War with Russia
Discussion
Sensationalist headline.
Most important bit is this;
"Russia is far from being involved in any large-scale conflicts," he said at the camp on the banks of Lake Seliger. "We don't want that and don't plan on it."
I said a few months ago that no one will go to war over this. I stand by it. Russia will do whatever they want in Ukraine and no one will give a s
te about it.
Russia has a long history with the Ukraine and are not trying to take over Europe as these headlines try to portray. If they were, we'd probably all be dead already.
Most important bit is this;
"Russia is far from being involved in any large-scale conflicts," he said at the camp on the banks of Lake Seliger. "We don't want that and don't plan on it."
I said a few months ago that no one will go to war over this. I stand by it. Russia will do whatever they want in Ukraine and no one will give a s
te about it. Russia has a long history with the Ukraine and are not trying to take over Europe as these headlines try to portray. If they were, we'd probably all be dead already.
AreOut said:
Grumfutock said:
Hmmm not what I remember seeing. I seem to recall nearly a million people being forced out.
noone was forced out before NATO bombings, at least noone with legal papers 
Wtf is noone?
Peter Noone? (about the only time I've ever heard the word).
Oh...
ahh, I see, you mean 'no one'!
Indefinite pronouns: 'nobody' (1 word) and 'no one' (2 words).
Lesson endeth.
Always here to help and assist.
raftom said:
Reuters: Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says
Presumably that's not a problem for Ukraine etc., since there is no Russians there to be aggressive towards though?Mental ill person said:
President Vladimir Putin said on Friday Russia's armed forces, backed by its nuclear arsenal, were ready to meet any aggression, declaring at a pro-Kremlin youth camp that foreign states should understand: "It's best not to mess with us."
(...)
"Russia is far from being involved in any large-scale conflicts," he said at the camp on the banks of Lake Seliger. "We don't want that and don't plan on it. But naturally, we should always be ready to repel any aggression towards Russia.
"Russia's partners...should understand it's best not to mess with us," said Putin, dressed casually in a grey sweater and light blue jeans.
"Thank God, I think no one is thinking of unleashing a large-scale conflict with Russia. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers."
(...)
"Russia is far from being involved in any large-scale conflicts," he said at the camp on the banks of Lake Seliger. "We don't want that and don't plan on it. But naturally, we should always be ready to repel any aggression towards Russia.
"Russia's partners...should understand it's best not to mess with us," said Putin, dressed casually in a grey sweater and light blue jeans.
"Thank God, I think no one is thinking of unleashing a large-scale conflict with Russia. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers."
This popped into my inbox:
Yes, it's pretty stupid in many ways but I don't think he really had much choice but to retaliate in kind. To have done nothing would have conveyed the impression of weakness, which he has to avoid at all costs (see below).
Russia has not been able to feed itself since Tsarist times, when it exported much more food to western Europe than she imports now. In the late 19th century, Britain imported most of her eggs and chicken carcases from Russia; and Ukraine (then part of the Tsarist empire) supplied much of Europe's wheat and barley. After 1917, collectivisation virtually destroyed Russian agriculture and Stalin's genocide in Ukraine, to eliminate the whole class of independent-minded peasants, created a virtual wasteland.
Neither Ukraine, nor Russia as a whole, have yet recovered from "70 years on the road to nowhere".
The poor will suffer least from Putin's retaliation; they cannot afford much imported food anyway. The main sufferers will be the smart restaurants in the cities which offer 'international' menus.
At the heart of the current crisis is Putin's determination to remain in power. He won his first presidential election on the back of the Second Chechen War; his loss of popularity after the last financial crisis was remedied by the Georgian War. He lost popularity again after the job swap with Medvedev in 2012.
Solution? Annex Crimea. Result: 80% popularity rating.
The intervention in eastern Ukraine has pushed that up further, to 87% (it briefly touched 90%). Putin has to hang on to power for two reasons:
Putin is not the formidable statesman or great diplomatic strategist which his propaganda machine has persuaded the West to see him as. He is really an over-promoted KGB thug who is beginning to run scared of his own people unless he can keep them on board by playing to their nationalism and paranoia. Even the M!7 disaster has not led him to cool things in eastern Ukraine because he cannot afford to.
The average Russian has been prepared to tolerate, or turn a blind eye to, the vast web of corruption created by Putin and his cronies, for so long as his/her material standard of living has continued to improve; he/she will even be prepared to accept a pause in improvement (such as will result from EU/US sanctions and Putin's response to them) if that can be presented as a patriotic response to Western persecution. But when sanctions begin to bite hard on to the financial interests of the Kremlin cronies, the likelihood of a palace coup will increase.
Watch this space.
Yes, it's pretty stupid in many ways but I don't think he really had much choice but to retaliate in kind. To have done nothing would have conveyed the impression of weakness, which he has to avoid at all costs (see below).
Russia has not been able to feed itself since Tsarist times, when it exported much more food to western Europe than she imports now. In the late 19th century, Britain imported most of her eggs and chicken carcases from Russia; and Ukraine (then part of the Tsarist empire) supplied much of Europe's wheat and barley. After 1917, collectivisation virtually destroyed Russian agriculture and Stalin's genocide in Ukraine, to eliminate the whole class of independent-minded peasants, created a virtual wasteland.
Neither Ukraine, nor Russia as a whole, have yet recovered from "70 years on the road to nowhere".
The poor will suffer least from Putin's retaliation; they cannot afford much imported food anyway. The main sufferers will be the smart restaurants in the cities which offer 'international' menus.
At the heart of the current crisis is Putin's determination to remain in power. He won his first presidential election on the back of the Second Chechen War; his loss of popularity after the last financial crisis was remedied by the Georgian War. He lost popularity again after the job swap with Medvedev in 2012.
Solution? Annex Crimea. Result: 80% popularity rating.
The intervention in eastern Ukraine has pushed that up further, to 87% (it briefly touched 90%). Putin has to hang on to power for two reasons:
- to realise his long-term aim of restoring to Russia as much as possible of the territory of the former Soviet Union; and
- because if he were to lose power, whether by popular revolution (unlikely) or by a palace coup (more likely), he would face imprisonment or exile for massive corruption.
Putin is not the formidable statesman or great diplomatic strategist which his propaganda machine has persuaded the West to see him as. He is really an over-promoted KGB thug who is beginning to run scared of his own people unless he can keep them on board by playing to their nationalism and paranoia. Even the M!7 disaster has not led him to cool things in eastern Ukraine because he cannot afford to.
The average Russian has been prepared to tolerate, or turn a blind eye to, the vast web of corruption created by Putin and his cronies, for so long as his/her material standard of living has continued to improve; he/she will even be prepared to accept a pause in improvement (such as will result from EU/US sanctions and Putin's response to them) if that can be presented as a patriotic response to Western persecution. But when sanctions begin to bite hard on to the financial interests of the Kremlin cronies, the likelihood of a palace coup will increase.
Watch this space.
Grumfutock said:
vxr8mate said:
I read today that Ukraine are applying to join NATO. If they are accepted do they qualify for military assistance or will it all be over and done by the time the papers are filed?
Not sure is the honest answer but I would suggest that IF they do and NATO wants to get involved the paperwork will be fast tracked, if not it will take years and be bogged down in admin 
And the past five months has also shown that it's not really in Ukraine's interests to encourage it to persue policies other than cooperation and peaceful coexistence with its neighbours.
AstonZagato said:
This popped into my inbox:
Yes, it's pretty stupid in many ways but I don't think he really had much choice but to retaliate in kind. To have done nothing would have conveyed the impression of weakness, which he has to avoid at all costs (see below).
Russia has not been able to feed itself since Tsarist times, when it exported much more food to western Europe than she imports now. In the late 19th century, Britain imported most of her eggs and chicken carcases from Russia; and Ukraine (then part of the Tsarist empire) supplied much of Europe's wheat and barley. After 1917, collectivisation virtually destroyed Russian agriculture and Stalin's genocide in Ukraine, to eliminate the whole class of independent-minded peasants, created a virtual wasteland.
Neither Ukraine, nor Russia as a whole, have yet recovered from "70 years on the road to nowhere".
The poor will suffer least from Putin's retaliation; they cannot afford much imported food anyway. The main sufferers will be the smart restaurants in the cities which offer 'international' menus.
At the heart of the current crisis is Putin's determination to remain in power. He won his first presidential election on the back of the Second Chechen War; his loss of popularity after the last financial crisis was remedied by the Georgian War. He lost popularity again after the job swap with Medvedev in 2012.
Solution? Annex Crimea. Result: 80% popularity rating.
The intervention in eastern Ukraine has pushed that up further, to 87% (it briefly touched 90%). Putin has to hang on to power for two reasons:
Putin is not the formidable statesman or great diplomatic strategist which his propaganda machine has persuaded the West to see him as. He is really an over-promoted KGB thug who is beginning to run scared of his own people unless he can keep them on board by playing to their nationalism and paranoia. Even the M!7 disaster has not led him to cool things in eastern Ukraine because he cannot afford to.
The average Russian has been prepared to tolerate, or turn a blind eye to, the vast web of corruption created by Putin and his cronies, for so long as his/her material standard of living has continued to improve; he/she will even be prepared to accept a pause in improvement (such as will result from EU/US sanctions and Putin's response to them) if that can be presented as a patriotic response to Western persecution. But when sanctions begin to bite hard on to the financial interests of the Kremlin cronies, the likelihood of a palace coup will increase.
Watch this space.
Hard to argue with that logic.Yes, it's pretty stupid in many ways but I don't think he really had much choice but to retaliate in kind. To have done nothing would have conveyed the impression of weakness, which he has to avoid at all costs (see below).
Russia has not been able to feed itself since Tsarist times, when it exported much more food to western Europe than she imports now. In the late 19th century, Britain imported most of her eggs and chicken carcases from Russia; and Ukraine (then part of the Tsarist empire) supplied much of Europe's wheat and barley. After 1917, collectivisation virtually destroyed Russian agriculture and Stalin's genocide in Ukraine, to eliminate the whole class of independent-minded peasants, created a virtual wasteland.
Neither Ukraine, nor Russia as a whole, have yet recovered from "70 years on the road to nowhere".
The poor will suffer least from Putin's retaliation; they cannot afford much imported food anyway. The main sufferers will be the smart restaurants in the cities which offer 'international' menus.
At the heart of the current crisis is Putin's determination to remain in power. He won his first presidential election on the back of the Second Chechen War; his loss of popularity after the last financial crisis was remedied by the Georgian War. He lost popularity again after the job swap with Medvedev in 2012.
Solution? Annex Crimea. Result: 80% popularity rating.
The intervention in eastern Ukraine has pushed that up further, to 87% (it briefly touched 90%). Putin has to hang on to power for two reasons:
- to realise his long-term aim of restoring to Russia as much as possible of the territory of the former Soviet Union; and
- because if he were to lose power, whether by popular revolution (unlikely) or by a palace coup (more likely), he would face imprisonment or exile for massive corruption.
Putin is not the formidable statesman or great diplomatic strategist which his propaganda machine has persuaded the West to see him as. He is really an over-promoted KGB thug who is beginning to run scared of his own people unless he can keep them on board by playing to their nationalism and paranoia. Even the M!7 disaster has not led him to cool things in eastern Ukraine because he cannot afford to.
The average Russian has been prepared to tolerate, or turn a blind eye to, the vast web of corruption created by Putin and his cronies, for so long as his/her material standard of living has continued to improve; he/she will even be prepared to accept a pause in improvement (such as will result from EU/US sanctions and Putin's response to them) if that can be presented as a patriotic response to Western persecution. But when sanctions begin to bite hard on to the financial interests of the Kremlin cronies, the likelihood of a palace coup will increase.
Watch this space.
I've said from the beginning that Putin won't back down, and I still think that. The trouble is, the further he backs himself into the corner, the less logical and reasoned his responses are going to get.
Foppo said:
Putin might not back down unless his people force him to which I can't see happening.
Not really, Putin is genuinely popular in Russia preceisely because he is perceived as not backing down and eating the st we ladled out to his two predecessors. He can't back down - that would start to erode his power base and be the beginning of his inevitable end.Ergo it was a crap plan playing chicken with him over Ukraine.
Unbelievable statement from Barroso - that it was not too late to find a political solution to the crisis . . . . . . Moscow has wanted a political solution for months, albeit a political solution that recognises Crimea is Russian sovereign territory, and has a figleaf of federalism elsewhere. Unless, of course, what Barroso means by a political solution is Moscow backing down, eating s
t, and agreeing to the EU/US/Ukrainian list of demands in their entiriety, which brings us back to the first point!dandarez said:
noone?
Wtf is noone?
Peter Noone? (about the only time I've ever heard the word).
Oh...
ahh, I see, you mean 'no one'!
Indefinite pronouns: 'nobody' (1 word) and 'no one' (2 words).
Lesson endeth.
Always here to help and assist.
sorry English is not my native language, thanks for the lesson anywayWtf is noone?
Peter Noone? (about the only time I've ever heard the word).
Oh...
ahh, I see, you mean 'no one'!
Indefinite pronouns: 'nobody' (1 word) and 'no one' (2 words).
Lesson endeth.
Always here to help and assist.
TheJimi said:
Hard to argue with that logic.
I've said from the beginning that Putin won't back down, and I still think that. The trouble is, the further he backs himself into the corner, the less logical and reasoned his responses are going to get.
Did anyone see his interview earlier? IIRC, it went something along the liens of "We have a lot of nukes, It would be a shame if we had to use them" I've said from the beginning that Putin won't back down, and I still think that. The trouble is, the further he backs himself into the corner, the less logical and reasoned his responses are going to get.
Octoposse said:
ow on earth is it in the interests of NATO's existing membership to admit Ukraine?
And the past five months has also shown that it's not really in Ukraine's interests to encourage it to pursue policies other than cooperation and peaceful coexistence with its neighbours.
+1. Few people in the UK have any interest in a war of any description with Russia and if improbable pompous hard men like Barroso fancy it they can get their combats on and do it themselves. Neither do we wish to act as stooges for the USA when we have a great deal more to lose than they do. We have all got to live together. Russia, the EU and the UK have strong interests in developing trade relations, not destroying them, and trying to face down Putin, who is only doing what he has no choice but to do what he is doing, is pointless. Instead of encouraging the Ukraine to join the EU and NATO, they should be developing a mutually satisfactory multilateral agreement which allows all parties to get along together. Who is driving this idiocy?And the past five months has also shown that it's not really in Ukraine's interests to encourage it to pursue policies other than cooperation and peaceful coexistence with its neighbours.
cardigankid said:
+1. Few people in the UK have any interest in a war of any description with Russia and if improbable pompous hard men like Barroso fancy it they can get their combats on and do it themselves. Neither do we wish to act as stooges for the USA when we have a great deal more to lose than they do. We have all got to live together. Russia, the EU and the UK have strong interests in developing trade relations, not destroying them, and trying to face down Putin, who is only doing what he has no choice but to do what he is doing, is pointless. Instead of encouraging the Ukraine to join the EU and NATO, they should be developing a mutually satisfactory multilateral agreement which allows all parties to get along together. Who is driving this idiocy?
Our non elected representatives, namely, Ms Ashton, Messrs Von Rompuy and Barroso who seem to have delusions of grandeur.I do wonder what these power hungry autocrats would do, once they get their hands on an independent European military force under their control?
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Sunday 31st August 12:21
First air-sea engagement. Two airplanes just bombed an Ukrainian coast guard vessel in the shores of Mariupol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVl7_NgoNDo start at 1:03, explosion at 1:16
Edited to add:
Not one, two coast guard ships sunk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVl7_NgoNDo start at 1:03, explosion at 1:16
Edited to add:
Not one, two coast guard ships sunk.
Edited by raftom on Sunday 31st August 18:24
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff