is a high probability that he will intervene in the Baltics to test Nato’s Article 5,” he said, referring to the solidarity clause that underpins collective security.n“Putin knows that if he crosses the red line and attacks a Nato ally, he will be defeated. Let us be quite clear about that. But he is a specialist in hybrid warfare,” he said.
The fear is that the Kremlin will generate a murky conflict in Estonia or Latvia where there are large Russian minorities, using arms-length action or “little green men” without insignia to disguise any intervention. This may tempt weaker Nato members to play down the incident, either to protect commercial ties with Russia or because of pro-Kremlin sympathies as in Hungary or Greece.......
Article 5 states that a military attack on any one Nato country is an attack on all of them, triggering collective mobilization. It has been invoked just once in the 66-year history of the alliance, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York.
Nobody knows what would happen if one of the Baltic states invoked Article 5 protection but was turned down by the Nato Council. Failure to respond would devastate Nato’s credibility and undermine the principle of deterrence, though allies could still act as a coalition of the willing outside the treaty structure......
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,914 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
Downing Street denies Cameron is ?diplomatic irrelevance? in Ukraine talks | Politics | The Guardian
Stung by claims that David Cameron is a diplomatic irrelevance as France and Germany spearhead efforts to end the conflict in Ukraine, Downing Street has insisted Britain is playing an active role in Europe’s response to Russian aggression.
No 10 issued a robust defence after being criticised by an army general and the shadow foreign secretary for not being present at the diplomatic table when Europe is under threat of “total war”.
The French president, François Hollande, and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, are set to meet the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, in Moscow to discuss a peace plan aimed at ending the fighting between Ukrainian government forces and Russian-backed separatist rebels.
The move has sparked fears of a division within the western alliance – with Britain and the United States apparently sidelined by the Franco-German initiative.
No 10 issued a robust defence after being criticised by an army general and the shadow foreign secretary for not being present at the diplomatic table when Europe is under threat of “total war”.
The French president, François Hollande, and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, are set to meet the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, in Moscow to discuss a peace plan aimed at ending the fighting between Ukrainian government forces and Russian-backed separatist rebels.
The move has sparked fears of a division within the western alliance – with Britain and the United States apparently sidelined by the Franco-German initiative.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said on the JB thread, do you want to wait until you have to invoke NATO articles, bring it to a head now, see where every one stands.
I personally don't think giving them arms is the best Idea, its hard to compete with Russia on the door step. Hence putting troops in under some invitation, and a bullsh!t story. Beat Putin at his own game.
I personally don't think giving them arms is the best Idea, its hard to compete with Russia on the door step. Hence putting troops in under some invitation, and a bullsh!t story. Beat Putin at his own game.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other indicators of a looming European war could be expected to be what? Falling stock market? Rising oil and food prices, rising price of raw materials?
Stocks have been booming last few weeks, oil is at relatively low prices.
Also would have expected to see exchanges of diplomatic expulsions, tit for tat responses. But cant find any.
The Russian hybrid warfare creeping approach will probably continue until someone in the west miscalculates. Or Putin miscalculates.
Don't think its a good idea to give Western Ukraine arms at all. Their war is already lost.
Stocks have been booming last few weeks, oil is at relatively low prices.
Also would have expected to see exchanges of diplomatic expulsions, tit for tat responses. But cant find any.
The Russian hybrid warfare creeping approach will probably continue until someone in the west miscalculates. Or Putin miscalculates.
Don't think its a good idea to give Western Ukraine arms at all. Their war is already lost.
Don't think its a good idea to give Western Ukraine arms at all. Their war is already lost.
I agree there are no simple answers, but the simplest (inaction) should not be an option.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
FT: Nato discusses arming Ukraine
Nato has begun discussing the possibility of sending arms to Ukraine, according to the alliance’s secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg. Mr Stoltenberg said the issue was being actively discussed by alliance members, alongside a range of other measures to bolster support for Kiev.
His remarks follow those of Nato’s top military commander, General Philip Breedlove, who on Friday said that “conventional means” of support from Nato powers should not be ruled out if economic and diplomatic overtures to Moscow failed. The German chancellor Angela Merkel is opposed to a military solution to the Ukraine crisis although she has warned that peace talks may fail.
Mr Stoltenberg stressed that any move to support Ukraine with weaponry would be a matter for individual Nato allies to decide upon, not the alliance as a whole. “There are discussions taking place,” he said on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference in Germany, Europe’s largest annual gathering of defence and security chiefs and politicians. “Nato does not possess weapons so this is at the end something that has to be decided by nations,” he said. “I will limit myself to say that we have an ongoing discussion on how we can help Ukraine and every nation has the right to protect and defend itself.”
British foreign secretary Philip Hammond said sending lethal military aid to Kiev was an option that would be considered by the UK government if fighting in Ukraine got worse. Mr Hammond stressed that Britain still believed there was no military solution to the conflict in Ukraine but acknowledged discussions about sending lethal military aid to help Kiev had become more pronounced in recent days. The UK was prepared to consider a broad range of future courses of action he said.
“We are at the current time not considering the supply of lethal equipment to the Ukrainians,” Mr Hammond said at Munich. “But obviously that decision — that policy position — is a reflection of the situation on the ground and if the situation on the ground changes of course we could keep that under review. If there were a radical change of circumstances on the ground we would want to keep our options open, we would want to be able to think about using all the levers we have available to influence the situation on the ground,” he added.
Mr Stoltenberg said the alliance would continue to ramp up its military presence in eastern Europe. Nato defence ministers agreed on Thursday to more than double the size of Nato’s reaction force from 13,000 to 30,000 men and deploy 6 command and control centres in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and the Baltic States.
Moscow’s ambassador to Nato said relations between Russia and the alliance were “close to freezing point.”
The measures were just the beginning, Mr Stoltenberg said. “This is the first element. What we decided on Thursday was the land element and command and control. [Next] we will make decisions on naval, air, special forces, reconnaissance intelligence, surveillance — more elements, more decisions are coming. We are doing what we set out to do.”
Nato has begun discussing the possibility of sending arms to Ukraine, according to the alliance’s secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg. Mr Stoltenberg said the issue was being actively discussed by alliance members, alongside a range of other measures to bolster support for Kiev.
His remarks follow those of Nato’s top military commander, General Philip Breedlove, who on Friday said that “conventional means” of support from Nato powers should not be ruled out if economic and diplomatic overtures to Moscow failed. The German chancellor Angela Merkel is opposed to a military solution to the Ukraine crisis although she has warned that peace talks may fail.
Mr Stoltenberg stressed that any move to support Ukraine with weaponry would be a matter for individual Nato allies to decide upon, not the alliance as a whole. “There are discussions taking place,” he said on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference in Germany, Europe’s largest annual gathering of defence and security chiefs and politicians. “Nato does not possess weapons so this is at the end something that has to be decided by nations,” he said. “I will limit myself to say that we have an ongoing discussion on how we can help Ukraine and every nation has the right to protect and defend itself.”
British foreign secretary Philip Hammond said sending lethal military aid to Kiev was an option that would be considered by the UK government if fighting in Ukraine got worse. Mr Hammond stressed that Britain still believed there was no military solution to the conflict in Ukraine but acknowledged discussions about sending lethal military aid to help Kiev had become more pronounced in recent days. The UK was prepared to consider a broad range of future courses of action he said.
“We are at the current time not considering the supply of lethal equipment to the Ukrainians,” Mr Hammond said at Munich. “But obviously that decision — that policy position — is a reflection of the situation on the ground and if the situation on the ground changes of course we could keep that under review. If there were a radical change of circumstances on the ground we would want to keep our options open, we would want to be able to think about using all the levers we have available to influence the situation on the ground,” he added.
Mr Stoltenberg said the alliance would continue to ramp up its military presence in eastern Europe. Nato defence ministers agreed on Thursday to more than double the size of Nato’s reaction force from 13,000 to 30,000 men and deploy 6 command and control centres in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and the Baltic States.
Moscow’s ambassador to Nato said relations between Russia and the alliance were “close to freezing point.”
The measures were just the beginning, Mr Stoltenberg said. “This is the first element. What we decided on Thursday was the land element and command and control. [Next] we will make decisions on naval, air, special forces, reconnaissance intelligence, surveillance — more elements, more decisions are coming. We are doing what we set out to do.”
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I stated in the other thread, Putin is playing a very careful game and denying he has any forces there. That leaves us an opening.
Take advantage of it, or he just keeps moving to the next stage.
Western peace keeping/enforcement troops at Ukraine's invitation with a no fly zone will act as a circuit breaker.
Putin will then show his hand, then you can deal with it. I would suspect he is prepared to trade off eastern Ukraine for Crimea (legal recognition, he actually already has it
)if push came to shove. He is already factoring that in by letting contracts to build a bridge to Crimea.
Take advantage of it, or he just keeps moving to the next stage.
Western peace keeping/enforcement troops at Ukraine's invitation with a no fly zone will act as a circuit breaker.
Putin will then show his hand, then you can deal with it. I would suspect he is prepared to trade off eastern Ukraine for Crimea (legal recognition, he actually already has it
)if push came to shove. He is already factoring that in by letting contracts to build a bridge to Crimea.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I would say the best thing the west could do is nothing.
Why on earth would we want to risk turning a small local conflict over a nation that is next door to Russia into World War 3 and the destruction of us all. Its a shame that both NATO and the EU have allowed themselves to move eastwards since the end of the cold war irrespective of what former eastern bloc governments want. This expansion has not added to our security but has made things far more dangerous. We are now thanks to NATO committed to defending nations that just 25 years ago were totally in the soviet sphere of influence. Talk about a reckless policy. The question has to be asked what is in it for us, the western population at large?! Its not as if the former eastern bloc nations are military strong and could aid us much in the event of a future war, but on the other hand require total protection from us.
Going back to Ukraine, right now Russia is still their biggest trade partner. Its utter lunacy for us to get involved with this in any way, shape or form.
Why on earth would we want to risk turning a small local conflict over a nation that is next door to Russia into World War 3 and the destruction of us all. Its a shame that both NATO and the EU have allowed themselves to move eastwards since the end of the cold war irrespective of what former eastern bloc governments want. This expansion has not added to our security but has made things far more dangerous. We are now thanks to NATO committed to defending nations that just 25 years ago were totally in the soviet sphere of influence. Talk about a reckless policy. The question has to be asked what is in it for us, the western population at large?! Its not as if the former eastern bloc nations are military strong and could aid us much in the event of a future war, but on the other hand require total protection from us.
Going back to Ukraine, right now Russia is still their biggest trade partner. Its utter lunacy for us to get involved with this in any way, shape or form.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who's going to stop Putin even if he takes the Boltic States? He is nothing but a thug and a bully.
NC weapons have keep the world away from total war for 70 years. Now Putin is using that mindset for his latest adventures.
Do we really want M.A.D?
NC weapons have keep the world away from total war for 70 years. Now Putin is using that mindset for his latest adventures.
Do we really want M.A.D?
Why on earth would we want to risk turning a small local conflict over a nation that is next door to Russia into World War 3
Neville Chamberlain, 27 September 1938
Its a shame that both NATO and the EU have allowed themselves to move eastwards since the end of the cold war irrespective of what former eastern bloc governments want.
Ronald, it's been said before (but it always seems to go in one ear and out the other with you), but NATO/EU has not 'expanded East'. The ONLY reason that former Eastern Bloc countries are now members of these organisations is because they want to be.
It's a different model of expansion than, say, the Warsaw Pact, but there you go.
Enough of the Kremlin-bot trolling already.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: East sussex
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would consider Putin's trump card being the natural gas supplies to western Europe, reduce the flow initially, then most of Europe will comprehend the dire consequences if the gas was fully turned off. No army no nukes required.
Last edited by dazdaz1; 8th Feb 2015 at 15:20.
That would be shooting himself in the foot - there is a surplus of gas in the world market, short term pain for everyone including Russia, long term economic disaster for Russia. And he (and his oligarch mates) know that.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mel, eastern European nations might wish to be part of the EU and NATO, it does not mean its in our interests for them to be so though! The question has to be asked ''what is in it for us?'' As I already said they are militarily weak, so bring little in terms of capability to the alliance, in fact letting them join seems to have given us considerable defence liability but for not much in return. Having all out war with Russia seems a very bad idea but then again the west tends to underestimate every country its ever gone up against, the problem now though is Russia is not some small weak nation, it has enough nuclear forces to end human civilisation on this planet. Letting some arm chair generals who dream of war run policy is not a good idea, we have to come to a realistic solution and not some pipe dream fantasy that some western governments would like to see. The best and easiest way to achieve this would be turn a blind eye to the events in Ukraine while ensuring we maintain strong and capable military forces to defend our homeland against any possible future threats from anyone, but not to go on continuous pointless foreign adventurism. If the west, especially Washington miscalculate they could drag us all into World War 3 and it could be the end of everything.
Fitter2, the difference between the 1930s and now is that we would be talking about all out nuclear war, the end of everything, so we have to avoid that at all costs.
Fitter2, the difference between the 1930s and now is that we would be talking about all out nuclear war, the end of everything, so we have to avoid that at all costs.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,914 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
MUNICH — The leaders of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine aim to hold a summit in Minsk this week as they try to stem fighting in eastern Ukraine, officials in Germany and France said Sunday
from MSN, shows how we are irrelevant today having decimated our armed forces to such a state..
RR see your still spouting your cr+p, you playing your own game of a self feeding frenzy? because no one else will?
from MSN, shows how we are irrelevant today having decimated our armed forces to such a state..
RR see your still spouting your cr+p, you playing your own game of a self feeding frenzy? because no one else will?
Guest
Posts: n/a
One part of me thinks its a war outside NATO's Borders that is already lost and we should best stay well clear. But the UK, through the 1994 Budapest Memorandums, said it would guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine in return for Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons.
Though there is some legal wriggle room in what this agreement binds us to do (it is not a collective defence guarantee) it does beggar the question of what we, the UK, actually stand for? Are we a country of our word or are we all mouth music? I think Putin has well and truly decided his view on this. It would have been interesting what would have happened if Ukraine had not given up the nukes under our guarantees?
For that reason, IMHO arm The Ukrainian army to the teeth and put troops in Western Ukraine. Alternatively admit we can no longer honour our P5 responsibilities and are just a small island.
Ironically, the signators of this agreement were The UK, US, Ukraine and ...............Russia!
Though there is some legal wriggle room in what this agreement binds us to do (it is not a collective defence guarantee) it does beggar the question of what we, the UK, actually stand for? Are we a country of our word or are we all mouth music? I think Putin has well and truly decided his view on this. It would have been interesting what would have happened if Ukraine had not given up the nukes under our guarantees?
For that reason, IMHO arm The Ukrainian army to the teeth and put troops in Western Ukraine. Alternatively admit we can no longer honour our P5 responsibilities and are just a small island.
Ironically, the signators of this agreement were The UK, US, Ukraine and ...............Russia!
Last edited by Brewers Droop; 8th Feb 2015 at 19:07.
RR, whatever it is you believe you are trying to bring to this page, you could have the decency to engage with other members without lying about who you are or what you're about.
If you're so sure as to your arguments, then why do you feel the need to lie about your identity and location?
If you're so sure as to your arguments, then why do you feel the need to lie about your identity and location?
RR - The same logic and reason that parrots Kremlin claims that Russia is not arming and reinforcing the 'rebels', but the US is arming the Kiev Government.
The Russian citizen may believe it (apart from the widows and mothers who are not allowed to bury their dead sons and husbands). We have a sufficiently free press who would not allow such nonse for our side of the rebuilt Iron Curtain.
To avoid WW III it is necessary to halt Putin's megalomania.
The Russian citizen may believe it (apart from the widows and mothers who are not allowed to bury their dead sons and husbands). We have a sufficiently free press who would not allow such nonse for our side of the rebuilt Iron Curtain.
To avoid WW III it is necessary to halt Putin's megalomania.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mel, virtually no one on this group uses their real names or give their exact location! Everyone else seems to use a random username and give maybe a rough location or nothing at all.