Ukraine Thread

[Gilrandir]

So you missed the part where the nukes were only recently modernized to make them more lethal.

So they had been not nukes nor lethal? One can feel threatened enough to know just of any kinds of nuclear missiles pointed at you. But that acute feeling of danger must have been blunted since 1960. It can serve no incentive to start fussing around just at the moment. Besides, you were the one to claim that 10 years is enough for any acute feelings to dissipate.

And you missed the part where it clearly states that the german government bowed to NATO pressure.

I maintain that the German government is powerful enough to act on its own. Perhaps the said pressure was just an excuse to justify the deployment or (more plausibly) it chimed with what the Germans themselves wished or planned to do, so Germany and NATO met each other half way.

[Husar]

So they had been not nukes nor lethal? One can feel threatened enough to know just of any kinds of nuclear missiles pointed at you. But that acute feeling of danger must have been blunted since 1960. It can serve no incentive to start fussing around just at the moment. Besides, you were the one to claim that 10 years is enough for any acute feelings to dissipate.

I don't remember that but even if I did, they were only recently modified. Whether you understand how a modification can make them more lethal is irrelevant.

I maintain that the German government is powerful enough to act on its own. Perhaps the said pressure was just an excuse to justify the deployment or (more plausibly) it chimed with what the Germans themselves wished or planned to do, so Germany and NATO met each other half way.

I'm glad that you always have a better opinion than the experts on every subject. Surely some random guy from Ukraine must know this better than a reporter who deals with these political topics every day.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What Gilandir was talking about:

"We in Russia always thought that Russians and Ukrainians are one people. And I believe so today," Putin told a rally on Red Square marking the first anniversary of Crimea's "unification" with Russia.

People asked why the CIA et al failed to foresee this and I think the answer is actually as simple as it is sad - we have ceased to see war as a tool of statecraft. In the West when we go to war now it is essentially prompted by a humanitarian argument - Afghanistan and Iraq are the exceptions as they are essentially American Wars of Vengeance, but otherwise war has become something of a humanitarian exercise in Europe. Recall that in 1982 the British were unprepared for Argentina to invade the Falklands, they believed the Argentinians would continue to negotiate until both sides were satisfied or the questions became moot.

I think the same was believed in Europe - the politicians believed Putin would continue to negotiate and not deploy Spetnatz in Crimea, and then they didn't think he would escalate.

It's worth pointing out, by the way, that this assumption was at the political level, so it may be moot as to whether or not analysts in the basement saw this coming or not.

[CrossLOPER]

People asked why the CIA et al failed to foresee this and I think the answer is actually as simple as it is sad - we have ceased to see war as a tool of statecraft.

So the expansion of NATO was not an extension of the containment policy used against the USSR, and was totally peaceful in its intentions?

Right, thanks for clearing that up.

Also, clearly a sliver of land is worth nuclear war.

[Husar]

Also, clearly a sliver of land is worth nuclear war.

I think most British people would rather die in a nuclear fire than let the Bolsheviks have Mariupol.

[Beskar]

I think most British people would rather die in a nuclear fire than let the Bolsheviks have Mariupol.

Only because you would give him Warsaw too, Neville.

[CrossLOPER]

Only because you would give him Warsaw too, Neville.

Yeah, kinda like Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Nigeria, Kenya and now Tunisia were given to IS and Egypt was given to an even more repressive dictator. What, do you want the next Witcher title that badly?

[Gilrandir]

Whether you understand how a modification can make them more lethal is irrelevant.

"Lethal" as an adjective doesn't have degrees of comparison. The same as "just", "right", "wooden", "silken" and many others.

I'm glad that you always have a better opinion than the experts on every subject. Surely some random guy from Ukraine must know this better than a reporter who deals with these political topics every day.

You can say use it as a reply to almost every post people send on the forum. The whole forum is about exprsessing one's own opinion on things, experts' opinions can be obtained elsewhere.

I think the same was believed in Europe - the politicians believed Putin would continue to negotiate and not deploy Spetnatz in Crimea, and then they didn't think he would escalate.

Why do you use the past tense? Europe still DOESN'T believe in any plans for escalation Putin might have. And after every advance made by the separatists in Donbas Europe lumps it saying to itself: "Well, this was definitely the last time."

I think most British people would rather die in a nuclear fire than let the Bolsheviks have Mariupol.

And you seem to have an opposite opinion: "Let the Bolsheviks have whatever they want as long as we don't see any nukes above our heads".
As it is often the way with things, there should be some sensible position and reaction by Europe which (i.e. the position) lies in the middle between the extremes.

[Brenus]

“the politicians believed Putin would continue to negotiate and not deploy Spetnatz in Crimea, and then they didn't think he would escalate.” I agree with the last part, but I disagree on the first one. They believed that Putin wouldn’t dare to escalate. Based on past experience, they observed rightly that each time Russia was backtracking and couldn’t really react. They believed that negotiation would take place and at the same time, the “pro-western” side would take the grip of power, and smoked by the deliberately slow negotiation, Putin (Russia) had no choice than the fait accompli.
The Georgian case showed that Russian army had enormous difficulties in deploying and to achieve even simple task.
Because Crimea was considered as Ukrainian, the prospect of an invasion from Russian’s borders was not really considered and even so the Ukrainian Army would have resisted any invasion. This was proved wrong. The use of Spetnatz was possible only because the locals were favourable to the invaders. Gilrandir will not agree, but this is a fact. No resistance at all was even tried, really.

“Tunisia” Not yet.

[Husar]

"Lethal" as an adjective doesn't have degrees of comparison. The same as "just", "right", "wooden", "silken" and many others.

How can someone or something be "most lethal" out of a group then?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...sniper-5088822
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...erican_battles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02fvf9r

Wouldn't the most lethal thing be more lethal than the others?

You can say use it as a reply to almost every post people send on the forum. The whole forum is about exprsessing one's own opinion on things, experts' opinions can be obtained elsewhere.

I think you're wrong.

And you seem to have an opposite opinion: "Let the Bolsheviks have whatever they want as long as we don't see any nukes above our heads".
As it is often the way with things, there should be some sensible position and reaction by Europe which (i.e. the position) lies in the middle between the extremes.

Yes, how is demonizing Putin going to get us there? In my opinion all the Hitler-comparisons suggest that we can only stop him through all-out war, by bringing Russia to its knees and then making it bend over backwards. Your opinion on my opinion is wrong by the way.

[CrossLOPER]

Why do you use the past tense? Europe still DOESN'T believe in any plans for escalation Putin might have. And after every advance made by the separatists in Donbas Europe lumps it saying to itself: "Well, this was definitely the last time."

Do you know something we don't?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So the expansion of NATO was not an extension of the containment policy used against the USSR, and was totally peaceful in its intentions?

Right, thanks for clearing that up.

You're welcome - from a European perspective "NATO" is a primarily defensive alliance, it's secondary function is to be a sort of club for militarily friendly nations who are also democracies. In fact in Europe NATO and the EU a less and less distinguishable.

You also have to ask, why did the Baltic Republics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria... etc want to join NATO? The answer is that they fear Russian aggression, with historical justification. This fear is currently being realised in Ukraine, which did not join NATO.

Also, clearly a sliver of land is worth nuclear war.

It's more a belief that conventional war with Putin is inevitable, because he doesn't occupy our reality.

I think most British people would rather die in a nuclear fire than let the Bolsheviks have Mariupol.

See above - the long you wait the worse it will be - like an amputation - which lots of us will probably need once we've fought the Russians. I'm hoping to only lose a foot.

[Montmorency]

It's more a belief that conventional war with Putin is inevitable, because he doesn't occupy our reality.

Nah - Putin is, as you say, a fascist. He's posturing out of a position of weakness. The more he loses, the more he has to commit, or else its international humiliation, domestic privation, and potentially his own ouster.

[Husar]

You also have to ask, why did the Baltic Republics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria... etc want to join NATO? The answer is that they fear Russian aggression, with historical justification. This fear is currently being realised in Ukraine, which did not join NATO.

Meh, why does half of South America and the Middle East hate the USA? Does that make the USA just as evil and aggressive or even more so?

It's more a belief that conventional war with Putin is inevitable, because he doesn't occupy our reality.

If he doesn't occupy our reality then war is not even necessary, but either way it is not inevitable.

See above - the long you wait the worse it will be - like an amputation - which lots of us will probably need once we've fought the Russians. I'm hoping to only lose a foot.

I don't intend to fight the Russians.
And there's a chance that you will just make a peaceful solution impossible by attacking right now. But apparently you have absolutely no doubt about your conclusions.

[Viking]

So the expansion of NATO was not an extension of the containment policy used against the USSR, and was totally peaceful in its intentions?

No, it must clearly have been with the intention to invade Russia and paint the Kremlin pink.

No resistance at all was even tried, really.

Erm.

[CrossLOPER]

No, it must clearly have been with the intention to invade Russia and paint the Kremlin pink.

Precisely.

[Brenus]

"Erm." Yeah, I know. Stalingrad was a battle for pussy cats...

[CrossLOPER]

Erm.

Why do they insist on butchering the pronunciation of Khruschev's name like that? It's not recognizable.