War in Ukraine/Med Cruising

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Statistical

Stop being a Putin apologist. There are no forces hostile to Russia surrounding them. Russia is a nuclear power with the second largest arsenal in the world.

If one of the Baltic nobodies invaded Russia they would be wiped out to the man and counter invaded and occupied likely for the next half century if not longer.

If by some miracle they "beat" the Russians all their cities would turn to radioactive glass.

Short of some future scifi weapon that can stop fission from happening rendering their MAD arsenal useless Russia isn't in danger from anyone about anything other than not being able to conquer its neighbors and forcibly annex enough territory to rebuild the soviet union.

If literally every nation in Europe was a member of NATO Russia would be under no threat at all. Their ability to annex territory that doesn't belong to them would be at an end though.

To funny..
As for countries should abide by UN Law.. that's hysterical coming from an American.

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes, we really don't know at this point. It could be like that. Or not. We'll see.

I may not know much about Russian culture or history. But I have a deep and fundamental understanding of the American psyche.

When England’s back was against the wall during the second world war we sent everything we had.

When Al-Qaeda took those buildings down we spent a trillion dollars and laid waste to at least two entire countries.

When Japan refused to quit after we carpet bombed their cities, we dropped two freaking nuclear bombs on them

Setting aside the question of whether we should or shouldn’t have done any of these things, one important point remains. When we get into a conflict, the violence goes next level.

In the same way that Putin sought to fabricate an aggression from Ukraine as a pretext for invasion, the US could get involved.

And then here’s what you get:

[laird]

Just how united is NATO ? , I wonder how strong the alliance is ,Of the 30 or so countries making up NATO only 6 are paying their way ,the agreement is that all members spend 2% of their GDP on weaponry . It's not just the Russians who will find sanctions punative , how long will Germany accept no gas for their heating etc and Turkey which has Russian weapon systems receives 45% of its gas supplies from Russia

Is it all part of Putin's end game to widen cracks in NATO ?

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Nobody is talking about putting nukes in Ukraine. The U.S. and Russia talked Ukraine OUT of their nukes, and promised to respect Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange.

So invading them doesn't set a great example for other countries we'd like to convince. Would Russia be taking territory, or calling Ukraine a "non-state" if they still had nukes?

Russia here is talking about conventional weapons. I believe Russia is mad that the U.S. is sending anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, which greatly raises the stakes on armed invasion. But they're also mad that Ukraine has ANY relationship with the west, or that the Ukraine can make provisions for her own security.

I thought the Ukrainians already hade a couple of nukes hidden away that they could refurbish and bring into action.

This just in....
Berlin has pledged to do their part and will be sending the Ukrainians a shipment of Panzerfaust and a few of those hard hitting Panzerschreck.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by laird

Just how united is NATO ? , I wonder how strong the alliance is ,Of the 30 or so countries making up NATO only 6 are paying their way ,the agreement is that all members spend 2% of their GDP on weaponry . It's not just the Russians who will find sanctions punative , how long will Germany accept no gas for their heating etc and Turkey which has Russian weapon systems receives 45% of its gas supplies from Russia

Is it all part of Putin's end game to widen cracks in NATO ?

That's his plan.

We'll see how well it works out.

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by laird

Just how united is NATO ? , I wonder how strong the alliance is ,Of the 30 or so countries making up NATO only 6 are paying their way ,the agreement is that all members spend 2% of their GDP on weaponry . It's not just the Russians who will find sanctions punative , how long will Germany accept no gas for their heating etc and Turkey which has Russian weapon systems receives 45% of its gas supplies from Russia

Is it all part of Putin's end game to widen cracks in NATO ?

The alliance is only as strong as its weakest link and the smaller nations are not pulling their weight.

Also worth pointing out here is that 20 years of war against illiterate Afghan goat herders has resulted in a US that's pretty much spent, whereas Russia is fresh and rested in its own backyard.

This is what it looks like on the surface, anyway.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

Also worth pointing out here is that 20 years of war against illiterate Afghan goat herders has resulted in a US that's pretty much spent, whereas Russia is fresh and rested in its own backyard.

This is what it looks like on the surface, anyway.

I wouldn't put too much stock in that. The military itself isn't spent. The sentiment of the public (and public support for war) in the U.S. is more the problem. But Putin is certainly doing his part to resurrect their interest.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by hedgeworth

I may not know much about Russian culture or history. But I have a deep and fundamental understanding of the American psyche.

When England’s back was against the wall during the second world war we sent everything we had.

When Al-Qaeda took those buildings down we spent a trillion dollars and laid waste to at least two entire countries.

When Japan refused to quit after we carpet bombed their cities, we dropped two freaking nuclear bombs on them

Setting aside the question of whether we should or shouldn’t have done any of these things, one important point remains. When we get into a conflict, the violence goes next level.

In the same way that Putin sought to fabricate an aggression from Ukraine as a pretext for invasion, the US could get involved.

And then here’s what you get:
Attachment 253427

Don't underestimate the Russian psyche.. by the time the US entered the war in Dec 1941 the Russians had stopped Hitlers advance on Moscow and by January 1942 were pushing them back.
In fact by the time Allied troops came ashore in June 1944 the Russians had already fought three years of devastating war on the Eastern Front, taking and inflicting appalling casualties. The enormous and pivotal battles of Stalingrad and Kursk had been fought and won, and the Axis retreat towards Germany was well underway.
The backs of the cream of Germany had already been broken.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Don't underestimate the Russian psyche.. by the time the US entered the war in Dec 1941 the Russians had stopped Hitlers advance on Moscow and by January 1942 were pushing them back.
In fact by the time Allied troops came ashore in June 1944 the Russians had already fought three years of devastating war on the Eastern Front, taking and inflicting appalling casualties. The enormous and pivotal battles of Stalingrad and Kursk had been fought and won, and the Axis retreat towards Germany was well underway.
The back of the cream of Germany had already been broken.

That might be true if the Germans were attacking Russia.

In this case, Russia is the aggressor, against the Ukrainians.

The ruble is dropping in value. So there might be some hardships coming to the Russian people for a military action that they don't necessarily agree with.

I wouldn't underestimate the Russian people's ability to see through Putin.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

That might be true if the Germans were attacking Russia.

In this case, Russia is the aggressor, against the Ukrainians.

The ruble is dropping in value. So there might be some hardships coming to the Russian people for a military action that they don't necessarily agree with.

I wouldn't underestimate the Russian people's ability to see through Putin.

We were talking psyches.. regardless of what Russians may think today, if American boots hit the ground in Russia I think they've demonstrated their capability quite well in the past when it comes to defending the Motherland.
America's capabilities since WW2 are well known.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

HOWEVER, the facts are mostly correct and this is somewhat relevant as it goes to a "pattern of behavior" -- for better understanding what our real motives were in passing out $5 billion in Ukraine in 2013.

You keep mentioning that the U.S. overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2013.

It sounded curious to me, so I did a little digging.

This is what the Washington Post says about that:

In 2014, RT, the Russian propaganda channel, twisted a statement by a State Department official to claim that the United States had spent $5 billion to support the protests. The official, in 2013, had referred to $5 billion in U.S. aid given to Ukraine since it became independent in 1991.



.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by boatman61

We were talking psyches.. regardless of what Russians may think today, if American boots hit the ground in Russia I think they've demonstrated their capability quite well in the past when it comes to defending the Motherland.
America's capabilities since WW2 are well known.

Now who is being silly? The U.S. has no interest in invading Russia.

[Rubicon King]

We can only hope Ukraine stands for themselves with all of the weaponry that the US has sent them. Make swiss cheese out of about 300 tanks with the 2500 javelins, eliminate about 40,000 soldiers and Vlad will have problems at home. We will see shortly how good US arms are against the Modern Russian Bear. To keep this post about Sailing, I would advise against sailing in the black sea. for a while

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You never understood even the most basic things about the situation, and this results in error after error.


Of course Ukraine is no threat to Russia, never has been. That has never been the question. It is the hostile U.S., working relentlessly against Russian interests, starting from the 90's when Russia was still very friendly towards us, undermining previously friendly governments in Russia's neighbors, giving billions to anti-Russian elements in countries which are not generally unfriendly to Russia, isolating them, surrounding them with hostile forces. That's our policy and we've followed it relentlessly. THAT is what is a threat to Russia, and why they've put their foot down. Why is this so hard to understand? Without understanding how they think and why they think that, you'll never have a clue about what this is about or how it can be solved. You may disagree with them, but you don't have a right not to understand them. None of it justifies their actions, but it EXPLAINS them, and without that understanding you're just lost in this situation.

[Lake-Effect]

Interesting opinion on the possible motivations behind Putin's move on Ukraine.

It's pretty much in accord with DH's take.

(bolding mine)

From outside the alliance, Putin has seen [NATO] expand continually. He says he does not seek a revived Soviet Union but a buffer zone that would be, as he put it in a long essay last year, “not anti-Russia”. John Kennedy wanted a similar cordon sanitaire when Khrushchev tried to put nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. Putin suggested on Tuesday that Ukraine should return to the strategy of neutrality that was in the Ukrainian constitution until the “coup” that toppled the Yanukovych government in 2014, and brought pro-US nationalists to power. After all, a majority of Ukrainian MPs then believed that the country’s fragile unity would be more secure if it was not pulled and pushed by rival pressures from Moscow and the west.

Nato’s stance over membership for Ukraine was what sparked Russia’s takeover of Crimea in 2014. Putin feared the port of Sevastopol, home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, would soon belong to the Americans. The western narrative sees Crimea as the first use of force to change territorial borders in Europe since the second world war. Putin sees this as selective amnesia, forgetting that Nato bombed Serbia in 1999 to detach Kosovo and make it an independent state.

Convinced that Nato will never reject Ukraine’s membership, Putin has now taken his own steps to block it. By invading Donetsk and Luhansk, he has created a “frozen conflict”, knowing the alliance cannot admit countries that don’t control all their borders. Frozen conflicts already cripple Georgia and Moldova, which are also split by pro-Russian statelets. Now Ukraine joins the list. There is speculation about what will happen next but from his standpoint, it is not actually necessary to send troops further into the country. He has already taken what he needs.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Now who is being silly? The U.S. has no interest in invading Russia.

Guess you missed the bit.. We were talking Psyche's.
Nothing to do with invasion.. 'IF' is a theoretical word.