Russia repositions border taking over more of Georgia overnight
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no parallel between Putin's Russia and Hitler's Nazi party. Putin wants to rebuild Russia as it was, no more than that. If he wants the Ukraine - let him have it. if he wants a route to the south Baltic, let him have it.
Well, OK, they also wanted to humiliate the French after the humiliating Versailles Treaty. But "no more than that."
Anyone who has studied Putin could pretty well draw a line where he will stop and not go further.
(Ukraine) is historically Russian anyway. Certainly not worth our fighting for.
Here's a scary footnote: Barrack Obama also used the phrase "peace in our time" in his 2013 inaugural address. Deja vu????
Last edited by KenV; 11th Aug 2015 at 15:46. Reason: added footnote
I tend to favour Ken V's analysis rather than Royalistflyer's. Unfortunately treaties were signed in the mid 90s to defend the Ukraine in return for the Ukraine handing back the nuclear weapons it had acquired from the Russians. These treaties remain in force, so if they mean anything should we help the Ukraine?
I'm afraid Royalistflyer I cannot agree with your analysis that there are no parallels between Hitler and Putin, they are so obvious for the following reasons:-
1. Loss of prestige in the world albeit by the loss of a cold war rather than a hot war
2. Loss of territory.
3. A financial crisis and in this case mediated by the EUs sanctions and a fall in oil prices. his one stranglehold is gas supplies to the Ukraine and the west, for which he has demand payment in hard currency and that's not the euro.
4. An increase in armed forces spending.
5. He cannot afford to lose 'face'.
6. The older generation and armed forces/security services will be on his side.
Read Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising, well worth it. Time-scale maybe a bit out but very possible.
I'm afraid Royalistflyer I cannot agree with your analysis that there are no parallels between Hitler and Putin, they are so obvious for the following reasons:-
1. Loss of prestige in the world albeit by the loss of a cold war rather than a hot war
2. Loss of territory.
3. A financial crisis and in this case mediated by the EUs sanctions and a fall in oil prices. his one stranglehold is gas supplies to the Ukraine and the west, for which he has demand payment in hard currency and that's not the euro.
4. An increase in armed forces spending.
5. He cannot afford to lose 'face'.
6. The older generation and armed forces/security services will be on his side.
Read Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising, well worth it. Time-scale maybe a bit out but very possible.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,051
Received 2,921 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
I do wonder how Putin will handle the future President Trump turning the Crimea into a golf course and hotel complex
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
"........a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war."
Neville Chamberlain - 1938
Neville Chamberlain - 1938
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So where is the West's 'line in the sand'? Russia just keeps nibbling away at territories on their borders, and all we seem do is send a strong Note which they ignore.
ORAC:
Regarding your quote and the Peace in Our Time sound byte ...
Neville Chamberlain said such things in public, but I wonder at what his private views were when he consulted with his cabinet.
I have seen posted on JB some points that he was aware of Hitler getting to be a problem and realized that he needed time to mobilize. So, he stalled for time. In some ways, I'd see these utterances so often quoted as a bit of a smoke screen, for both domestic and foreign consumption.
This plays into how that whole Phony War played out once Adolf and Joe Stalin had partitioned Poland. Neither the French nor the Brits were ready in 1939, so they obviously weren't ready in 1938.
Regarding your quote and the Peace in Our Time sound byte ...
Neville Chamberlain said such things in public, but I wonder at what his private views were when he consulted with his cabinet.
I have seen posted on JB some points that he was aware of Hitler getting to be a problem and realized that he needed time to mobilize. So, he stalled for time. In some ways, I'd see these utterances so often quoted as a bit of a smoke screen, for both domestic and foreign consumption.
This plays into how that whole Phony War played out once Adolf and Joe Stalin had partitioned Poland. Neither the French nor the Brits were ready in 1939, so they obviously weren't ready in 1938.
Aren't you the one admonishing posters to stay on topic?
Anyway, finish it out. Did Britain use the time after the Munich Agreement wisely? Was it a rather lackluster buildup of expeditionary and defensive forces? I'd say it was. A one trick pony, relying on the RN mostly.
Anyway, finish it out. Did Britain use the time after the Munich Agreement wisely? Was it a rather lackluster buildup of expeditionary and defensive forces? I'd say it was. A one trick pony, relying on the RN mostly.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen posted on JB some points that he was aware of Hitler getting to be a problem and realized that he needed time to mobilize.
And if it was his intention to mobilize for war, might I add that the following Chamberlain statements would seem to make rallying a nation to mobilize for war exceedingly difficult:
The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you: ' ... We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.
My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.
Last edited by KenV; 12th Aug 2015 at 11:11. Reason: typo
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say that I have a very low tolerance for Americans – especially the variety which “knows everything” much better than we do about our own patch of the world or our own history.
I do have a good deal of experience at fairly senior level, advising Prime Ministers, running advisory groups for government etc.
My knowledge of Russia in its present incarnation is gained from my ongoing involvement with the whole process and the assessing of Russia's intentions.
I realise there are Americans in the defence industries particularly who like/need to beat up the Russian bogey man in order that business with their government remains at a high level. They would like to get Europeans/UK worried about Russia too for the same business reasons. There are other Americans who just pine for the good old days of the cold War.
Unfortunately we at present have ministers in the UK government who for several questionable reasons are only too ready to trot along Blair-like after the Americans.
I repeat, the realistic assessment of Putin is that he will stop at the Dnieper and that will be the ultimate boundary. It is the natural boundary for the Russians, beyond that there is nothing that they want.
The question of a Byelorus-Kaliningrad corridor is somewhat more open, whether the Russians consider it vital is a much more open question. Opinion seems to be that their sable rattling at the Baltic states is mainly intended to keep them quiet.
Russia certainly doesn't want a war with the west or with the nations of Europe. It is not in accordance with her intentions.
As far as Georgia is concerned, the thinking is that Russia wants to do nothing more than scare Georgia into not throwing her lot in with America. Russia wants Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan as a buffer zone.
Turkey is a very interesting question. Opinion is that Russia would like to woo Turkey away from NATO. Turkey and particularly its present government feel profoundly rebuffed by Europe and have turned somewhat back to their religious roots. Russia for her own historical reasons and at the behest of internal pressure would like to do a deal with Turkey. However this has nothing to do with defence or threat.
Russia has to satisfy itself that there is no threat from the west – and we need to understand that Russia's feelings of threat are not necessarily to us rational – in order for her to turn her attention to the east. Russia knows very well that her future lies in the east.
I am sure all-knowing American experts will insist that I and those I represent are wrong, but I'm afraid their opinions aren't the ones that count.
We in the UK need to stop running after the Americans and start looking to our own defences – our own interests. We stupidly allowed ourselves to be massively duped over the whole carrier debacle, we need to wake up and start acting like responsible adults. We need an RAF that is capable of asserting our interests (not those of anyone else). We need a strong RAF and a strong RN - as an island nation that is basic.
I do have a good deal of experience at fairly senior level, advising Prime Ministers, running advisory groups for government etc.
My knowledge of Russia in its present incarnation is gained from my ongoing involvement with the whole process and the assessing of Russia's intentions.
I realise there are Americans in the defence industries particularly who like/need to beat up the Russian bogey man in order that business with their government remains at a high level. They would like to get Europeans/UK worried about Russia too for the same business reasons. There are other Americans who just pine for the good old days of the cold War.
Unfortunately we at present have ministers in the UK government who for several questionable reasons are only too ready to trot along Blair-like after the Americans.
I repeat, the realistic assessment of Putin is that he will stop at the Dnieper and that will be the ultimate boundary. It is the natural boundary for the Russians, beyond that there is nothing that they want.
The question of a Byelorus-Kaliningrad corridor is somewhat more open, whether the Russians consider it vital is a much more open question. Opinion seems to be that their sable rattling at the Baltic states is mainly intended to keep them quiet.
Russia certainly doesn't want a war with the west or with the nations of Europe. It is not in accordance with her intentions.
As far as Georgia is concerned, the thinking is that Russia wants to do nothing more than scare Georgia into not throwing her lot in with America. Russia wants Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan as a buffer zone.
Turkey is a very interesting question. Opinion is that Russia would like to woo Turkey away from NATO. Turkey and particularly its present government feel profoundly rebuffed by Europe and have turned somewhat back to their religious roots. Russia for her own historical reasons and at the behest of internal pressure would like to do a deal with Turkey. However this has nothing to do with defence or threat.
Russia has to satisfy itself that there is no threat from the west – and we need to understand that Russia's feelings of threat are not necessarily to us rational – in order for her to turn her attention to the east. Russia knows very well that her future lies in the east.
I am sure all-knowing American experts will insist that I and those I represent are wrong, but I'm afraid their opinions aren't the ones that count.
We in the UK need to stop running after the Americans and start looking to our own defences – our own interests. We stupidly allowed ourselves to be massively duped over the whole carrier debacle, we need to wake up and start acting like responsible adults. We need an RAF that is capable of asserting our interests (not those of anyone else). We need a strong RAF and a strong RN - as an island nation that is basic.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Russia knows very well that her future lies in the east.
Russia and China fuel Asia's other 'Great Game'
RF:_
Nor, I sincerely hope, are yours. The UK USA alliance has waxed and waned over the years, possibly waning rather more in recent years, but at least it is one with a global view rather than the parochial one that you espouse. That is more typical of our Continental cousins, "If they are not invading us from the East then they are invading us from the West", as a Belgian colleague once observed.
We are more than an island, we are one with global responsibilities still and an historic ability to look to who threatens those arrangements. Putin is one such threat. Above all we trade with the World, and the Pax may no longer be Britannica but is essential nonetheless.
Please tell me that the list of Prime Ministers that you have advised doesn't include the present one...
I am sure all-knowing American experts will insist that I and those I represent are wrong, but I'm afraid their opinions aren't the ones that count.
We are more than an island, we are one with global responsibilities still and an historic ability to look to who threatens those arrangements. Putin is one such threat. Above all we trade with the World, and the Pax may no longer be Britannica but is essential nonetheless.
Please tell me that the list of Prime Ministers that you have advised doesn't include the present one...
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advising a Prime Minister is one thing. Getting heard through the cacaphony of those in the party with vested financial interests, and those outside with similar interests is quite another thing. Both this Prime Minister and his predecessors have been given excellent advice by several advice organisations, but corruption trumps all.
I am by no means advocating a parochial little Britain approach. On the contrary I advocate a world role - but one that we and our Old Commonwealth partners want. Not the juvenile "world policeman" role that Americans seem to want. Their middle east "approach" (one cannot dignify it with the term "policy") is the most disastrous and we have trotted along with them.
I am by no means advocating a parochial little Britain approach. On the contrary I advocate a world role - but one that we and our Old Commonwealth partners want. Not the juvenile "world policeman" role that Americans seem to want. Their middle east "approach" (one cannot dignify it with the term "policy") is the most disastrous and we have trotted along with them.
Have we asked what
? I rather suspect that they would laugh in our face if we were to suggest it was to cut off their own association with the "juvenile world policeman" in favour of a return to the bosom of the mother country. "Time has passed by", as Peter Sellars famously observed, "and so shall we".
I am not suggesting that the USA is above criticism, far from it. At times their State Department makes "Feet of Clay" look like an aspiration. They certainly saw their chance and took it to force us out of our colonial domination to being a compliant partner to their own Pax Americana. All that granted, but they believe in Capitalism and Trade. So do we if we know what's good for us. Those may share with Democracy the contempt of some, but I know of no other systems that work better, certainly for this little speck in an ocean of fear.
As to the 11 months in 38/39 , we survived what came after. That was all that we could hope for, that was all that was wanted of us then. Of course we made mistakes, democracies launched against their will into World War always will, on land, on sea, and in the air. So did the USA. But we survived, and made possible thus the liberation of Europe and American post-war domination.
You see, you owe it all to us! ;-)
"our Old Commonwealth partners want"
I am not suggesting that the USA is above criticism, far from it. At times their State Department makes "Feet of Clay" look like an aspiration. They certainly saw their chance and took it to force us out of our colonial domination to being a compliant partner to their own Pax Americana. All that granted, but they believe in Capitalism and Trade. So do we if we know what's good for us. Those may share with Democracy the contempt of some, but I know of no other systems that work better, certainly for this little speck in an ocean of fear.
As to the 11 months in 38/39 , we survived what came after. That was all that we could hope for, that was all that was wanted of us then. Of course we made mistakes, democracies launched against their will into World War always will, on land, on sea, and in the air. So did the USA. But we survived, and made possible thus the liberation of Europe and American post-war domination.
You see, you owe it all to us! ;-)
Last edited by Chugalug2; 12th Aug 2015 at 09:47.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure you are privy to the conversations of Stephen Harper, John Key, Tony Abbot - all Conservatives by the way. You might just find that their non-public view of the USA and its "leadership" isn't quite what you think. I am talking about a 2015 approach - as equals with common interests and common needs.
So, the Premiers of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia have strong reservations about USA "leadership" ? So join the club! It would be strange if it were otherwise.
USA leadership was strongest when its various Alliances were faced with a common external threat, ie the Soviet Union and the Cold War. I shouldn't worry too much; if Al-Qaeda and ISIS doesn't do it sufficiently for them, Vlad will obligingly make up the short-fall.
I repeat, with all its shortcomings, USA leadership of its various alliances kept the Cold War from going Hot. As others have said, they will have to ensure the same result if we are now to have Cold War II.
Unless of course you were alluding to other Commonwealth pre-occupations, like Republicanism?
USA leadership was strongest when its various Alliances were faced with a common external threat, ie the Soviet Union and the Cold War. I shouldn't worry too much; if Al-Qaeda and ISIS doesn't do it sufficiently for them, Vlad will obligingly make up the short-fall.
I repeat, with all its shortcomings, USA leadership of its various alliances kept the Cold War from going Hot. As others have said, they will have to ensure the same result if we are now to have Cold War II.
Unless of course you were alluding to other Commonwealth pre-occupations, like Republicanism?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only place anyone ever mentions the Commonwealth is in the UK - our old colonies really aren't that interested in an Empire that disapeared by the end of the 1960's...............
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do please stop being silly. No one today is talking about "empire" or "mother country" What we are talking about at various levels is trade and defence - our common areas of interest as equals on the world stage. Try to understand the world has indeed moved on - to a point where the trade and defence issues are of common interest to Canada, Australia and UK.
There will be no Cold War II unless it is with China. And in that possibility it will in all probability at least initially be a Pacific/Asian problem and we have no idea how that will align.
It may be China against USA/India/Australia/Japan ...... in which case my betting is that Russia will quietly embark upon a major far eastern infrastructure/industry build up.
There will be no Cold War II unless it is with China. And in that possibility it will in all probability at least initially be a Pacific/Asian problem and we have no idea how that will align.
It may be China against USA/India/Australia/Japan ...... in which case my betting is that Russia will quietly embark upon a major far eastern infrastructure/industry build up.
Silliness is in the eye of the beholder. Your stance looks pretty silly from where I am, RF. What trade and defence issues do we hold in common with Canada, Australia and New Zealand that we don't have in common with the USA? The main dynamic of your stance seems to be :-
well OK, but don't expect a great thronging to your idiosyncratic version of realpolitik based on such bias.
that I have a very low tolerance for Americans
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny how you chop and change what you're talking about isn't it?
I was talking about your references to "empire" "mother country" as silly, so you change to something else entirely.
But if you like playing junior assistant sheriff to the USA that's fine - but there are those now coming up who don't want to do that Blair-slobber thing any more.
I was talking about your references to "empire" "mother country" as silly, so you change to something else entirely.
But if you like playing junior assistant sheriff to the USA that's fine - but there are those now coming up who don't want to do that Blair-slobber thing any more.