War with Russia
Discussion
skyrover said:
Anything that forces Russia back to the negotiating table has to be worth a try.
No need to 'force' them . . . Moscow has wanted a deal for 11 months now. But 'negotiation' means just that . . . not the expectation that Russia will just cave in and accede to the list of the West's demands.Octoposse said:
skyrover said:
Anything that forces Russia back to the negotiating table has to be worth a try.
No need to 'force' them . . . Moscow has wanted a deal for 11 months now. But 'negotiation' means just that . . . not the expectation that Russia will just cave in and accede to the list of the West's demands.There is one small problem... it benefits only Russia.
Octoposse said:
rrelevant to the point that the majority of people who actually live there thought of themselves as Russian, and wanted to be Russian.
Your point is irrelevant; we don't know it because voter intimidation prevented us from knowing it. I suspect even if there was a majority at the time the little green men arrived, that majority has melted like snow off a dike with the economy imploding. A UN supervised intimidation free plebecite done now would be enlightening, a dose of reality overcoming their propaganda- or intimidation-induced fealty to Putin and his promise of Russian jam on tomorrow's toast.pete a said:
Not read the entire thread but why is it ok for the USA to supply weapons to the Ukraine? I'm fairly certain that if Russia started arming a government formed after a coup to a east leaning mob in Mexico the Americans would be going mental.
Yes, they would. However, you must remember that these actions were covert. The US has had mercenaries on the ground since the Maidan, and the tapped phone calls between Victoria Nuland and opponents of the previous (legit) government in Ukraine at the time shed light on US plans and involvement for the Ukraine post Yanukovich. The whole thing was started over a trade deal with the EU that stalled, and which inovled a counter-offer from the Russians. The US sees Russia as a major economic threat, particularly since they have solidified closer economic ties with China, which has put the dollar's reserve currency status under increased pressure.
We must also remember in all of this that Ukraine was free and had a democratically elected president in the run-up to the coup. What the US has done is a breach of international law and and the current government is illegitimate. The Russian response has been rather predictable.
Sadly, we must now see how far Western officials are willing to take this situation. Russia indicated (in a Süddeutsche Zeitung piece) recently that if the US goes through with openly shipping weapons to Ukraine, Russia will take it as a declaration of war.
scherzkeks said:
Yes, they would. However, you must remember that these actions were covert. The US has had mercenaries on the ground since the Maidan, and the tapped phone calls between Victoria Nuland and opponents of the previous (legit) government in Ukraine at the time shed light on US plans and involvement for the Ukraine post Yanukovich.
Where is your proof?We have plenty of evidence for Russia's involvement... very little for anyone else
These articles are quite interesting as well. It would seem as though hell has truly frozen over with Kissenger and Chomsky agreeing that the US needs to back off.
http://www.alternet.org/world/incredibly-chomsky-a...
http://www.mintpressnews.com/chomsky-kissinger-agr...
http://www.alternet.org/world/incredibly-chomsky-a...
http://www.mintpressnews.com/chomsky-kissinger-agr...
scherzkeks said:
The US sees Russia as a major economic threat, particularly since they have solidified closer economic ties with China, which has put the dollar's reserve currency status under increased pressure.
Your whole post is delusional b
ks, but this bit really takes the biscuit, even for a tin-foil hat fruit-loop.As to a declaration of war, that my friend is bluster, but very dangerous bluster - most of all for Russia.
http://www.alternet.org/world/incredibly-chomsky-a...
Of particular interest:
"In other words, Kissinger blames the U.S. and Europe for the current catastrophe in Ukraine. Kissinger does not begin at the point where there is military conflict. He recognizes that the problems in Ukraine began with Europe and the U.S. seeking to lure Ukraine into an alliance with Western powers with promises of economic aid. This led to the demonstrations in Kiev. And, as we learned from Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, the U.S. spent $5 billion in building opposition to the government in Ukraine."
Of particular interest:
"In other words, Kissinger blames the U.S. and Europe for the current catastrophe in Ukraine. Kissinger does not begin at the point where there is military conflict. He recognizes that the problems in Ukraine began with Europe and the U.S. seeking to lure Ukraine into an alliance with Western powers with promises of economic aid. This led to the demonstrations in Kiev. And, as we learned from Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, the U.S. spent $5 billion in building opposition to the government in Ukraine."
skyrover said:
Where is your proof?
We have plenty of evidence for Russia's involvement... very little for anyone else
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-krise-400-us-soeldner-von-academi-kaempfen-gegen-separatisten-a-968745.htmlWe have plenty of evidence for Russia's involvement... very little for anyone else
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/amerikanische-s...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-11/400-black...
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2015/01...
scherzkeks said:
skyrover said:
Where is your proof?
We have plenty of evidence for Russia's involvement... very little for anyone else
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-krise-400-us-soeldner-von-academi-kaempfen-gegen-separatisten-a-968745.htmlWe have plenty of evidence for Russia's involvement... very little for anyone else
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/amerikanische-s...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-11/400-black...
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2015/01...
skyrover said:
Some mercenaries fighting in Ukraine are very different from the governmental coup you keep giving the west credit for.
Yes, that has been covered. According to Nuland, the US spent 5 billion building opposition in Ukraine. And those mercs amount to military involvement. 
scherzkeks said:
skyrover said:
Some mercenaries fighting in Ukraine are very different from the governmental coup you keep giving the west credit for.
Yes, that has been covered. According to Nuland, the US spent 5 billion building opposition in Ukraine. And those mercs amount to military involvement. http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/more-ru...
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2008/08/...
Please note the date of the articles....
This land would have been annexed regardless of western involvement or not.
No concession, just a statement of fact
EDIT: I would like to add, you will find Chechen's, Georgians, Poles and people from all over Europe fighting with Ukraine against Russian "separatists"
Latest Vice news dispatch covers this nicely
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZGHDlODo3Q
It does not take a brain surgeon to work out why they might be there. Brush up a little on your Russian/Soviet history
EDIT: I would like to add, you will find Chechen's, Georgians, Poles and people from all over Europe fighting with Ukraine against Russian "separatists"
Latest Vice news dispatch covers this nicely
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZGHDlODo3Q
It does not take a brain surgeon to work out why they might be there. Brush up a little on your Russian/Soviet history
Edited by skyrover on Monday 9th February 10:51
Bluebarge said:
Your whole post is delusional bks, but this bit really takes the biscuit, even for a tin-foil hat fruit-loop.
As to a declaration of war, that my friend is bluster, but very dangerous bluster - most of all for Russia.
A little bit of wee came out when I read that, so much did I laugh.ks, but this bit really takes the biscuit, even for a tin-foil hat fruit-loop.As to a declaration of war, that my friend is bluster, but very dangerous bluster - most of all for Russia.
superkartracer said:
It was the shelling of a rebel held chemical plant.Fairly big bang though... Apparently no one was killed which is quite amazing.
http://20committee.com/2015/02/08/is-this-the-end-...
The last few days have brought depressing developments for those who care about European freedom. Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande went to Moscow to present a Ukraine “peace plan” that actually had been suggested to them by Vladimir Putin. Unsurprisingly, this went nowhere and Merkel has already pronounced that there is no military solution to the Russo-Ukrainian War, a message that was amplified by the Munich Security Conference, Bavaria’s best-catered talkshop, where the lack of Western resolve to confront Russian aggression was made abundantly clear. In Munich, Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a rare European NATO leader who has a clear picture of events, told Merkel that the choice was “surrender or arm Ukraine” — to no effect.
It’s therefore unsurprising that European leaders are in full-panic mode about what Putin will do next. The serious possibility that the Chekist-in-Charge in the Kremlin will seek more provocations, and possibly a major war, to achieve his strategic aim of establishing Russian control over the former Soviet space and therefore dominance over Eastern Europe, is reducing weak-willed Western leaders like Merkel and Hollande to political incoherence.
It seems to have never occurred to them, nor Obama and his national security staff either, that crushing the Russian economy with sanctions might bring more, not less, aggression from Putin, even though that was an obvious possibility. Jaws dropped this week when Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who until recently was NATO’s civilian head, stated that it is highly likely that Russia will soon stage a violent provocation against a Baltic state, which being NATO countries, will cause a crisis over the Alliance’s Article 5 provision for collective self-defense. Rasmussen merely said what all defense experts who understand Putin already know, but this was not the sort of reality-based assessment that Western politicians are used to hearing.
There are two core reasons for Western collapse of will before Putin’s decidedly modest aggression in Ukraine. The first is that Western and Central Europe have so substantially disarmed since the end of the Cold War. Hardly any European NATO countries spend the “required” two percent of GDP on defense, and no amount of American scolding about it seems to make any difference. As a result, European NATO militaries, with few exceptions, possess a mere shadow of the combat power they had two decades ago. Several of them have abandoned tanks altogether, while even Germany has so cut back its combat power that there are only four battalions each of armor and artillery in the whole Bundeswehr.
But the moral collapse of Europe is even worse than the military collapse. All the armaments in the world do no good when the will to use them is absent. Since the Cold War’s end, Western Europeans have convinced themselves of many things that simply are not true. Their optimistic worldview, which really is the highest form of the WEIRD Weltanschauung, abandoned any notion that monsters might still exist, and many Europeans, including most of their leaders, seem unable to accept the new reality that Vladimir Putin has forced upon them. Yet denying that Russia aims to change the European order, and will use force to do so, will not stop Kremlin misdeeds, actually it will only
encourage more Russian aggression.
He has no need to undermine NATO strategy, since none exists in reality, while he continues to hack away at the foundations of the Western Alliance through Special War, particularly espionage and subversion....
The last few days have brought depressing developments for those who care about European freedom. Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande went to Moscow to present a Ukraine “peace plan” that actually had been suggested to them by Vladimir Putin. Unsurprisingly, this went nowhere and Merkel has already pronounced that there is no military solution to the Russo-Ukrainian War, a message that was amplified by the Munich Security Conference, Bavaria’s best-catered talkshop, where the lack of Western resolve to confront Russian aggression was made abundantly clear. In Munich, Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a rare European NATO leader who has a clear picture of events, told Merkel that the choice was “surrender or arm Ukraine” — to no effect.
It’s therefore unsurprising that European leaders are in full-panic mode about what Putin will do next. The serious possibility that the Chekist-in-Charge in the Kremlin will seek more provocations, and possibly a major war, to achieve his strategic aim of establishing Russian control over the former Soviet space and therefore dominance over Eastern Europe, is reducing weak-willed Western leaders like Merkel and Hollande to political incoherence.
It seems to have never occurred to them, nor Obama and his national security staff either, that crushing the Russian economy with sanctions might bring more, not less, aggression from Putin, even though that was an obvious possibility. Jaws dropped this week when Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who until recently was NATO’s civilian head, stated that it is highly likely that Russia will soon stage a violent provocation against a Baltic state, which being NATO countries, will cause a crisis over the Alliance’s Article 5 provision for collective self-defense. Rasmussen merely said what all defense experts who understand Putin already know, but this was not the sort of reality-based assessment that Western politicians are used to hearing.
There are two core reasons for Western collapse of will before Putin’s decidedly modest aggression in Ukraine. The first is that Western and Central Europe have so substantially disarmed since the end of the Cold War. Hardly any European NATO countries spend the “required” two percent of GDP on defense, and no amount of American scolding about it seems to make any difference. As a result, European NATO militaries, with few exceptions, possess a mere shadow of the combat power they had two decades ago. Several of them have abandoned tanks altogether, while even Germany has so cut back its combat power that there are only four battalions each of armor and artillery in the whole Bundeswehr.
But the moral collapse of Europe is even worse than the military collapse. All the armaments in the world do no good when the will to use them is absent. Since the Cold War’s end, Western Europeans have convinced themselves of many things that simply are not true. Their optimistic worldview, which really is the highest form of the WEIRD Weltanschauung, abandoned any notion that monsters might still exist, and many Europeans, including most of their leaders, seem unable to accept the new reality that Vladimir Putin has forced upon them. Yet denying that Russia aims to change the European order, and will use force to do so, will not stop Kremlin misdeeds, actually it will only
encourage more Russian aggression.
He has no need to undermine NATO strategy, since none exists in reality, while he continues to hack away at the foundations of the Western Alliance through Special War, particularly espionage and subversion....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff