Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.

Ren2k7

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

Only country russia is afraid of is america , not sure if nato has the bottle to do anything , so far from nato only talk and no action. germany only worried about its profits from russia like france is so they a waste of hot air

It's particularily disgusting the way France and Germany have behaved throughout this whole crisis. Their only concern has been about themselves and what's in their back pocket, not any desire to help fellow Europeans under direct threat from Russia. It's like as if the period 1945-1991 has suddenly been erased from the collective conscious of French and German politicians.

The Ukrainian Crisis, as it is now being called apparently (when it should be called the Ukraine-Russia War), is a game changer; no longer should the West try and pretend we can work with Russia and be their partner. They are our enemy. Always have been since the earliest days of the Russian Empire. We need to recognise this fact and treat them as such.

Ren2k7

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Would you propose an eu battle group be sent in then?

A NATO rapid reaction force would be best. A force that doesn't have to get unanimous approval every five minutes from the European Council to so much as aim a rifle in the general vicinity of a Russian paratrooper. Speed would also be key. Because as soon as foreign troops step foot on Ukrainian soil Russia would have no hesitations in deploying its own regular forces (officially of course) inside Ukraine. It would be a race to see how much Russia could occupy before NATO forces could reach the frontlines in Donbass, by which time said frontlines could have already shifted westwards to Kiev.

Iwasfrozen

Ren2k7 wrote: »

A NATO rapid reaction force would be best. A force that doesn't have to get unanimous approval every five minutes from the European Council to so much as aim a rifle in the general vicinity of a Russian paratrooper. Speed would also be key. Because as soon as foreign troops step foot on Ukrainian soil Russia would have no hesitations in deploying its own regular forces (officially of course) inside Ukraine. It would be a race to see how much Russia could occupy before NATO forces could reach the frontlines in Donbass, by which time said frontlines could have already shifted westwards to Kiev.

Why on Earth would we want a war in Europe so close to us?

Lemming

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why on Earth would we want a war in Europe so close to us?

We already have. There's one going on in Eastern Europe whether you want to recognise the fact or not. Russia is up to its neck in invading another nation for a land-grab; it's not a crisis, it's a war.

The Baltic states have had noises similar to what happened in Eastern Ukraine, Russian nuclear bombers have made frequent violations of sovereign territory of European nations, and Russian submarines have reporterdly been sighted in soverign waters of other nations.

Ren2k7

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why on Earth would we want a war in Europe so close to us?

Who said anything about wanting a war in Europe?

Gatling

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why on Earth would we want a war in Europe so close to us?

Might want to ask why russian heavy bombers have been flying off our west coast , and conducting practice bombing runs in and around others country's

karma_

Gatling wrote: »

Might want to ask why russian heavy bombers have been flying off our west coast , and conducting practice bombing runs in and around others country's

This goes on, it always has, the only difference these days is the incidents actually make the news but invariably after the headline scoop the next sentence is always 'did not enter sovereign airspace' or 'were in international airspace.' Absolutely complete non-stories other than to whip up public fears and angst.

Iwasfrozen

Lemming wrote: »

We already have. There's one going on in Eastern Europe whether you want to recognise the fact or not. Russia is up to its neck in invading another nation for a land-grab; it's not a crisis, it's a war.

The Baltic states have had noises similar to what happened in Eastern Ukraine, Russian nuclear bombers have made frequent violations of sovereign territory of European nations, and Russian submarines have reporterdly been sighted in soverign waters of other nations.

There's a difference between a low intensity proxy war and an all out engagement with Russia. Escalation of the conflict isn't in our interests.

Iwasfrozen

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Who said anything about wanting a war in Europe?

Fine, then why on Earth would we support a war in Europe so close to us?

I have no love of Russia but war with them isn't in our interest.

Ren2k7

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Fine, then why on Earth would we support a war in Europe so close to us?

I have no love of Russia but war with them isn't in our interest.

Given that we unfortunately aren't part of NATO Irish troops wouldn't be deployed. But NATO troops should be sent as the alliance was established to maintain peace in Europe, a peace Russia is threatening. NATO troops were sent to the Balkans over Russian objections and the same should be done in Ukraine, otherwise Putin will think NATO isn't serious about stopping his territorial landgrabs. He represents the biggest threat to Europe's peace and stability since the Nazi's, he must be stopped.

karma_

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Given that we unfortunately aren't part of NATO Irish troops wouldn't be deployed. But NATO troops should be sent as the alliance was established to maintain peace in Europe, a peace Russia is threatening. NATO troops were sent to the Balkans over Russian objections and the same should be done in Ukraine, otherwise Putin will think NATO isn't serious about stopping his territorial landgrabs. He represents the biggest threat to Europe's peace and stability since the Nazi's, he must be stopped.

Think about some of the logistics and spheres of influence, and the weapons both sides could bring to bear in a conventional conflict. NATO couldn't possibly win a war there, furthermore Russia is no Iraq or Afghanistan, it can and will defend itself and the one thing western states have learned from wars in the 20th century is that the public cannot deal with large numbers of casualties.

Ren2k7

karma_ wrote: »

Think about some of the logistics and spheres of influence, and the weapons both sides could bring to bear in a conventional conflict. NATO couldn't possibly win a war there, furthermore Russia is no Iraq or Afghanistan, it can and will defend itself and the one thing western states have learned from wars in the 20th century is that the public cannot deal with large numbers of casualties.

It's not about being able to "win a war" against the Russians, it's about having forces in place to deter any potential land grab by Putin against Ukraine. Just like when the US had numerous divisions in West Germany to deter against a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Deterrence through strength, that's the only language the Russians understand or respect.

FWIW, NATO could easily defeat Russia militarily in a conventional war. They aren't the massive military force of their Soviet predecessors.

karma_

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It's not about being able to "win a war" against the Russians, it's about having forces in place to deter any potential land grab by Putin against Ukraine. Just like when the US had numerous divisions in West Germany to deter against a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Deterrence through strength, that's the only language the Russians understand or respect.

So basically you want stability I think it's fair to say, however to achieve that you would risk instability, and make no mistake to send NATO forces there would destabilise the situation, not only that it would actually strengthen Putin's position at home. That makes no sense, the best way to bring about peace is via diplomacy.

Oldenboard

It is not a civil war. It is the East (Russia) against the West (USA and Britain).

karma_

Ren2k7 wrote: »

FWIW, NATO could easily defeat Russia militarily in a conventional war. They aren't the massive military force of their Soviet predecessors.

I have to disagree, just by it's geography every strategic advantage would lie with Russia. NATO might be able to achieve tactical superiority but sure the Germans had that during WW2 and look where that got them.

Oldenboard

It is not a civil war. It is the East (Russia) against the West (Washington and it's poodle).

Shurimgreat

When it comes down to it once more, the only nation on earth capable of saving Europe is the US.

I think people need to remember that the next time they are slating the US.

Even the Europeans aren't capable of protecting themselves and always need big brother.

Shurimgreat

karma_ wrote: »

Think about some of the logistics and spheres of influence, and the weapons both sides could bring to bear in a conventional conflict. NATO couldn't possibly win a war there, furthermore Russia is no Iraq or Afghanistan, it can and will defend itself and the one thing western states have learned from wars in the 20th century is that the public cannot deal with large numbers of casualties.

The fact the US have dozens of stealth bombers and fighters pretty much makes obsolete much of the Russian equipment which are dependent on radar. If it was a straight conventional fight, the Russians would get their asses kicked.

Iwasfrozen

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Given that we unfortunately aren't part of NATO Irish troops wouldn't be deployed. But NATO troops should be sent as the alliance was established to maintain peace in Europe, a peace Russia is threatening. NATO troops were sent to the Balkans over Russian objections and the same should be done in Ukraine, otherwise Putin will think NATO isn't serious about stopping his territorial landgrabs. He represents the biggest threat to Europe's peace and stability since the Nazi's, he must be stopped.

NATO exists to protect NATO though Ukraine isn't part of NATO. I have no doubt NATO could win a war against Russia but I don't want a war so close to home.

karma_

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The fact the US have dozens of stealth bombers and fighters pretty much makes obsolete much of the Russian equipment which are dependent on radar. If it was a straight conventional fight, the Russians would get their asses kicked.

This is just jingoism and completely at odds with any historical lessons we have learned from similar experiences.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

I have to disagree, just by it's geography every strategic advantage would lie with Russia. NATO might be able to achieve tactical superiority but sure the Germans had that during WW2 and look where that got them.

War is different now than it was it 1940, a war with Russia would be mostly fought in air and on sea with troops only being used to capture and hold strategic positions. Given the changes in technology and US naval and air domination I can't see Russia lasting long against a NATO attack did come..

Shurimgreat

karma_ wrote: »

This is just jingoism and completely at odds with any historical lessons we have learned from similar experiences.

(A) I'm not American so how could it be jingoism? I'm basing it on an objective assessment of both sides capabilities.
(B) There are no historical lessons unless you consider Iraq 2003 when the Iraqis got their asses kicked during the initial bombing phase without knocking out one American plane largely because they were mostly stealth bombers.
(C) Radar is largely useless against modern stealth aircraft.

WW2 or something like that is irrelevant to modern fighing as are your "lessons".

Russian radar defences would be knocked out in the first weeks. Most of their aircover likewise if facing US stealth fighters. After that their ground armour would be target practice.

It would be a wholly one sided conflict if it was conventional.

BoJack Horseman

karma_ wrote: »

This is just jingoism and completely at odds with any historical lessons we have learned from similar experiences.

Indeed.

Napoleon couldn't break the vastness of Russia with his 1000km ranged missiles, what chance the US?

Ren2k7

karma_ wrote: »

I have to disagree, just by it's geography every strategic advantage would lie with Russia. NATO might be able to achieve tactical superiority but sure the Germans had that during WW2 and look where that got them.

Er, you do realise NATO wouldn't actually be invading Russia, right? They're a defensive alliance, they would be holding off Russian forces in Ukraine (if they were to go in). And in terms of raw numbers NATO has the advantage:

Iwasfrozen

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed.

Napoleon couldn't break the vastness of Russia with his 1000km ranged missiles, what chance the US?

Not to mention all those jet fighters Hitler had.

What's interesting is the Russians still rely on railroads in their national defence plans.

Ren2k7

Shurimgreat wrote: »

When it comes down to it once more, the only nation on earth capable of saving Europe is the US.

I think people need to remember that the next time they are slating the US.

Even the Europeans aren't capable of protecting themselves and always need big brother.

Sadly still a true statement. It's high time the EU became a full federal state with its own armed forces.

Ren2k7

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

NATO exists to protect NATO though Ukraine isn't part of NATO. I have no doubt NATO could win a war against Russia but I don't want a war so close to home.

Russia has already brought war to our doorstep. If we don't respond it will only embolden Putin. Where would it end, the Baltics? Poland? The Balkans?

BoJack Horseman

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Sadly still a true statement. It's high time the EU became a full federal state with its own armed forces.

Not even necessary.

Just stop the wholesale demilitarisation!

There is no European nation stronger today vs 20 years ago...

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

War is different now than it was it 1940, a war with Russia would be mostly fought in air and on sea with troops only being used to capture and hold strategic positions. Given the changes in technology and US naval and air domination I can't see Russia lasting long against a NATO attack did come..

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed.

Napoleon couldn't break the vastness of Russia with his 1000km ranged missiles, what chance the US?

War as a concept has not changed one bit since the first primitive picked up a rock (or a bone) and used it as a weapon, it follows the same simple fundamental rules. Why do you think the Battle of Cannae is still taught in military academies the world over? What does change is the weapons we use to fight them of course and yes I don;t disagree that NATO would probably have the tactical advantage in every department, but that cannot overcome a solid strategic advantage. You allude to it yourself with Napoleon. He had a the tactical advantage and he reached Moscow but he lost, and just like iwf talks about the different weapon advantages NATO could bring, during the second world war Germany had the tactical advantage in every department, down to the individual infantryman. Not only that but they faced an inept enemy who used primitive tactics and technology, and they still lost.

It's an oft repeated phrase but it is a true one, if you don't learn from the lessons of history you are doomed to repeat them. Nevertheless, this is all besides the point, fighting a war out there is not a good idea for anyone.

Iwasfrozen

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Russia has already brought war to our doorstep. If we don't respond it will only embolden Putin. Where would it end, the Baltics? Poland? The Balkans?

It will end at NATO but forcing Russian parts of Ukraine to stay in Ukraine is not in NATO's mandate.