Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Germans said the same thing about Stalingrad. But to be realistic, Russia would have to mobilize a million man army which would take a while and allow Ukraine to prepare and would only need days to get their army ready for defense. Kiev isn't under any kind of airborne threat unless Russia can defeat capable anti aircraft positions from the air (it can't). As far as tech, its a battle of equals. Numbers would need to be 4 to 1 to win over battle hardened Ukrainian infantry and Russia cannot muster over a million men for an invasion. This doesn't even consider the defensive weapons NATO would transfer and make short work of 1970's tanks.
The annexation followed a referendum...I guess the right to self-determination can be applied only when convenient...
A referendum that omits several options can not be called a real referendum. The fact that 97% voted in favour is fishy in itself. Go and look up figures for other referendums worldwide and you’ll realize that numbers don’t usual above 70%. I can buy that many Crimeans wanted to join Russia, but the numbers are too extreme to be plausible.
I actually don’t care whether they join Russia or not, but a legitimate referendum it is not.
Quote:
Proven cases??
Where do we start?? And we do not talk only just political interference but actual, bloody coup d'etat...
Yes, I keep forgetting that we live in the 21st century where blaming the US has become trendy. How much interference did the Soviets engage in? Cuba, Germany, Hungary, Tzechoslovakia, Afghanistan.
In a world with nearly 200 countries, somehow magically the US is the only one that interferes. Everyone else is just a sweet innocent little lamb. The truth is that every country with power engages in espionage and interference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v
Russia air force alone would annihilate Ukraine...and I would nto count too much on NATO.
Russia is not stupid, it does not want Ukraine....it simply does not want a NATO base in it, that's all
It’s not up to Russia to decide who gets to join NATO, just like it’s not up to the US to determine who gets to join BRICS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v
I'm not a "pro Russian" but I can definitely see where the West is going with this...it is so obvious...
For all the propaganda done in the West, Russia easily has 10 times as much. To me it’s pretty obvious why Putin took over.
He wants to give Russia access to southern waters
He knows that a lot of people are still hung on Iraq, so he can use that as a distraction
He wants to increase Russia’s population.
He wants to distract Russians of the domestic problems
He wants to show himself as a strongman
I’m not anti-Russian, but I grow tired of the endless whitewashing it keeps getting on here. The bottom line is that most people are too dumb to understand multilayered politics. It’s always about dealing in absolutes where one side is good while the other is evil. People have a hard time grasping the concept that things are not mutually exclusive. Both the US and Russia as well as many other powers (China, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Iran...) are imperialistic in their own way.
The fact that I’m all inclusive means that I’m automatically right. I blame everyone for everything because I know what humans are capable of.
Ironically, Russia has been creating the demand for NATO bases for the past 68 years and it doesn't seem to be slowing down. Russian logic: we attack neighbors and to prevent them from wanting to join a defensive alliance. LOL
They haven't been a defensive alliance since the end of the Soviet Union. There are numerous instances of offensive wars since which were initiated by the US and NATO. The initiative for aggression lay with the forces which were ascendant. Clearly, Russia and non-aligned states have been on the defensive. That is what one would expect when one side gets the upper hand in a global war that we've witnessed since the end of Second World War. Regardless of whether it was the Americans or the Russians, one side would continue to press its advantage in the balance of power. Evidence of that was clearly stated in the response by GHWB to the Russians when they complained about NATO expansion.
Germans said the same thing about Stalingrad. But to be realistic, Russia would have to mobilize a million man army which would take a while and allow Ukraine to prepare and would only need days to get their army ready for defense. Kiev isn't under any kind of airborne threat unless Russia can defeat capable anti aircraft positions from the air (it can't). As far as tech, its a battle of equals. Numbers would need to be 4 to 1 to win over battle hardened Ukrainian infantry and Russia cannot muster over a million men for an invasion. This doesn't even consider the defensive weapons NATO would transfer and make short work of 1970's tanks.
You need to understand something about combined arms warfare before you spout off about Stalingrad. War in this day and age is utterly different and the Russians are very capable in it. Some say they're the best when it comes to land warfare. Keep in mind that they plowed under the Georgian army in 24 hours using second rate equipment over very challenging terrain.
It wouldn't take a million men either. Maybe a million Ukrainians would beg for guns from the Russians though.
A referendum that omits several options can not be called a real referendum. The fact that 97% voted in favour is fishy in itself. Go and look up figures for other referendums worldwide and you’ll realize that numbers don’t usual above 70%. I can buy that many Crimeans wanted to join Russia, but the numbers are too extreme to be plausible.
I actually don’t care whether they join Russia or not, but a legitimate referendum it is not.
So how many different choices a referendum has to offer to be considered "legitimate"?? It offered the main two, joining Russia or remain with Ukraine...all you really needed......media trying to spin the "lack of options" are blowing hot air.
97% is fishy?? Yesterday black women voted in favor of Doug Jones 98% to 2%...is that fishy?? LOL
Quote:
Yes, I keep forgetting that we live in the 21st century where blaming the US has become trendy. How much interference did the Soviets engage in? Cuba, Germany, Hungary, Tzechoslovakia, Afghanistan.
In a world with nearly 200 countries, somehow magically the US is the only one that interferes. Everyone else is just a sweet innocent little lamb. The truth is that every country with power engages in espionage and interference.
Nobody is innocent but nobody claims the high ground as the West does...that is the big difference.
Quote:
It’s not up to Russia to decide who gets to join NATO, just like it’s not up to the US to determine who gets to join BRICS.
Wrong. NATO is not a charity organization nor a sorority...is up to NATO to decide who to let in, is not up to the applicant nation.....Prof. Stephen Cohen explains this beautifully in a fantastic interview.
NATO is a security alliance which the main purpose is the military security of its existing members. If it expansion put stress in the balance of power and its relationship with another power, is doing a disservice to its existing members.
Quote:
For all the propaganda done in the West, Russia easily has 10 times as much.
I would say that, unfortunately (I'm a westerner) is about the same.....it was quite shocking to discover that.
Quote:
To me it’s pretty obvious why Putin took over.
He wants to give Russia access to southern waters
Russia had already access to the southern waters....and Syria is a client state since the Soviet era.
Quote:
He wants to increase Russia’s population.
What is wrong with that??
Quote:
He wants to distract Russians of the domestic problems
As any politician does...the Russians still are immensely in better shape than they were 1990s, that is the reason they stick with him
Quote:
He wants to show himself as a strongman
Putin is no saint for sure....what is trying to do, I suspect, is to replicate the US web of Military Industrial complex, academia, think-thanks, corporate interests (call it in "Russian sauce" if you wish) to put Russia national interest above the time-to-time politics of the party in power, left or right and avoid another era of Yeltsin and his merry band of prostitutes.....exactly like in America where it does not matter who is in power, the geopolitical and economic interests of the country are the same.
Quote:
I’m not anti-Russian, but I grow tired of the endless whitewashing it keeps getting on here. The bottom line is that most people are too dumb to understand multilayered politics. It’s always about dealing in absolutes where one side is good while the other is evil. People have a hard time grasping the concept that things are not mutually exclusive. Both the US and Russia as well as many other powers (China, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Iran...) are imperialistic in their own way.
The fact that I’m all inclusive means that I’m automatically right. I blame everyone for everything because I know what humans are capable of.
Here we totally agree....again, my only major beef is that the West (and the US in particular) claim the higher moral ground and the unbelievably amateurish (at best) approach toward Russia shown in the last 3 administrations....and it's coming back to haunt us....
Last edited by saturno_v; 12-13-2017 at 05:03 PM..
How brave to compare bombing civilians controlled by bands of terrorists to some brave military conquest. I suppose it equates to the bravery of taking Crimea which nobody wanted to fight for anyway. Kyiv on the other hand would be a graveyard for Russians and they know it, youtube propaganda videos notwithstanding.
I think Putin would like a way out in Ukraine. The problem for him is he can't really settle it because he would lose a lot of support and appear too weak, even though sanctions relief would be a major gain and would alleviate the pressure on his cronies. The Russian military establishment is more hardline than he's been. He can't afford to lose in Ukraine. But at the same time, he can't afford to attempt any overt military aggression against Ukraine because he would lose the support of a lot of international partners, as well as a segment of Russians who would eventually find the number of casualties unacceptable. Hybrid war is more expedient.
It's sort of a catch 22. His best bet move is the middle ground - i.e., to keep it a low-intensity but ongoing conflict, which is exactly what he's doing. As a bonus, the status quo allows his regime to continue to scapegoat the NATO/Western bogeyman, which has been very effective propagandistically. This helps him solidify his power. Without an external enemy, he loses his purpose.
I think Putin would like a way out in Ukraine. The problem for him is he can't really settle it because he would lose a lot of support and appear too weak, even though sanctions relief would be a major gain and would alleviate the pressure on his cronies. The Russian military establishment is more hardline than he's been. He can't afford to lose in Ukraine. But at the same time, he can't afford to attempt any overt military aggression against Ukraine because he would lose the support of a lot of international partners, as well as a segment of Russians who would eventually find the number of casualties unacceptable. Hybrid war is more expedient.
It's sort of a catch 22. His best bet move is the middle ground - i.e., to keep it a low-intensity but ongoing conflict, which is exactly what he's doing. As a bonus, the status quo allows his regime to continue to scapegoat the NATO/Western bogeyman, which has been very effective propagandistically. This helps him solidify his power. Without an external enemy, he loses his purpose.
If there were no external enemy for real, Putin wouldn't have have gained popularity to begin with.
I think Putin would like a way out in Ukraine. The problem for him is he can't really settle it because he would lose a lot of support and appear too weak, even though sanctions relief would be a major gain and would alleviate the pressure on his cronies. The Russian military establishment is more hardline than he's been. He can't afford to lose in Ukraine. But at the same time, he can't afford to attempt any overt military aggression against Ukraine because he would lose the support of a lot of international partners, as well as a segment of Russians who would eventually find the number of casualties unacceptable. Hybrid war is more expedient.
I overall agree...however Russia could crush Ukraine very easily (no worries about too many casualties, not to mention that the Ukraine army could easily crumble due to defections) but the international pressure and consequences would be too high.
Quote:
Without an external enemy, he loses his purpose.
Putin purpose in Russia is way more complex than just keep it together creating an external enemy (to be honest, the west has been hostile to Russia).
Putin attempt to transform Russia economy is extremely ambitious and it has showed some success...
If there were no external enemy for real, Putin wouldn't have have gained popularity to begin with.
Yes...the West has ignored Russia "red lines" for years and now they cry wolf....sorry, if you keep poking the bear in the nose at some point he is going to react...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
