War with Russia
Discussion
scherzkeks said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
The expansion of NATO from 1999 onwards has nothing to do with 'expansionism' but everything to do with former Soviet occupied countries wanting to protect their rights to self determination. NATO doesn't 'recruit' members - countries apply to join.
NATO is a US-run intervention force. https://chomsky.info/20141107/scherzkeks said:
skyrover said:
Would you prefer pictures?
If your ideas were less simplistic, they probably wouldn't be representable in picture form. I'd encourage you to keep using the medium you feel most comfortable with.Do you even have a view on anything that differs from "yah, isn't Russia great!!!!!!" ?
Interesting piece R4 this morning. General Sir Richard Shirreff was in to promote his new book, "2017: War with Russia".
It's apparently a fictional story of what could be, but based on his sincere belief that the big ugly pinko commie bear is a real danger to the west and needs to be reined in, soonest.
Shirreff was the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe so knows his apples a bit.
The bottom line was that he thinks NATO needs to properly shore up Latvia, Estonia and other Baltic States with men and materiel and to make a stand, now, to show Ivan it can't carry on like this.
I think I'll have a read of his book at some point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shirreff
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/britain...
It's apparently a fictional story of what could be, but based on his sincere belief that the big ugly pinko commie bear is a real danger to the west and needs to be reined in, soonest.
Shirreff was the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe so knows his apples a bit.
The bottom line was that he thinks NATO needs to properly shore up Latvia, Estonia and other Baltic States with men and materiel and to make a stand, now, to show Ivan it can't carry on like this.
I think I'll have a read of his book at some point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shirreff
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/britain...
scherzkeks said:
NATO is a US-run intervention force. https://chomsky.info/20141107/
People won't learn, they'll keep prodding and keep racking up the tension.benjj said:
Interesting piece R4 this morning. General Sir Richard Shirreff was in to promote his new book, "2017: War with Russia".
It's apparently a fictional story of what could be, but based on his sincere belief that the big ugly pinko commie bear is a real danger to the west and needs to be reined in, soonest.
Shirreff was the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe so knows his apples a bit.
The bottom line was that he thinks NATO needs to properly shore up Latvia, Estonia and other Baltic States with men and materiel and to make a stand, now, to show Ivan it can't carry on like this.
I think I'll have a read of his book at some point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shirreff
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/britain...
I am struggling to understand how sending troops to Estonia and Latvia, is going to rein in Putin?It's apparently a fictional story of what could be, but based on his sincere belief that the big ugly pinko commie bear is a real danger to the west and needs to be reined in, soonest.
Shirreff was the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe so knows his apples a bit.
The bottom line was that he thinks NATO needs to properly shore up Latvia, Estonia and other Baltic States with men and materiel and to make a stand, now, to show Ivan it can't carry on like this.
I think I'll have a read of his book at some point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shirreff
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/britain...
It reminds me of the French castle scene in the quest for the Holy Grail, "you Russian Kniggits"
I suppose it comes down to the fact Estonia and Latvia have bugger all armed forces, so would be easy pickings if the Kremlin needs to drum up a little bit of nationalism, depending on the internal security/stability situation in Russia.
Essentially it makes them a less obvious target.
Essentially it makes them a less obvious target.
skyrover said:
I suppose it comes down to the fact Estonia and Latvia have bugger all armed forces, so would be easy pickings if the Kremlin needs to drum up a little bit of nationalism, depending on the internal security/stability situation in Russia.
Essentially it makes them a less obvious target.
What would Russia do with them? They are an economic drain on the EU, so why invade when they will become an economic millstone for Russia along with all the diplomatic fallout.Essentially it makes them a less obvious target.
They are part of NATO, so any invasion will trigger article 5, it is a pointless gesture.
Sounds more like controversial statements to sell his book.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
benjj said:
Interesting piece R4 this morning. General Sir Richard Shirreff was in to promote his new book, "2017: War with Russia".
It's apparently a fictional story of what could be, but based on his sincere belief that the big ugly pinko commie bear is a real danger to the west and needs to be reined in, soonest.
Shirreff was the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe so knows his apples a bit.
The bottom line was that he thinks NATO needs to properly shore up Latvia, Estonia and other Baltic States with men and materiel and to make a stand, now, to show Ivan it can't carry on like this.
I think I'll have a read of his book at some point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shirreff
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/britain...
I am struggling to understand how sending troops to Estonia and Latvia, is going to rein in Putin?It's apparently a fictional story of what could be, but based on his sincere belief that the big ugly pinko commie bear is a real danger to the west and needs to be reined in, soonest.
Shirreff was the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe so knows his apples a bit.
The bottom line was that he thinks NATO needs to properly shore up Latvia, Estonia and other Baltic States with men and materiel and to make a stand, now, to show Ivan it can't carry on like this.
I think I'll have a read of his book at some point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shirreff
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/britain...
It reminds me of the French castle scene in the quest for the Holy Grail, "you Russian Kniggits"
QuantumTokoloshi said:
skyrover said:
I suppose it comes down to the fact Estonia and Latvia have bugger all armed forces, so would be easy pickings if the Kremlin needs to drum up a little bit of nationalism, depending on the internal security/stability situation in Russia.
Essentially it makes them a less obvious target.
What would Russia do with them? They are an economic drain on the EU, so why invade when they will become an economic millstone for Russia along with all the diplomatic fallout.Essentially it makes them a less obvious target.
They are part of NATO, so any invasion will trigger article 5, it is a pointless gesture.
Sounds more like controversial statements to sell his book.
It's a prudent, preventative measure made at the request of the respective NATO members who are understandably spooked.
skyrover said:
Did anyone expect Russia to seize chunks of Ukraine?
It's a prudent, preventative measure made at the request of the respective NATO members who are understandably spooked.
Yes because Russia has never seen the Crimea as part of Ukraine, even when it agreed to pay to keep the black sea fleet there the terms were such that Sevastopol and surrounding area were not Ukraine.It's a prudent, preventative measure made at the request of the respective NATO members who are understandably spooked.
But ignoring the agreement about no east movement for Glasnost, which to some western politicians was ok because it was verbal. NATO wants/need an enemy, best not shout about China as it own the debt, and is not stealing land but making large islands to claim territorial water. Lets pick on the old enemy.
Yes we have probed Russia, still do, we being NATO, we don't get to hear about most of it. Yes we are scared because Russia controls gas. However looking at what NATO and the west has done around the world, I suggest people should worry more what is being done in their name than Russia is meant to be doing.
Phud said:
Yes because Russia has never seen the Crimea as part of Ukraine, even when it agreed to pay to keep the black sea fleet there the terms were such that Sevastopol and surrounding area were not Ukraine.
But ignoring the agreement about no east movement for Glasnost, which to some western politicians was ok because it was verbal. NATO wants/need an enemy, best not shout about China as it own the debt, and is not stealing land but making large islands to claim territorial water. Lets pick on the old enemy.
Yes we have probed Russia, still do, we being NATO, we don't get to hear about most of it. Yes we are scared because Russia controls gas. However looking at what NATO and the west has done around the world, I suggest people should worry more what is being done in their name than Russia is meant to be doing.
Your argument would hold more water if it was NATO seizing land and Russia was simply reacting. But ignoring the agreement about no east movement for Glasnost, which to some western politicians was ok because it was verbal. NATO wants/need an enemy, best not shout about China as it own the debt, and is not stealing land but making large islands to claim territorial water. Lets pick on the old enemy.
Yes we have probed Russia, still do, we being NATO, we don't get to hear about most of it. Yes we are scared because Russia controls gas. However looking at what NATO and the west has done around the world, I suggest people should worry more what is being done in their name than Russia is meant to be doing.
NATO is a defensive alliance, only existing because of the actions of the Soviet Union/Russia. You are quite correct, without an antagonist it would have little purpose, hence the winding down of operations in Europe, the removal of bases in Germany and troops going home to the USA and UK.
Sadly, as recent events have proved it seems we still need it.
Since NATO is not a county it makes it hard for it to seize land, however I accept your point, and respond with,
NATO has by proxy seized land by expanding into the buffer zone next to Russia, this is seen in Russia as aggressive. The new countries could have been brought under the umbrella without the show of presence.
Why do we need as NATO to be in the countries?
Also a question, how much money was spend by the EU in Ukraine? I'll accept Russia has too much in there, but I will suggest if it was not in Crimea then the warm water port in Syria would be where the Russian fleet was kept, fancy that for a bun fight?
NATO has by proxy seized land by expanding into the buffer zone next to Russia, this is seen in Russia as aggressive. The new countries could have been brought under the umbrella without the show of presence.
Why do we need as NATO to be in the countries?
Also a question, how much money was spend by the EU in Ukraine? I'll accept Russia has too much in there, but I will suggest if it was not in Crimea then the warm water port in Syria would be where the Russian fleet was kept, fancy that for a bun fight?
Phud said:
NATO has by proxy seized land by expanding into the buffer zone next to Russia, this is seen in Russia as aggressive.
Nonsense. You have to put yourself in the position of the countries next to Russia. Generations of being oppressed and bullied by their neighbour.The EU 'buffer zone" is really a bunch of countries who clamoured to escape the clutches of their neighbour and have self determination.
In terms of NATO - well NATO did not "seize" anything. All the countries WANT to be in NATO. Russia could have developed Alliances, but instead they always expect to dominate their neighbours. Their neighbours, given the chance, naturally told them to feck off and joined the EU and NATO.
The simple truth is that if Russia did not bully its neighbours for generations and actually tried to build alliances rather than try to dominate them, they would not be so isolated, chippy, paranoid and generally grumpy. But they don't know what they don't know.
Phud said:
Since NATO is not a county it makes it hard for it to seize land, however I accept your point, and respond with,
NATO has by proxy seized land by expanding into the buffer zone next to Russia, this is seen in Russia as aggressive. The new countries could have been brought under the umbrella without the show of presence.
Why do we need as NATO to be in the countries?
Also a question, how much money was spend by the EU in Ukraine? I'll accept Russia has too much in there, but I will suggest if it was not in Crimea then the warm water port in Syria would be where the Russian fleet was kept, fancy that for a bun fight?
I suppose it depends on whether we consider the citizens of Lativia, Lithuania, Estonia and other former eastern block countries the right to choose which countries/alliances they align with.NATO has by proxy seized land by expanding into the buffer zone next to Russia, this is seen in Russia as aggressive. The new countries could have been brought under the umbrella without the show of presence.
Why do we need as NATO to be in the countries?
Also a question, how much money was spend by the EU in Ukraine? I'll accept Russia has too much in there, but I will suggest if it was not in Crimea then the warm water port in Syria would be where the Russian fleet was kept, fancy that for a bun fight?
If the Soviet's had not been so brutal, Russia would be in a much better position today to encourage membership of it's own trading block, the "Customs Union" and would enjoy cordial and progressive relations with it's neighbors.
skyrover said:
I suppose it depends on whether we consider the citizens of Lativia, Lithuania, Estonia and other former eastern block countries the right to choose which countries/alliances they align with.
If the Soviet's had not been so brutal, Russia would be in a much better position today to encourage membership of it's own trading block, the "Customs Union" and would enjoy cordial and progressive relations with it's neighbors.
Ah, I agree and ask you to consider did we as the west, EU and NATO offer them a warming fireside with no money or did we entice them, as I fail to see how they pay their way. In either aspect.If the Soviet's had not been so brutal, Russia would be in a much better position today to encourage membership of it's own trading block, the "Customs Union" and would enjoy cordial and progressive relations with it's neighbors.
NATO 2PC of GDP and should have standard NATO equipment, neither point met. So why on earth were they allowed to join?
EU again. Do they give or take to the EU? Again why allowed or were there variance on the terms.
I have spent time in these areas and it's not going to shock anybody that the pro EU is not a defacto view, but the political view is EU and NATO.
I guess it boils down to who will be seen to start not what action cause a war.
Halb said:
scherzkeks said:
NATO is a US-run intervention force. https://chomsky.info/20141107/
People won't learn, they'll keep prodding and keep racking up the tension.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff