Whatever happens to Russia's economy, Kiev still needs to be standing at the end of this.
Why are people talking about weapons. Read my previous post. Weapons are not needed.
Whatever happens to Russia's economy, Kiev still needs to be standing at the end of this.
I want Russia to know we are prepared to act - so they stop their invasion short and act with restraint.
I want a military defense to occur if Russia moves past the ethnic Russian territory in Ukraine.
I would see the West honor our pact and act in the defense of Kiev.
In fact, if we break our pact to defend Ukraine then no one should ever count on Western allies.
Europe shares this "backyard".
NATO is acting absent in the face of Russian invasion. As if the only military force on the European continent is Russia. If we are folly and maintain that this is true, then the rest of eastern Europe has a lot to worry about and can no longer count on us as Ally.
You don't know much about the situation if you think the US is afraid of running out of money.
Research the current Russian economy, the current US economy. Then, look up who produces the most natural gas, and where that gas is mainly sold.
You will find that the US economy is far better off then the Russian economy. So even the savings that Russia would have fighting in their "backyard" would be irrelevant to who would win.
Russia wanted Crimea for its natural gas sector. Crimea and the sea around it is a benefit to sell Russian natural gas. Russia wanted to sell more to Europe, and that shipping lane would have been very profitable.
The reason the US is doing so little, is because Russia is going to bankrupt themselves. The US is dumping huge amounts of Natural gas, tanking the market. Crimea is going to be an expense because of economic sanctions and lower prices. Why in the would would the US do anything that would cost more lives and money, when they can sit back and let Europe and Russia hash it out?
So I guess totally ignore everything I said. Cheers.
Two wars in the middle east in the last 2 decades against Iraq has shown having a huge military doesn't translate into battlefield success.
I was speaking solely on the possibility of the US pushing Russia back as the poster I replied to implied we should do.
How much has the Iraq and Afghanistan military actions cost us and our enemies were using bargain basement small arms and homemade bombs. Using that as a starting point, how much do you think a war against a formidable enemy would cost? The answer is trillions upon trillions along with a huge loss of life that we Americans aren't used to anymore.
Bottom line is, we are not going to get into a shooting war with Russia, on that we agree and that is the post I was responding to.
As far as Russias current actions, they already have Crimea from what I understand so what is the reason for their current actions? Honest question, I'm not up to date on the politics or actions in the region.
PS: You do know that many a war has started because the aggressor country had serious economic issues. Putin isn't doing this for shits and giggles, I assume he has a long term plan.
His long term plan is to make money by using Crimea as a export location for natural gas. That plan is now deeply flawed because the US came out of nowhere with its natural gas. Follow what Russia has been doing for the last 10 years, and it is pretty clear. All natural gas companies are either explicitly or implicitly nationalized. Russia now wants to control transportation, and that was Crimea. US policy and market supply will mean Crimea will not be profitable. Putin is just trying to save face.
We weren't fighting conventional armies and they weren't really wars, more like police actions (at least after the initial push into Iraq).
Killing is apart of how people deal with things. In this case, more guns are not needed.
Russia is spending a lot of money trying to keep Crimea. They thought it would be a worth while expense if they could sell more natural gas. The expected Europe to continue to be in economic trouble, and not willing to fight. They did not foresee the massive amounts of natural gas the US companies would dump onto the market. Putin will want to fight and save face, and hope all ends up well. The US and Europe is better off making Russia bleed money and resources in an attempt to make money on Crimea, and then just dump more natural gas onto the market.
Its just another cold war, where a more people will die this time around, but same outcome.
His long term plan is to make money by using Crimea as a export location for natural gas. That plan is now deeply flawed because the US came out of nowhere with its natural gas. Follow what Russia has been doing for the last 10 years, and it is pretty clear. All natural gas companies are either explicitly or implicitly nationalized. Russia now wants to control transportation, and that was Crimea. US policy and market supply will mean Crimea will not be profitable. Putin is just trying to save face.
In communism, you must be able to "payoff" people around you to keep power. He is simply pandering to those who want to make money, and long term it will fail. The state cannot afford to keep doing what its doing. Like I said, cold war, but with more deaths.
I was speaking solely on the possibility of the US pushing Russia back as the poster I replied to implied we should do.
How much has the Iraq and Afghanistan military actions cost us and our enemies were using bargain basement small arms and homemade bombs. Using that as a starting point, how much do you think a war against a formidable enemy would cost? The answer is trillions upon trillions along with a huge loss of life that we Americans aren't used to anymore.
Bottom line is, we are not going to get into a shooting war with Russia, on that we agree and that is the post I was responding to.
As far as Russias current actions, they already have Crimea from what I understand so what is the reason for their current actions? Honest question, I'm not up to date on the politics or actions in the region.
PS: You do know that many a war has started because the aggressor country had serious economic issues. Putin isn't doing this for shits and giggles, I assume he has a long term plan.
Those aren't Russian military. They're rebels - they just found them in the local police armory. /sU.S. alleges Russian fighting in Ukraine hours ahead of cease-fire
US claims Sat photo of Russian military and heavy equipment inside Ukraine.
While I agree there's no way we're going to get in a shooting war with Russia, I don't think you can compare fighting an insurgency during an occupation with fighting a standing army. We would utterly obliterate Russia's conventional forces. They have small numbers of well equipped and well trained troops that present a well balanced and effective fighting force. Then there's the entire rest of their army, which are about the same quality as that of Iraq. Maybe not even that. It would be a slaughter.
Well, they have rebels so there is the insurgency, then you have Russia supplying the rebels, then you have the Russian armed forces basically on their home turf, logistics in their favor, etc.. and I don't think it will be as easy as you imply.
A few of histories warfare masterminds have tried taking Russia on their turf and it didn't work out well for most. I damn sure don't want to find out which of us is right.
Question is, is Putin invading east Ukraine as a training exercise for taking all of Ukraine, or taking all of Ukraine as a training exercise for taking Poland, or taking Ukraine and Poland as a training exercise for taking all of Europe?
1. He only wants Crimea. Um, and eastern Ukraine.
2. He only wants a little bit of Czechoslovakia. Okay, all of Czechoslovakia. Um, and half of Poland . . .
Makes one think.
Lieutenant Commander (Retd.) Martin Packard, a former NATO intelligence analyst said: "The real ending of the Cold War was in 1986, when the USSR's leadership resolved on a five-year programme to move to a parliamentary democracy and market economy. The intention in Moscow was to use that period to achieve a progressive convergence with the EU."
Packard was writing in response to the publication of a new book, 'Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands' by Richard Sakwa, in which the author argues that Mikhail Gorbachev saw the end of the Cold War as a shared victory which might lead to the building of a "common European home".
However, Sakwa says the US promulgated the idea within Europe that Russia was a defeated nation that could be left isolated from Europe and the rest of the world if it did not accept the US as the single world superpower. He says it was the eastward expansion of NATO that lies at the root of the current crisis in Ukraine.
Historically, NATO heavily backed by the United States has sought to spread its influence further eastward, despite an agreement after the reunification of Germany, that it would not encroach on the former Warsaw Pact nations. At the time, former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev was assured by (then) US Secretary of State James Baker there would be "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction one inch to the east".
Since then, the onward march of NATO eastward has continued unabashed with the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Albania, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia all joining the Washington-led military coalition.
Lieutenant Commander Packard, in a letter to The Guardian newspaper, said the failure to allow a Russian-European convergence in the late 1980s and the spread of NATO are at the centre of the crisis in Ukraine.
the failure to allow a Russian-European convergence
You would be thinking wrong. This problem can be traced back to US policy and NATO. America lied and now people must die. Don't take my word for it....
http://sputniknews.com/world/20150225/1018728748.html
Ukraine shows us how that convergence plays out. It's a country divided between Euro and Russian, where decades of tension have cumulated into civil war.