Russia Orders Military Exercise..

[Schone23666]

Well, this is going downhill quick...

http://news.yahoo.com/russian-troops...200052097.html

Ukraine can't do shit for the moment with Russia now owning the Crimea, and Obama was warning of "grave repercussions" if Putin were to take such actions. Now that he has, Obama is either going to have to put up or shut up.

"Military exercise", my ass, Putin knew exactly what he was going to do from the beginning. It kind of reminds me of that dance number by Mel Brooks from the beginning of "To Be or Not To Be". "All I want is Peace! Peace, peace....a little piece of Poland, a little piece of France!"

[stormlion1]

It does bear a remarkable resemblance to the German invasion of Poland, don't it? And the world leaders are going to blink. Be sure of that.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

It does bear a remarkable resemblance to the German invasion of Poland, don't it? And the world leaders are going to blink. Be sure of that.

Of course. History always goes in cycles...

[kato13]

Russia is pretty clearly in violation of the Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances if the troops are theirs (i am 99.9% sure they are).

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by kato13

Russia is pretty clearly in violation of the Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances if the troops are theirs (i am 99.9% sure they are).

Well, remember how Adolph Hitler viewed the Versailles Treaty: "A mere piece of paper". Treaties and such are just like laws....they are only as effective as the means, AND will to enforce them. Both are key.

The nuclear cat is already out of the bag at this point. Nukes are basically seen as the fast ticket to getting "respect" these days among most, I'd say the addition of a dozen more nuclear armed powers is inevitable...and then Pandora's box gets opened and it all goes downhill. See? There's still a chance we'll get to play T2K in real life yet.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

They're ordering troops in. To Ukraine. "To protect Russian citizens."

Jesus christ, it's September 1939 all over again.

Fuck Russia.

[stormlion1]

And I bet Putin will call them Peacekeepers rather than a Invasion Force when the UN starts to make noise. And if the Ruskies say it loud enough and often enough eventually the UN will believe it. Idiots.

[Jason Weiser]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

They're ordering troops in. To Ukraine. "To protect Russian citizens."

Jesus christ, it's September 1939 all over again.

Fuck Russia.

Wait a sec, the operation has expanded beyond Crimea? Crap...this is going to get fugly. Fast.
This smacks of pre-meditation. It just does. Ivan's had a while to plan this.

Well, CFE is toast people...wanna guess where a lot of our surplus gear is going? E very Eastern European nation that can afford it. And maybe some that can't.

[Cdnwolf]

minutes ago

Former presidential adviser David Gergen says there are no indications the United States or European nations would take military action if Russia continues to move into Crimea.

While sanctions would be troublesome to Putin, they would be “small potatoes” compared to keeping control of Crimea, a region which is historically and militarily tied to Russia, he said.

Gergen also noted that Putin has “some cards to play” in negotiations with the United States. For instance, Obama has worked hard to reduce nuclear threats in the world, including in Iran, and has often enjoyed Putin's cooperation.

Losing that cooperation would hurt Obama’s legacy.

“Those are heavy, heavy, big cards to play,” Gergen said.

[stormlion1]

Like I said, Obama will blink. And to keep Putins aid in those regions he will and without US backing the EU will blink. Its all over but the shouting.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Jason Weiser

Wait a sec, the operation has expanded beyond Crimea? Crap...this is going to get fugly. Fast.
This smacks of pre-meditation. It just does. Ivan's had a while to plan this.

I agree completely. Like I said earlier, Putin was a Colonel in the KGB. He'll have detailed contingency plans for hundreds of situations like that in the Ukraine covering dozens of nations that Russia has an "interest" in.

The situation in Crimea is going in pretty much exactly the direction I thought it would. When the Crimean parliament has its vote at the same time that the Ukraine holds its new presidential election, the Russians will get the political "legitimacy" they seek for their Crimean land grab.

I'm sure there'll be lots of criticism of political leaders in Europe and North America in the coming weeks and months for not taking stronger action against Russia but I think most of it will be for partisan reasons rather than constructive. By taking military action against Russia, any NATO country would be at extreme risk of things spiralling completely out of control. Does anyone here think the principal of protecting the Ukraine's sovereignty is worth kicking off WWIII? Actually I think principals like that ARE sometimes worth great sacrifices but the risk/reward ratio seems pretty extreme in this case.

[kato13]

I'm looking at all the angles here and IMO Russia simply annexing part of the Ukraine has too many pitfalls. I am now thinking that Putin is setting up for an agreement from the Ukraine to not join NATO for a period of time, (and to NEVER be the base for an ABM system) and to cede the Black Sea ports for 99 years (similar to agreements that handled Hong Kong and Guantanamo Bay).

Somehow I see Putin getting gains and still coming out of this not bruised at all. No sanctions, no international rebukes and still with influence on Ukrainian Politics (Which he would lose if a large number of ethnic Russians were annexed).

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Targan

I agree completely. Like I said earlier, Putin was a Colonel in the KGB. He'll have detailed contingency plans for hundreds of situations like that in the Ukraine covering dozens of nations that Russia has an "interest" in.

The situation in Crimea is going in pretty much exactly the direction I thought it would. When the Crimean parliament has its vote at the same time that the Ukraine holds its new presidential election, the Russians will get the political "legitimacy" they seek for their Crimean land grab.

I'm sure there'll be lots of criticism of political leaders in Europe and North America in the coming weeks and months for not taking stronger action against Russia but I think most of it will be for partisan reasons rather than constructive. By taking military action against Russia, any NATO country would be at extreme risk of things spiralling completely out of control. Does anyone here think the principal of protecting the Ukraine's sovereignty is worth kicking off WWIII? Actually I think principals like that ARE sometimes worth great sacrifices but the risk/reward ratio seems pretty extreme in this case.

Targan, once again in this thread I agree completely with everything that you've said. Of course Putin and the Russian Government know what they are doing and are implementing plans that have been in place for some time. That is the very nature of contingency planning and frankly they wouldn't be a very good Government if they didn't make such plans. I'm sure other Governments around the World have plans for all manner of scenarios.

And has already been said in this thread, no Government, whether in the US or Europe is going to do anything particularly tangible because no one wants to spark World War 3. I'm sure those leaders will be criticised for "sitting on their hands" but as you say, such criticism is likely to be done purely to score political points. I wonder if the critics would prefer it if their leaders actually did start a World War? Suggestions that European countries should somehow be solely responsible for sending their troops to defend Ukraine aren't particularly helpful either.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by Jason Weiser

Wait a sec, the operation has expanded beyond Crimea? Crap...this is going to get fugly. Fast.
This smacks of pre-meditation. It just does. Ivan's had a while to plan this.

Well, CFE is toast people...wanna guess where a lot of our surplus gear is going? E very Eastern European nation that can afford it. And maybe some that can't.

Well, maybe they WILL get M48/M60 tanks after all.

Chuck

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

Well, remember how Adolph Hitler viewed the Versailles Treaty: "A mere piece of paper". Treaties and such are just like laws....they are only as effective as the means, AND will to enforce them. Both are key.

The nuclear cat is already out of the bag at this point. Nukes are basically seen as the fast ticket to getting "respect" these days among most, I'd say the addition of a dozen more nuclear armed powers is inevitable...and then Pandora's box gets opened and it all goes downhill. See? There's still a chance we'll get to play T2K in real life yet.

I sometimes wonder if it was wise for the Ukraine to give up their nukes, they were like the 3rd or 4th largest nuke power after the breakup of the USSR, then again, it could be a bigger mess, Russia could lose Moscow for Kiev or Leningrad/St. Petersburg for Kherson. Sad to say, the world cannot do much at this point except voice their condemnations and sanctions. The U.S. should not get involved, we have lots of problems here although we need to keep an eye on it. Still, it hurts me to see the Ukraine get bullied, f I could magically snap my fingers and give them 1000 M48/M60 tanks for example, I would.

Chuck

[adimar]

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man 1966

I sometimes wonder if it was wise for the Ukraine to give up their nukes

Of course not. They traded the security of their country for a worthless piece of paper.

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man 1966

then again, it could be a bigger mess

Please excuse me, but I beg to differ. If the Ukraine hadn't traded their nukes than this whole mess would probably not have happened.

Which is the real lesson to be learned from this story.
You can bet your last cent that just about every small country, is looking at the situation in the Ukraine coupled with the feeble reaction towards Iran. And coming to the only reasonable conclusion possible.
We need to get some nukes.

Adi

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by adimar

Of course not. They traded the security of their country for a worthless piece of paper.
Please excuse me, but I beg to differ. If the Ukraine hadn't traded their nukes than this whole mess would probably not have happened.

Which is the real lesson to be learned from this story.
You can bet your last cent that just about every small country, is looking at the situation in the Ukraine coupled with the feeble reaction towards Iran. And coming to the only reasonable conclusion possible.
We need to get some nukes.

Adi

I did some thinking about that today and I did come to the conclusion that you are correct. It's the old argument, would the Russians want to lose Moscow for Kiev? Leningrad for Kherson? I think this teaches one thing, perhaps you can count on some friends but when you cannot count on them or they can't help you, you got to take care of yourself.

Come to think of it, if the prevailing winds go my way, if I was the Ukraine and Russia does not stop, I'd dynamite, or otherwise blow, the containment system and Chernobyl and let the mayhem ensue.

Chuck

[Targan]

I have mixed opinions on the issue of small countries and nuclear weapons. My own country has an estimated 30% of the world's known uranium reserves and we are a technologically advanced nation so clearly we are well capable of becoming a nuclear-armed state.

As early as 1956 the Australian government investigated obtaining tactical nuclear weapons from the UK. We also poured a lot of money and resources into the Blue Streak missile program with the obvious intention of arming them with nuclear warheads.

Of course, that never came to pass. Apparently the British government back then was warm to the idea of assisting Australia in that area but the US definitely was not. Kind of sad really, especially since we let the Brits detonate a bunch of nukes out in the South Australian desert and on the Monte Bello Islands.

Then in 1970 we signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and ratified it in 1973, and that was that. Lucky for us we have powerful friends

[adimar]

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man 1966

It's the old argument, would the Russians want to lose Moscow for Kiev? Leningrad for Kherson?

Actually If I were in the Ukrainian drive seat I wouldn't use the nuke on Russian soil. That would be a prelude to opening the gates of hell. I would use it on my own soil where the invading Russian troops are concentrated (and coincidentally quite a lot of my undesirable ethnic Russian civilians)...
(note that this only applies to the first nuke, after that....)

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man 1966

I think this teaches one thing, perhaps you can count on some friends but when you cannot count on them or they can't help you, you got to take care of yourself.

Yep. Any treaty is only a piece of paper.
That's why the contrast between Obama's betrayal of Mubarak (Egypt) and Putin's support of Assad (Syria) resonates so loudly.

Adi

[kato13]

Originally Posted by kato13

Russia is pretty clearly in violation of the Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances if the troops are theirs (i am 99.9% sure they are).

It looks like this was never submitted to the US Senate for ratification, so it literally in nothing more than guideline. I'm very surprised that the Ukraine relinquished their weapons stocks without that pretty important detail being completed.