Ukraine.

cfan

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

how many of the people in the interm government are Fascist, hell, how do you define fascist in this contxt, is it just because they want National soverignty and distrust the Russians?

You may find some answers here: http://libcom.org/news/neo-nazis-far-right-protesters-ukraine-23012014
:eek:

This game is between Russia and USA. Both parts use media as 'a propaganda mouthpiece' for own side. Media in EU are in this crap too...

There is no good solutions anyway for Ukraine's normal, simple people. Unfortunately for them, this fascists are big part of 'revolution' and they will fight for a places in next government too.:(

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

.......

They could turn off the gas and oil western Europe would come to a standstill.

Except.....

It's spring and it will be 9 months before demand increases.......prices of gas are low on the wholesale market.......and as a result many countries have built up significant stocks.

Plus, if Russia cuts off the gas, it cuts off a significant source of foreign currency.....given the timeframe involved, if countries can make alternative arrangements to source even a modest amount to meet some of their needs, the longer term impacts on Russia would be not insignificant.

Aka and the political crazies show up.

Including one who gave up his *firts post* to tell us all the TROOT!

Wake up sheeple! It's all a lie! Shannon is a military base etc etc..........

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

Except.....

It's spring and it will be 9 months before demand increases.......prices of gas are low on the wholesale market.......and as a result many countries have built up significant stocks.

Plus, if Russia cuts off the gas, it cuts off a significant source of foreign currency.....given the timeframe involved, if countries can make alternative arrangements to source even a modest amount to meet some of their needs, the longer term impacts on Russia would be not insignificant.

It would mean stocks market are hit hard, petrol gas prices go up etc overnight.

So much for the bluster of the US/EU/UK Putin holds all the cards.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

It would mean stocks market are hit hard, petrol gas prices go up etc overnight.

So much for the bluster of the US/EU/UK Putin holds all the cards.

Not really. Only 11% of Europes power was generated using gas last year. Most of what we get is used for space heating.

Most important, though, gas futures (for delivery in 1 month) are trading at LOWER than the current market spot price - the markets don't seem to think the plug is going to be pulled anytime soon.

The FTSE is trading near a 1 year high - if the markets thought a shooting war was imminent, wouldn't at least some people be baling from the market rather than trying to get into it?

Edit: While Russia might heat us, we feed them - and 75% of FDI in Russia comes from the EU

spank_inferno

cruasder777 wrote: »

So much for the bluster of the US/EU/UK Putin holds all the cards.

If Putin holds all the cards, how come in just 1 day:
- the Rouble tumbled in value
- Emergency interest rate drops
- 10% of good reserves flogged
-13% drop in stock market.

All with out the west lifting a finger.

That's why Putin eased back on Tuesday.

Russia is far weaker than most realise.

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

Not really. Only 11% of Europes power was generated using gas last year. Most of what we get is used for space heating.

Most important, though, gas futures (for delivery in 1 month) are trading at LOWER than the current market spot price - the markets don't seem to think the plug is going to be pulled anytime soon.

The FTSE is trading near a 1 year high - if the markets thought a shooting war was imminent, wouldn't at least some people be baling from the market rather than trying to get into it?

Edit: While Russia might heat us, we feed them - and 75% of FDI in Russia comes from the EU

You obviously know nothing about how stock markets work. We dont feed Russia, we import massive amounts of Russian wheat. It has farms the size of some western European countries.


Russia is now the worlds largest oil producer. And the EU still depends on Russian gas, although more is now bought off Norway.

cruasder777

spank_inferno wrote: »

If Putin holds all the cards, how come in just 1 day:
- the Rouble tumbled in value
- Emergency interest rate drops
- 10% of good reserves flogged
-13% drop in stock market.

All with out the west lifting a finger.

That's why Putin eased back on Tuesday.

Russia is far weaker than most realise.

You have been watching to much Fox News.
They are the worlds largest gas producer, have the worlds largest oil deposits and now have the worlds 4th largest gold reserve and are totally self sufficient, hardly a position of weakness.

They also have zero national debt.

As Putin says, at this stage they are observing. But they have every right to come to the aid of the democratically elected govt if asked to.

Agriculture: Russia's aim to become self-sufficient

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/business/8804374/Argiculture-Russia-self-sufficient.html

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

You obviously know nothing about how stock markets work. We dont feed Russia, we import massive amounts of Russian wheat.


Russia is now the worlds largest oil producer.

I know a fair bit about how they work and how efficient they are at pricing in risk.

The EU has a significant trade deficit with Russia, but if you strip out energy you see two things.

1. The EU has a significant agricultural trade surplus with Russia especially in food of animal origin - effectively meat.

2. The EU has a monumental services trade surplus with Russia - switch off the gas and the Russians may find it incredibly difficult to access their financial assets outside the country in EU countries like Cyprus, not to mention London, Frnakfurt and Paris.

And the EU imports half as much wheat as it used to 10 years ago - most of what we'll import this year actually comes from the Ukraine, but more and more is coming from the US and Canada.

And wheat isn't the problem - maize is

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

I know a fair bit about how they work and how efficient they are at pricing in risk.

The EU has a significant trade deficit with Russia, but if you strip out energy you see two things.

1. The EU has a significant agricultural trade surplus with Russia especially in food of animal origin - effectively meat.

2. The EU has a monumental services trade surplus with Russia - switch off the gas and the Russians may find it incredibly difficult to access their financial assets outside the country in EU countries like Cyprus, not to mention London, Frnakfurt and Paris.

And the EU imports half as much wheat as it used to 10 years ago - most of what we'll import this year actually comes from the Ukraine, but more and more is coming from the US and Canada.

And wheat isn't the problem - maize is

The EU like the US is bankrupt and relying more and more on foreign investment.

Russia is on the rise to become the regional superpower, this is what all this is about.

A China/Russia pact is a huge geo-political threat to a USA in decline.


I dont see how they can stop it.

Jawgap

Easy......

Both the EU and US are indebted to many nations.....

....all they need to do is pay their debts.

....and all they need to do that is produce more of the currencies (the dollar and the Euro) - instantly devaluing the foreign exchange reserves of everyone including the aforementioned China and Russia.

As John Connally said, the dollar is our (the US') currency, but it's your problem.

EU / US / China / Russia / India / Brazil are all in a death embrace - anyone lets go, everyone dies!

There's too much at stake to start a shooting war and to start throwing sanctions about - so beyond mere tokenism, the issue will resolve itself on terms that will benefit Russia, mostly, but will allow the US and EU to claim some credit for the solution.

S.R.

pilatus wrote: »

The Ukrainian land forces are in general better trained than your average Russian soldier would be. They regularly participate in foreign missions with the UN.

pilatus, u r such a "good" expert that I had to stop reading ur post after first 2 sentences.)))
Ukranians better trained coz they participate in UN missions?)))))) Ha-ha-ha! Best joke of century!))) What kind of training u get during these missions? Scratching arse and making sure u r paid on time?)))
Russians also got training in missions. Missions like in Chechnya, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. And lets think: whose training will be more helpful and relevant in case of war?)))

S.R.

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

RT is an ok news source for a Rusian government perspective, but it is a Propaganda mouthpiece for Putin

And what about british or american tv channels? Are not they Propaganda?

norrie rugger

S.R. wrote: »

Missions like in Chechnya, South Ossetia

One area wanted independence from Russia and massive strike against it.
Another wanted to join Russia from another country and Russia takes it (like is happening with Crimea)

Stovepipe

@s.r; Russian troops did not do well in Chechnya: a postwar analysis by their own Staff found that command and control was at best weak, comms were poor, reaction time was poor, resupply was very poor, medical evacuation was poor, some of the vehicles were effectively useless and the generic Russian treatment of their own conscripts contributed to poor unit performance, not to mind endemic corruption, theft and sale of equipment to the enemy, unwillingness of non-Russian troops to fight Chechens and the pressure of other local conflicts in Dagestan, Ingushetia and other regions. The only troops that proved relatively useful were specialist units with higher training standards, more modern kit and better standards of readiness and maintenance. You'll find that report on the net and it might take a bit of digging but it's there.

regards
Stovepipe

cruasder777

Stovepipe wrote: »

@s.r; Russian troops did not do well in Chechnya: a postwar analysis by their own Staff found that command and control was at best weak, comms were poor, reaction time was poor, resupply was very poor, medical evacuation was poor, some of the vehicles were effectively useless and the generic Russian treatment of their own conscripts contributed to poor unit performance, not to mind endemic corruption, theft and sale of equipment to the enemy, unwillingness of non-Russian troops to fight Chechens and the pressure of other local conflicts in Dagestan, Ingushetia and other regions. The only troops that proved relatively useful were specialist units with higher training standards, more modern kit and better standards of readiness and maintenance. You'll find that report on the net and it might take a bit of digging but it's there.

regards
Stovepipe

They have in recent years massively increased spending and modernised, the Guards air assault formations are top notch assault troops.

Cork boy 55

There was two Chechnya wars
1994-1996
1999-2002
Massive difference in RF performance between the two on every level

pilatus

S.R. wrote: »

pilatus, u r such a "good" expert that I had to stop reading ur post after first 2 sentences.)))
Ukranians better trained coz they participate in UN missions?)))))) Ha-ha-ha! Best joke of century!))) What kind of training u get during these missions? Scratching arse and making sure u r paid on time?)))
Russians also got training in missions. Missions like in Chechnya, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. And lets think: whose training will be more helpful and relevant in case of war?)))

S.R I do not claim to be such a "good" expert. I also do not know why you wrapped good in quotation marks? Who are you quoting?

Also S.R I do not particularly care if you read my posts or not, but I also do not insult other board members and I would not insult anybody especially if I were in your shoes given your fabulous literacy skills or I suppose in your case illiteracy skills. If English is not your first language then I suggest you sharpen up and take an English class for beginners. I really believe you could profit from one.

Anyway for the majority of non troll members, I would like to point out that the USS George H.W Bush aircraft carrier (with a full 4 squadrons of Hornet/Super Hornets/Growlers embarked) has quietly arrived in the Aegean sea.

At the same time Turkey has given the US navy permission for an as yet unidentified vessel to pass through the Bosphorus Strait. I know it's probably a non starter because under an old treaty carriers cannot traverse through the strait , but this is an exceptional circumstance and maybe just perhaps she could be moved in to bring Putin to the negotiations table. There are also 3 other American warships already in the Black sea.

spank_inferno

I would place a generic platoon of Irish soldiers on par with their Russian counterparts, (From what I've read on Ivan's competencies in the field).

Seeing footage on the news, Russian troops still look poorly equipped compared to western counterparts.

Looking at the black sea fleet on Wiki, I'm no expert on their capabilities, but the seem almost obsolete.

I'm not sure they could scratch a NATO taskforce should one appear in the Black Sea.

pilatus

Take your standard Irish soldier and standard Russian soldier, the Irish is better trained and better equipped, no question about it in my mind. Speaking of which, at least 1 Irish soldier perhaps more, is being sent in as part of a fact finding misson on behalf of the United Nations.

The Russian fleet is old but it still has punch. Look at the huge missile launch tubes on the sides of most of their ships, they would gut frigate sized ships. It would depend what Nato ships they encounter, though you are correct that a Nato fleet technologically would have an edge.

Disclaimer: I am no expert, "good" or otherwise, I would like to point that out before I am reminded again.

Jawgap

pilatus wrote: »

S.R I do not claim to be such a "good" expert. I also do not know why you wrapped good in quotation marks? Who are you quoting?

Also S.R I do not particularly care if you read my posts or not, but I also do not insult other board members and I would not insult anybody especially if I were in your shoes given your fabulous literacy skills or I suppose in your case illiteracy skills. If English is not your first language then I suggest you sharpen up and take an English class for beginners. I really believe you could profit from one.

Anyway for the majority of non troll members, I would like to point out that the USS George H.W Bush aircraft carrier (with a full 4 squadrons of Hornet/Super Hornets/Growlers embarked) has quietly arrived in the Aegean sea.

At the same time Turkey has given the US navy permission for an as yet unidentified vessel to pass through the Bosphorus Strait. I know it's probably a non starter because under an old treaty carriers cannot traverse through the strait , but this is an exceptional circumstance and maybe just perhaps she could be moved in to bring Putin to the negotiations table. There are also 3 other American warships already in the Black sea.

Do you seriously think the US is about to get into a shooting war with the Russians?

The USS G W Bush is in Piraeus as part of a scheduled port stop and will be conducting exercises with the Greeks (again as per the schedule). They are also still going ahead with their 'outreach' activities - VIP tours, visits to schools etc. - hardly the sign of a warship on a combat footing?

Victor

pilatus wrote: »

under an old treaty

Old, but current. The wiki article seems to suggest there is a 30,000 tonne limit, not a ban on aircraft carriers as such. Carriers under 30,000 tonnes would be allowed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits

Excluding Russia, the following aircraft carrying ships (not all of them aircraft carriers) would appear to comply:
Brazil - São Paulo (marginal)
India - Viraat (yes), others (no)
Italy - Cavour, Giuseppe Garibaldi, San Giorgio-class
Japan - Izumo
Spain - Juan Carlos I, Galicia-class
UK - Illustrious, Ocean
USA - San Antonio-class, Austin-class

The Black Sea probably isn't the wisest place to have a carrier anyway, as it would lack freedom of movement.

Jawgap

Indeed, the Turks themselves have said the (Montreux) Convention will be observed

Turkish sources, speaking with the Hurriyet Daily News on Wednesday, declined to elaborate on the name of the US warship. The same officials told the daily on condition of anonymity that the ship in question was not the USS George H.W. Bush nuclear aircraft carrier as suggested in some news reports, as it did not meet the standards specified by the 1936 Montreux Convention in terms of weight.

Plus, they'd never send in just the carrier - the rest of the group would have to go with it, and then once in there it would be easy enough for the Russians to blockade it - then what?

Also, the Black Sea is probably a bit small for a Strike Carrier Group, not to mention the fact they'd never get a sub in.

In all probability it's probably a frigate being sent there just to keep an eye on things and hoover up whatever intelligence they can gather as it flies through the ether.

The other point worth considering is that the French have just built the Russians their first Mistral-class amphibious assault ship, with another to follow and an option on two more.

I think the first one is about to start sea trials - difficult to see the ships being delivered if things continue to deteriorate so you'd have to question whether - all things considered - it's in Russia's longer term interest to let things go much further than they already have.

pilatus

No I don't think they are about to get into a shooting war with the Russians. I know it was a prearranged trip, I read the article on Google also. I said in my post "the idea was probably a non starter" myself. It's interesting to speculate however and you can be sure the Russians know about the ships whereabouts also.

I also read about her arrival 2 days ago on the bbcs live update feed which they are running on their website and their reporter made the same suggestion that I did, though they suggested it was a show of force , a gentle reminder.

Manic Moran

pilatus wrote: »

Also S.R I do not particularly care if you read my posts or not, but I also do not insult other board members and I would not insult anybody especially if I were in your shoes given your fabulous literacy skills or I suppose in your case illiteracy skills. If English is not your first language then I suggest you sharpen up and take an English class for beginners. I really believe you could profit from one.

[Mod]
Not the standard of debate we want to keep here, thanks[/Mod]

pilatus

I apologise Manic Moran. He ruffled my feathers and I was insulted especially given the nature of his/her reply . I will not lower myself to their level again.

cruasder777

pilatus wrote: »

Take your standard Irish soldier and standard Russian soldier, the Irish is better trained and better equipped, no question about it in my mind. Speaking of which, at least 1 Irish soldier perhaps more, is being sent in as part of a fact finding misson on behalf of the United Nations.

The Russian fleet is old but it still has punch. Look at the huge missile launch tubes on the sides of most of their ships, they would gut frigate sized ships. It would depend what Nato ships they encounter, though you are correct that a Nato fleet technologically would have an edge.

Disclaimer: I am no expert, "good" or otherwise, I would like to point that out before I am reminded again.

An Irish army infantry soldier would have better personal issue equipment, more modern battle drills etc. But Russian infantry training and ethos is far more about battle hardening and obviously they have access to far more hardware. Its normal for them to get killed on exercises etc.

S.R.

pilatus,

1. I did not say u said u r "good" expert;
2. I did not insult u. U prefer to look insulted instead of giving answers. And u prefer to call me a troll which is real insult;
3. I need English lessons? By the way, I have done FETAC Level 5 and Level 6 courses in colleges in Ireland and if u say my English is bad, then I have to say that either my English is not that bad or Irish colleges should be closed done.))
4. U went about trolling, my English skills etc, but did not answer question: whose training will be relevant and helpful?

spank_inferno

pilatus wrote: »

The Russian fleet is old but it still has punch. Look at the huge missile launch tubes on the sides of most of their ships, they would gut frigate sized ships. It would depend what Nato ships they encounter, though you are correct that a Nato fleet technologically would have an edge. .

I seen those missile frigates alright.
(The ones with the huge tubes on their sides set at an angle).

The reason I questioned their effectiveness was because the CIWS & missile intercept systems of NATO vessels appear very effective nowadays.

S.R.

pilatus wrote: »

Take your standard Irish soldier and standard Russian soldier, the Irish is better trained and better equipped, no question about it in my mind.

If Irish soldier is better equipped and TRAINED, then tell me: why it is so hard to find Ireland on map?

S.R.

norrie rugger wrote: »

One area wanted independence from Russia and massive strike against it.
Another wanted to join Russia from another country and Russia takes it (like is happening with Crimea)

That's what our world is about. Big countries rule small ones. Big countries do what they want. It's bad, but it's a fact.

MajesticDonkey

S.R. wrote: »

If Irish soldier is better equipped and TRAINED, then tell me: why it is so hard to find Ireland on map?

This is a bit silly. Ireland is a small country - we have no desire to invade other countries just to gain land mass.

The fact of the matter is though, no matter how much better or worse trained a nation's army is, it's generally sheer size and amount of equipment (tanks, helis, jets, ships etc and weaponry) that decides the winner of a battle.

norrie rugger

Well, in general

MajesticDonkey

norrie rugger wrote: »

Well, in general

Yes, that's what I meant...edited.

Jawgap

pilatus wrote: »

No I don't think they are about to get into a shooting war with the Russians. I know it was a prearranged trip, I read the article on Google also. I said in my post "the idea was probably a non starter" myself. It's interesting to speculate however and you can be sure the Russians know about the ships whereabouts also.

I also read about her arrival 2 days ago on the bbcs live update feed which they are running on their website and their reporter made the same suggestion that I did, though they suggested it was a show of force , a gentle reminder.

I'm not sure how a pre-arranged stop on a pre-arranged forward deployment constitutes a show of strength? It's just part of the normal rotation schedule.

Why would the Yanks (or NATO) want to engage in a show of strength / pi$$ing contest with the Russians, in general, and Putin in particular?

And even they wanted to, there are more efficient ways to do it than using an Carrier Group - they just need to plonk a few extra aircraft in Poland.

Victor

Jawgap wrote: »

they'd never get a sub in.

Why not?

Jawgap wrote: »

In all probability it's probably a frigate being sent there just to keep an eye on things and hoover up whatever intelligence they can gather as it flies through the ether.

The OH Perry class no longer have SAMs and would be eaten by the Russians.

It would need to be an Aegis ship - several of them and some of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine#SSBN.2FSSGN_conversions would be a credible threat to the Russians.

Jawgap

Victor wrote: »

Why not?


The OH Perry class no longer have SAMs and would be eaten by the Russians.

It would need to be an Aegis ship - several of them and some of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine#SSBN.2FSSGN_conversions would be a credible threat to the Russians.

The sub would have to travel on the surface. And its transit would have to be declared in advance (and navies really don't like saying where their subs are) - I'd expect the Russians would happily track her all the way in and have a little receiving party ready for her on the Northern end of the straits.

Any US ship heading in to the Black Sea is going to observe - even if a skirmish starts you can guarantee it won't get involved so unless the Russians want to do 'USS Liberty' on her - she'll not have to defend herself.

Stovepipe

the Americans wouldn't need to send a carrier or any other vessel into the Black sea itself. They could sit quite happily in the Med or Adriatic and launch airstrikes or drones to their hearts content or they could launch attacks or reconnaisance from Turkey or Greece. If push came to shove, they could easily close the Strait and keep the Russians in there forever.

Tzar Chasm

S.R. wrote: »

And what about british or american tv channels? Are not they Propaganda?

Oh they are most certainly propaganda mouthpieces for their respective nations, its very very difficult to get concise non partisan information from any single source, even the ones that do try to be impartial like the BBC still have an underlying bias.

I generally try to source my news from as many different 'sides' in a situation as possible, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all the rhetoric.

Tzar Chasm

Stovepipe wrote: »

the Americans wouldn't need to send a carrier or any other vessel into the Black sea itself. They could sit quite happily in the Med or Adriatic and launch airstrikes or drones to their hearts content or they could launch attacks or reconnaisance from Turkey or Greece. If push came to shove, they could easily close the Strait and keep the Russians in there forever.

can they close the Strait tho? I have no doubt that either side could effectivley blockade it, but where would they stand regards international maritime law, would any attempt at a blockade be an act of aggression/war

Jawgap

Stovepipe wrote: »

the Americans wouldn't need to send a carrier or any other vessel into the Black sea itself. They could sit quite happily in the Med or Adriatic and launch airstrikes or drones to their hearts content or they could launch attacks or reconnaisance from Turkey or Greece. If push came to shove, they could easily close the Strait and keep the Russians in there forever.

Assumes that countries in question would permit it (basing of aircraft and drones and overflights) - especially as they have to live with the Russians when the Yanks head home.

The Turks are responsible for the strait. Plus the US Navy spends a lot of time / effort asserting international navigation rights - I'd imagine if they forced the closure of the Strait they may find themselves up against it in a lot of different parts of the world, in the sense that every tin pot regime would feel justified in closing off every bit of water they fancied leaving the USN chasing around to assert the rights available under international law.

Conmaicne Mara

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

can they close the Strait tho? I have no doubt that either side could effectivley blockade it, but where would they stand regards international maritime law, would any attempt at a blockade be an act of aggression/war

What does that make this?

http://gcaptain.com/russian-warship-sunk-crimea/

spank_inferno

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

What does that make this?

http://gcaptain.com/russian-warship-sunk-crimea/

Well, the Russians aren't too keen on respecting border integrity, so they probably give a fudge about maritime law.

Conmaicne Mara

spank_inferno wrote: »

Well, the Russians aren't too keen on respecting border integrity, so they probably give a fudge about maritime law.

I agree. That POV lets the Russians act quickly, where as "The West" get it hard just to react at all. So the Russians will get their way while the EU/USA are still waffling over what to do. Its depressing for the people in Ukraine who should be let decide for themselves with elections.

S.R.

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

I agree. That POV lets the Russians act quickly, where as "The West" get it hard just to react at all. So the Russians will get their way while the EU/USA are still waffling over what to do. Its depressing for the people in Ukraine who should be let decide for themselves with elections.

Depressing? I will tell you what is depressing.
It's very depressing to hear from new government that, for example, pensions will be reduced by 50% soon, so that to meet IMF requirements to get some financial help. Sounds familiar, isn't it?
It is very hard to live in Ukraine with their pensions anyway, and I can't imagine how will people live with 50% reduction.

BuilderPlumber

I don't think the West (who oversaw the Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya invasions over the last decade) can really lecture Russia on the high moral ground here! But, typical of the West, they always will. Compared to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Russia's invasion of Crimea is well not even in the same category.

Why the almost bankrupt EU and war-weary US want to even get involved shows us no one has learned any lessons whatsoever from Iraq and the recession that it set in motion.

At present, the last thing the world needs is yet another failed state on the crossroads of Europe and Asia near to oil, gas, etc. Isn't Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, tribal Pakistan, Kashmir, Georgia, Chechnya, Israel/Palestine/Lebanon, etc. enough??? Iran nearly joined that category and suffered from a succession of fascist regimes from 1979 to date as a result of superpower jostling in the region (thankfully, it has a moderate and intelligent president who can roll back the fascist tide now - unless or until the blooming superpowers derail him like they did previous moderate Khatami). The West seem to like creating unstable fascist regimes on Russia's doorstep it seems (they also supported the Taliban in the 1980s).

Ukraine could go any way. There is no fascist 'Islamic' movement but that's the rock they'd perish on. Assumption: 'no militant Islam, no threat'. MI came as a threat because it was not ranked highly in the 1970s when communism was 'the enemy'. MI in fact was aided and abetted to fight communists in Afghanistan and the West let a Khmer Rouge-style MI fascist army take over Iran in 1979 without even attempting to stop it happening! Tudeh communists had to be stopped no matter what! Taliban, an even worse set of fascists, were supported by the West against Russia!

We know that a whole generation of Iranians, Afghans and Iraqis all had to waste their lives living in unstable warzones lead for the most part by fascist fanatics. It needn't have been like this but was because of the cold war. Iran has a chance out of its 30+ year nightmare with its current moderate president and hopefully he is allowed to implement reform. At least, there is hope in Iran but only after decades. Iraq and Afghanistan have a very long road even to get to where Iran was in 1989 and that says a lot! Syria are only perhaps starting their 30+ year nightmare.

Ukraine could see the start of a new, undetected threat: while now the whole world focused on al Qaeda and fascist 'Islam', another threat in the form of neo-Nazi secular nationalist fascism could re-emerge in Europe. Ukraine, a poor country with political divisions, is rife for something like this.

The breakup of Russia would be worrisome too and Putin and all Russian politicians even those who are against the current government there want to prevent this. The breakup of Ukraine could well lead to more militancy from al Qaeda in Chechnya coupled with maybe more nationalist extremism in poorer Eastern parts of Asian Russia for example. An Iraq/Syria style situation in Ukraine could spill over into Modova, Belarus and even Slovakia and Hungary. Ukraine could start a Yugoslav style conflict that may engulf the ex USSR and other Eastern and Central Europe nations.

The West and Russia both need to be careful here. Bush-era style sabre rattling from the West will not help or either will a paranoid Russian leadership. One feeds the other and a vicious circle could reignite a total new cold war and thus proxy wars by the West and Russia in Ukraine, the Middle East, Africa, etc. Again, we already had all this and should have learned our lesson!

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not sure how a pre-arranged stop on a pre-arranged forward deployment constitutes a show of strength? It's just part of the normal rotation schedule.

Why would the Yanks (or NATO) want to engage in a show of strength / pi$$ing contest with the Russians, in general, and Putin in particular?

And even they wanted to, there are more efficient ways to do it than using an Carrier Group - they just need to plonk a few extra aircraft in Poland.

A squadron of F-16s is to deploy to Lask in Poland (from Aviano) next week, and six F-15s are heading from RAF Lakenheath to reinforce the U.S. detachment already at Siauliai in Lithuania.

Still only symbolic and they're hardly falling over themselves to get there in a hurry.

spank_inferno

S.R. wrote: »

Depressing? I will tell you what is depressing.
It's very depressing to hear from new government that, for example, pensions will be reduced by 50% soon, so that to meet IMF requirements to get some financial help. Sounds familiar, isn't it?
It is very hard to live in Ukraine with their pensions anyway, and I can't imagine how will people live with 50% reduction.

Well, they are the bank of last resort.

So what can you do.

I dare say there hasn't been a lot of tax collecting going on so far this year.

aligator_am

Just wondering what will happen if Russia decide to take the rest of Ukraine? I don't think they will, but I've heard there are other pockets of pro Russian folks in the West of the country.

Have also heard that the Russians have a loaded nuke missile silo in an area they're not ruling over yet, I doubt that would be left to chance, will they just roll over the whole place with this as a pretext?

BuilderPlumber

aligator_am wrote: »

Just wondering what will happen if Russia decide to take the rest of Ukraine? I don't think they will, but I've heard there are other pockets of pro Russian folks in the West of the country.

Have also heard that the Russians have a loaded nuke missile silo in an area they're not ruling over yet, I doubt that would be left to chance, will they just roll over the whole place with this as a pretext?

What would happen is that the neo-imperialist buffoons in the West would shoot themselves in the foot by antagonising Russia by imposing sanctions. Russia could then retaliate by cutting off gas or other supplies. The EU would spiral into a deep recession. America too.

Bush and Blair ARE GONE! Or are they? Our political leaders need to learn something from their mistakes of 2001-2009 but obviously haven't. The arms industry still has the US by the nose and the EU seem to be copycats of them. I know, I know if Obama, who is not Bush and less agreeable to most of their idiotic policies, went up against these and stood up for real American rights, he'd end up like Kennedy (with neo-KKK then could be blamed for something the arms industry lobbies really did).

What the world needs is a recession that affects one industry: the arms industry. Let them lose out bigtime and make them weak.

Russia and Ukraine is their own business. The were all the one up until 1991 and no one really cared if Russia and Ukraine were together or not. And even in the cold war era, the Americans didn't even care who ruled it (a non-communist USSR would do ok). Let them sort it out between them as it is really no business of the US arms industry or a copy cat EU.