Post: #101

(03-08-2014 01:16 PM)cardguy Wrote:  In America - the president is limited to two terms.

Whereas in the UK (and most other countries) you can stay in power for longer than that.

From the point of view of foreign affairs I think it creates a weakness in the American system? Since after the president is in his second term - it seems he will be more cautious in his dealings with foreign countries. Since he would rather prevent war by appearing weak - since his weakness will never be thrown at him in the next election campaign.

As such - I wonder if foreign countries are more likely to try and 'punk' America during the president's second term as opposed to his first time (where he may react stronger - so that he can look good in the next election cycle).

If Russia had invaded Crimea during Obama's first term in office - I think he would react in a more hawkish manner. And I am guessing Putin knows that - which is why he would prefer to pull shit like this during Obama's second term in office.

So in other words you are saying Obama is more likely to start WW3 against an enemy that had invented the idea of small tactical battlefield nukes if this was his 1st term?
Geez..I would think the agonizing death of hundreds of thousands of US troops and the melting of our Naval fleets in a nuclear firebomb would make a second tern run very unlikely.. but I guess some people are optimistic?

Post: #102

lol - no. I just think Obama might be under more political pressure to call Putin's bluff so to speak - if he were in his first term. At least from the pollsters and campaign strategists who advise him.

Post: #103

(03-08-2014 01:09 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Okay - lets keep this simple.

Is Obama weak in not standing up to Putin? I don't think so.

It is like a game of chicken. Do we have an all out war with Russia in order to protect a country we don't care about?

Or do we back down?

Seems Obama has two options. Be weak or be crazy. And I think being weak is the lesser of the two evils.

Strategic retreat. Not that Obama is calling the shots in the west since he takes his marching orders like everyone else, but right now the west really can't push the situation on the ground since Putin/Russia have a dominant position. Putin didn't have a choice in taking his stand, but now he is the one who gets to decide how this plays out on the ground in Ukraine (the West's only power is sanctions... but they will have to spite their face if they do that). Not really a question of weak or not weak... moreso practical or impractical on the part of the west.

Probably best for Russia to annex Crimea to starve Ukraine of pipeline and bases money and leave it at that... and use the Russian loyalists all over the rest of Ukraine to make it politically impossible for the West/NATO to tip Ukraine to that side. Basically keep Ukraine as it is... a mess.

Then subsidize (and breed more dependence) with the Russian parts using some of the money saved from not having to pay Ukraine South Stream pipeline/military base lease money so they benefit. Keep pushing it so the Russians are the haves and the Ukrainians are the have-nots inside Ukraine. I'd then go so far as to incentivize/subsidize Russians (or Russian-Ukrainians) into moving to central Ukraine (if possible) to help colonize it more and dilute Ukrainians out and keep pushing them further and further west. (Basically like what is happening with Mexicans flooding into the USA or whites gentrifying cities.) Could use Russian companies to locate businesses strategically and hire only Russians and Russian-Ukrainians as "pioneers" in those areas.

What's best for Ukrainians (both the nationalists and Russians) is to simply go their own ways if they had a choice in the matter. There will never be stability in Ukraine, otherwise, since it is just a pawn for others to manipulate the "multiculturalism" split. As long as NATO isn't brought in to the western half the situation and split should be fine... sort of like the Czech Republic and Slovakia. But the nationalist part of Ukraine would probably be landlocked and not really have anything to build a strong economy with.

Dave, Jim... do see anything wrong with what I said above? I don't understand the Russian/Ukrainian mindset like you guys so maybe I'm off somewhere. Also, will Russia completely turn off oil/gas pipelines on the mainland of Ukraine or still use all or some of them once South Stream is going?

The west has proven one thing... it never stops with various forms of agitation and chaos tactics to weaken or overthrow governments. It always waits, keeps putting pressure on, and tries again. I think Cuba may be the only country that is an exception to that rule.

Post: #104

Post: #105

Post: #106

(03-08-2014 01:11 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  The problem is not in the Crimea itself but in the precedent it sets for all the countries around Russia.

I guess there's some truth to this. There's been a lot of speculation about increasing the defence budget, having more frequent training for reservists and extra material acquisitions, in addition to the 100 updated Leo 4A6's we just bought. Everytime Russia pulls a stunt, the yellow press flips their shit completely here.

So, what this mean basically, is there's no way we'll ever switch to a professional army(a choice I approve of) and joining NATO is even more heatedly debated. On one hand, joining NATO would ruin our relations with Russia and we do a lot, in constantly increasing amounts, of trade with them, plus we'd probably have to send kids to shoot poor people in some desert. On the other hand, we would get the benefit of NATO defense pacts, but this is something that's also debated; would NATO really risk war with Russia over Finland?

Post: #107

(03-08-2014 04:02 PM)Merris Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 01:11 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  The problem is not in the Crimea itself but in the precedent it sets for all the countries around Russia.

I guess there's some truth to this. There's been a lot of speculation about increasing the defence budget, having more frequent training for reservists and extra material acquisitions, in addition to the 100 updated Leo 4A6's we just bought. Everytime Russia pulls a stunt, the yellow press flips their shit completely here.

So, what this mean basically, is there's no way we'll ever switch to a professional army(a choice I approve of) and joining NATO is even more heatedly debated. On one hand, joining NATO would ruin our relations with Russia and we do a lot, in constantly increasing amounts, of trade with them, plus we'd probably have to send kids to shoot poor people in some desert. On the other hand, we would get the benefit of NATO defense pacts, but this is something that's also debated; would NATO really risk war with Russia over Finland?

Dude..Russia doesn't want to attack Finland. But if you join NATO and US gets attacked by China one day..well good day to you. Lets look at last 15 years who has attacked or invaded more countries.. Russia or USA/UK?
In fact Russia has only invaded breakaway republics and autonomous zones that invite them in.They attacked Georgia when Georgia attacked first.

Post: #108

(03-08-2014 04:30 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 04:02 PM)Merris Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 01:11 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  The problem is not in the Crimea itself but in the precedent it sets for all the countries around Russia.

I guess there's some truth to this. There's been a lot of speculation about increasing the defence budget, having more frequent training for reservists and extra material acquisitions, in addition to the 100 updated Leo 4A6's we just bought. Everytime Russia pulls a stunt, the yellow press flips their shit completely here.

So, what this mean basically, is there's no way we'll ever switch to a professional army(a choice I approve of) and joining NATO is even more heatedly debated. On one hand, joining NATO would ruin our relations with Russia and we do a lot, in constantly increasing amounts, of trade with them, plus we'd probably have to send kids to shoot poor people in some desert. On the other hand, we would get the benefit of NATO defense pacts, but this is something that's also debated; would NATO really risk war with Russia over Finland?

Dude..Russia doesn't want to attack Finland. But if you join NATO and US gets attacked by China one day..well good day to you. Lets look at last 15 years who has attacked or invaded more countries.. Russia or USA/UK?
In fact Russia has only invaded breakaway republics and autonomous zones that invite them in.They attacked Georgia when Georgia attacked first.

Oh, I know, but that's a bit beside the point: Russia is pretty much the only threat we prepare against. Who else would attack us? Sweden? Hell, a mechanized force needs three times the force of the defenders(without force multipliers) to consider assault, six in the main assault and usually nine times in case of decisive battles. Even without force multipliers(advanced comm systems, air support, specialized artillery/spotters et cetera) that kind of mass is hilariously expensive. No other country near us can amass that kind of military force than Russia, especially now that we have both the NASAMS and BUK systems, NLAW systems everywhere, JDAMS and the increase in Leopards. It's a bit silly, yes, but there's no other military risk for us to prepare against. There's of course the preparations for things like nuclear meltdowns, natural disasters, terrorism et cetera, but none of these are as mediasexy as pure military discussion, hence the massive tabloid walls of text.

Which is also another reason I'm personally against NATO. We'd lose more than gain, especially since the potential gain(defensive pact in case "somebody" invades) is a bit suspect here.

Post: #109

(03-08-2014 02:45 PM)Big Nilla Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 01:09 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Okay - lets keep this simple.

Is Obama weak in not standing up to Putin? I don't think so.

It is like a game of chicken. Do we have an all out war with Russia in order to protect a country we don't care about?

Or do we back down?

Seems Obama has two options. Be weak or be crazy. And I think being weak is the lesser of the two evils.

Strategic retreat. Not that Obama is calling the shots in the west since he takes his marching orders like everyone else, but right now the west really can't push the situation on the ground since Putin/Russia have a dominant position. Putin didn't have a choice in taking his stand, but now he is the one who gets to decide how this plays out on the ground in Ukraine (the West's only power is sanctions... but they will have to spite their face if they do that). Not really a question of weak or not weak... moreso practical or impractical on the part of the west.

Probably best for Russia to annex Crimea to starve Ukraine of pipeline and bases money and leave it at that... and use the Russian loyalists all over the rest of Ukraine to make it politically impossible for the West/NATO to tip Ukraine to that side. Basically keep Ukraine as it is... a mess.

Then subsidize (and breed more dependence) with the Russian parts using some of the money saved from not having to pay Ukraine South Stream pipeline/military base lease money so they benefit. Keep pushing it so the Russians are the haves and the Ukrainians are the have-nots inside Ukraine. I'd then go so far as to incentivize/subsidize Russians (or Russian-Ukrainians) into moving to central Ukraine (if possible) to help colonize it more and dilute Ukrainians out and keep pushing them further and further west. (Basically like what is happening with Mexicans flooding into the USA or whites gentrifying cities.) Could use Russian companies to locate businesses strategically and hire only Russians and Russian-Ukrainians as "pioneers" in those areas.

What's best for Ukrainians (both the nationalists and Russians) is to simply go their own ways if they had a choice in the matter. There will never be stability in Ukraine, otherwise, since it is just a pawn for others to manipulate the "multiculturalism" split. As long as NATO isn't brought in to the western half the situation and split should be fine... sort of like the Czech Republic and Slovakia. But the nationalist part of Ukraine would probably be landlocked and not really have anything to build a strong economy with.

Dave, Jim... do see anything wrong with what I said above? I don't understand the Russian/Ukrainian mindset like you guys so maybe I'm off somewhere. Also, will Russia completely turn off oil/gas pipelines on the mainland of Ukraine or still use all or some of them once South Stream is going?

The west has proven one thing... it never stops with various forms of agitation and chaos tactics to weaken or overthrow governments. It always waits, keeps putting pressure on, and tries again. I think Cuba may be the only country that is an exception to that rule.

I thought about what you wrote... to be honest it sounds legit tactic. West Ukraine would certainly join NATO but that won't matter because there will be East Ukraine as a buffer.

The western nationalists did extend eastward into Kiev. I swear when me and "the girl" I later marred lived in Kiev over a decade ago the city was more Russified so the demographics changed.But part of it is also from it being a capital city that has a lot of western companies.

In Kharkov and the East its biggest investors are Russain companies.
Not sure if the Russians will ever be able to push west,maybe just Poltava. But I don't think they really want the west anyway. History has shown the west is a big problem and doesn't offer much.

A political split would work..and everyone happy.Also a war can develop between Russia and the west in economic development of the 2 sides of Ukraine..Ukraine would benefit from this.

She will be like a chick with 2 betas fighting over her lol.

Post: #110

(03-08-2014 02:45 PM)Big Nilla Wrote:  Probably best for Russia to annex Crimea to starve Ukraine of pipeline and bases money and leave it at that... and use the Russian loyalists all over the rest of Ukraine to make it politically impossible for the West/NATO to tip Ukraine to that side. Basically keep Ukraine as it is... a mess.

I would say "divide and conquer" is definitely part of Russia's plan.

(03-08-2014 02:45 PM)Big Nilla Wrote:  What's best for Ukrainians (both the nationalists and Russians) is to simply go their own ways if they had a choice in the matter. There will never be stability in Ukraine, otherwise, since it is just a pawn for others to manipulate the "multiculturalism" split. As long as NATO isn't brought in to the western half the situation and split should be fine... sort of like the Czech Republic and Slovakia. But the nationalist part of Ukraine would probably be landlocked and not really have anything to build a strong economy with.

This is one thing I'm not so sure about.
Except for Crimea, Russian doesn't have absolute dominance in any of Ukraine's oblasts. Donetsk and Lugansk have the highest concentration (70-75%) but even in that region I think secession would be difficult. Many of the oligarchs come from that part of the country, and they know their control of the country is much stronger t

In other oblasts, the situation is split more on an urban/rural basis, with the cities being predominantly Russian and the rural areas being predominantly Ukrainian. Kirovograd is a very strong example of that, and also Odessa to some extent.

I don't mean to preclude a split, either. There are also differences in the economy of the South/East and the West. The former is more heavily industrialised, where as the West is less developed and more focused on agriculture and services.

(03-08-2014 02:45 PM)Big Nilla Wrote:  Also, will Russia completely turn off oil/gas pipelines on the mainland of Ukraine or still use all or some of them once South Stream is going?

I don't think Russia will continue to use it for transit. It's an old and extremely inefficient system which consumes a lot of so-called "technical gas" just to run the pumping stations. All countries involved need to get efficiency gains out of the new pipelines to start recouping their capital costs.

Check the following.. The blue lines are potential South Stream routes. The circle is where most of Ukraine's heavy industry is located. That part of the current pipeline system will still operate near full capacity even if much of the rest of the network is shut down.
The Slovak and Hungarian legs have been modernised, and once South Stream goes active, the plan is to reverse the flow of those pipelines. Eastern Slovakia and Eastern Hungary are quite industrialised. A few large smelters and other heavy industry operate in that area.
   

Post: #111

@Dave I do see a problem. If they save money by making south stream go though Crimea they run into a few problems that are a potential.
One is that Ukraine and west won't recognize Crimea. It means Ukraine partisans or whomever will always try to cause trouble..including sabotage.
The Tatars or any other Muslim freedom fighter can also cause trouble since they live there.

Post: #112

(03-08-2014 06:59 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  If they save money by making south stream go though Crimea they run into a few problems that are a potential. One is that Ukraine and west won't recognize Crimea. It means Ukraine partisans or whomever will always try to cause trouble..including sabotage.

Putin could always say:

"I will retreat from Crimea if 1) you allow me to build the South Stream pipeline through Crimea; 2) the Black Sea Fleet can stay in Sevastopol forever."

Post: #113

(03-08-2014 07:30 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 06:59 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  If they save money by making south stream go though Crimea they run into a few problems that are a potential. One is that Ukraine and west won't recognize Crimea. It means Ukraine partisans or whomever will always try to cause trouble..including sabotage.

Putin could always say:

"I will retreat from Crimea if 1) you allow me to build the South Stream pipeline through Crimea; 2) the Black Sea Fleet can stay in Sevastopol forever."

true..but he can't trust Ukraine that's part of this.
If you view this whole incident it seems Moscow doesn't forgive UA and EU for breaking the signed accord.
That's one of the reasons he said"fuck this BS gov't"
If the west honored the accord Putin would have grudgingly accepted it..but he sees a hostile UA that will continue to cause problems(e.g. stealing gas, not paying for gas, trying to blockade Russian ships).

He also knows the west will continue to pressure for NATO membership.. which means more incidents to kick out the fleet.

US already broke a deal when Russia pulled out of Germany. They were told no more NATO enlargement in Warsaw pact countries. .we all know how that turned out.

I guess Putin see's the accord as betrayal and now doesn't want to be stuck fulfilling deals he himself didn't make when the EU and Rogue gov't broke an agreement they signed with 24 hours.
All these other laws Putin intends to break.. he wasn't the leader who signed them.

Post: #114

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...netsk.html

Post: #115

(03-08-2014 08:15 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...netsk.html

Blackwater in Donetsk? My first reaction was to ask myself: "And working for which side?"

I had to read several paragraphs to find the answer.

Post: #116

(03-08-2014 08:22 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 08:15 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...netsk.html

Blackwater in Donetsk? My first reaction was to ask myself: "And working for which side?"

I had to read several paragraphs to find the answer.

They are taking a big risk if that is true....they are nothing but cannon fodder so I don't understand why they would be in Donetsk. Russian military can say"Americans in Russian area, time to call in 150k troops and 1k tanks again and go to Donetsk". If they even shoot one Russian it will be pretext for an invasion.And they will all die like in the movie the "300" but quicker.

Post: #117

Ukraine's Military Mobilizes, Prepares For Combat: Trucks, APCs, SAMs, Howitzers, Tanks Rolling Out:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-08...olling-out

Post: #118

(03-08-2014 10:28 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  Ukraine's Military Mobilizes, Prepares For Combat: Trucks, APCs, SAMs, Howitzers, Tanks Rolling Out:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-08...olling-out

Don't they realize the Russians are waiting for an attack?
Since the Russians are dig in the city..that means Ukraine will be firing on their own people.

Post: #119

More footage from VICE News, interviewing Serbian paramilitary volunteers in Crimea:

Post: #120

(03-08-2014 10:28 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  Ukraine's Military Mobilizes, Prepares For Combat: Trucks, APCs, SAMs, Howitzers, Tanks Rolling Out:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-08...olling-out

I think this is more of a show to the West that they aren't completely inept or disorganized so that they send more money.

Post: #121

Shit this could escalate into an armed conflict between Ukraine's new govt and Russia. Ukraine will of course be annihilated but they'll have the West's support and thus this could become a 1984 style continent v continent war

Or am I missing the mark and overestimating what could transpire?

Post: #122

I do not think this will end in a big conflic, neither side can afford it, be politically (USA, EU) or economically (Russia). Right now, a big conflict will be against the interest of all sides.

Post: #123

Those videos on Zero Hedge look quite impressive, they are moving a lot of stuff for sure, but like Roosh already said I believe that it's all a show.
In my opionion Ukraine has already lost Crimea and that region will probably end being a new state under the supervision of Moscow, like Abkazia.

Post: #124

Sorry, but this is a classic, Alpha vs. Beta male struggle, albeit much larger scale (Putin vs. Obama). Putin is not afraid, he is confident, and willing to call Obama's meaningless bluff's. Obama as a leader, thinks that (being the Beta he is) if everyone just sits down, and talks this over, it will all end well; it won't. Either way this is spun, America losses credibility, and it's allies cannot trust it in the future. It's depressing, from a foreign policy point of view.

Post: #125

(03-09-2014 12:29 PM)andy Wrote:  Sorry, but this is a classic, Alpha vs. Beta male struggle, albeit much larger scale (Putin vs. Obama). Putin is not afraid, he is confident, and willing to call Obama's meaningless bluff's. Obama as a leader, thinks that (being the Beta he is) if everyone just sits down, and talks this over, it will all end well; it won't. Either way this is spun, America losses credibility, and it's allies cannot trust it in the future. It's depressing, from a foreign policy point of view.

Yes but an alpha Obama means nuclear holocaust.