Ukraines PM - "We still remember well the Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany. "

Hibernosaur

Firstly this is not a thread about Russia's involvement in Ukraine or whether Russia is an invader etc there is already a massive thread dedicated to that, but rather about yatsentuk and the far right element in Ukraine, and the willingness of some Western leaders to work with them and collaborate with them.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk , who has in the past publicly praised, and referred to as a hero, historical Ukrainian Nazi SS Stepan Bandera who amongst other things wanted to see the extermination of all Poles and Russians; is again showing his Far right leanings with this recent gaff when speaking with a German news paper:

"All of us still clearly remember the Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany, We need to avoid a repeat of it."

This is the Ukrainian PM insinuating that Germany and Ukraine (Lumped in together for some reason) were invaded by the USSR. Portraying Germany as the victim and not the aggressor and ignoring the fact that the Nazis started the war and invaded Ukraine which was as much a part of the USSR as Russia at the time.

The Russians have asked Germany for their official stance on this piece of "History" from the Ukrainian PM. They refused to be drawn on it. They should have outright condemned the notion.

Far right groups in Ukraine are largely taboo in Western media for some reason. It seems to muddy the waters of the current narrative that prevails. The grey areas of far right ideological groups and real far right politicians including the PM are conveniently ignored.

Their associations with Bandera idolizing groups not mentioned.

For those unfamiliar with SS Stepan Bandera I suggest looking at the Wikipedia entry-

Here is an extract from Wikipedia:

"In late 1942, Bandera's organization, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, was involved in a campaign of ethnic cleansing of Volhynia, and in early 1944, these campaigns began to include Eastern Galicia. It is estimated that nearly 70,000 Poles, mostly women and children along with unarmed men, were killed during the spring and summer campaign of 1943 in Volhynia[39] by the OUN-Bandera which bears primary responsibility for the massacres."

In October 2007, the city of Lviv erected a statue dedicated to Bandera. yes a major City in Ukraine, in modern times, erected a massive statue honoring the man who committed mass murder of Poles and Jews. This was done by the leaders of the "Orange revolution", many of whom, including Yulia Tymoshenko, are still important politicians in Ukraine.

Yulia Tymoshenko herself was quoted as saying "take up arms and kill the f*****g Russians" just last year. Remember Ukrainian Russians make up a large percentage of Ukraine.


However there are some EU leaders who are outspoken against these ideas such as the Czech Prime minister who has recently responded to an open letter from a far right Ukrainian group by writing:

Letter from Miloš Zeman to the "Ukrainian experts"
"In response to an open letter addressed to me by Ukrainian experts I am responding by an open letter as well :
Dear Ukrainian experts,
I have received your letter, in which you are defending Stepan Bandera.
Therefore allow me to ask you couple of questions :
Firstly, do you know of Bandera’s quote? “ Kill every Pole between 16 and 60!”
If you don't know it, you are not true experts on the matter of Ukraine.
If you know this quote, do you agree with it or not ?
If you do, our debate is over.
For the benefit of your education, I wish to make you aware of the fact that it was Bandera’s intention to turn Ukraine into a colony state of the German Reich .
His intent was supported by Alfred Rosenberg, but only because Adolf Hitler decided that Ukraine is going to be exclusively colonised by German farmers, this project was abandoned and Bandera was sent to a concentration camp instead.
Something similar occurred in our territory too, I am referring to the case of Jan Rys Rozsevač , the founder of Vlajka.
Also, I wish to make you aware of the fact that already president Yuschenko declared Bandera as a national hero of Ukraine and currently a similar declaration is being prepared in the case of Mr Shuchevych , the man who became notorious for ordering in 1941 the shootin of thousands of Jews in Lviv.
I cannot congratulate Ukraine on worshiping such heroes.
I am delighted I could contribute to your education and I wish you lots of success in your future work.
Best regards,
Miloš Zeman
The president of Czech Republic"


The Kyiv Post, a major Ukrainian news agency, regularly features reports about its "Hero volunteers" joining militia groups who are openly sporting the Ukrainian Nationalist Black Swastika like symbol on Yellow. Some have SS or 88 on their helmets (Far Right code for HH - Heil Hitler) and other Nazi regalia.

Sky news recently ran an article which had a photo gallery showing Neo Nazi militia recruits but remarkably failed to mention that fact at all. Simply calling them Volunteers. I cannot post links yet unfortunately to show it.

A Ukrainian journalist voiced his opinion in the media yesterday, saying that Eastern Ukraine was over populated and needed 1.5 million people only. The rest were superfluous. This sort of rhetoric is becoming more common in Ukrainian media and is alarming to say the least.

Then we have other members of government suggesting things like "Banning Russian" and moving East Ukrainian Russians to "Re-education camps". None of these ideas take traction but the very fact that they are even considered by parliament is scary.

How can Merkel et al back Arseny Yatsentuk given his admiration of the Ukrainian SS and his open far right associations?

Additionally how can we as Europeans condemn Pro Russians without condemning Ukrainian Nationalists? On one side we have Cossack Extremists being supported by Russia and the other Neo Nazi Extremists being supported by Ukrainian military units.

While it's true that the far right represent a minority in Ukraine, they are well represented in some western regions.

The Main groups of people fighting against the former Ukrainian governments Riot police the were far right 'Right Sector' units. These were only a small percentage of the demonstrators but they were highly organised and managed to defeat the police and oust the President.

These small well organised far right groups are currently missing one factor that the Nazis had, and that's a charismatic leader such as Hitler. But their effectiveness and influence must still be noted. The Average Ukrainian does not vote for far right groups, but enough of them do to make them something to worry about down the line. These groups don't need votes to make a difference to the government as they have shown.

They are also capable of ethnic cleansing as the burning of dozens of Russian Ukrainians in the Odessa massacre in 2014 has demonstrated.

The previous Ukrainian government, for all their faults, kept a lid on the far right groups. But now these very same far right groups have been given official mandate to go kill Russians.

There were massive marches in Kiev a few days ago in remembrance of Bandera. There are photos on Kyiv Post and other Ukrainian and Russian outlets.

Is it ok to be a neo Nazi if you are fighting Russia?
Surely Merkel should be refusing to work with anyone who considers an SS officer a hero and tries to rewrite history to paint the Nazis as victims?

Iwasfrozen

The neo nazi presence in Ukraine is vastly over blown by Russian media to suit their own ends.

Svoboda only holds 7 out of 450 seats in parliament.

As for Yatsenyuk it was a stupid thing to say but the guy obviously isn't a Nazi.

Bootros Bootros

Yes. He might be on firmer ground though were he to remember the Nazi-Soviet Union pact to invade Poland.

Dannyboy83

This post is too long to rebut in full, but just to restore some balance:

Hibernosaur wrote: »

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk , who has in the past publicly praised, and referred to as a hero, historical Ukrainian Nazi SS Stepan Bandera who amongst other things wanted to see the extermination of all Poles and Russians; is again showing his Far right leanings with this recent gaff when speaking with a German news paper:

"All of us still clearly remember the Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany, We need to avoid a repeat of it."

Basically, Yatsenyuk used the Russian tactic of interpreting history/events in a very select manner.
It's bizarre, but something the Russians famously do themselves...The Belarusian narrative also differs from the Russian narrative and the Russian media have been attacking Belarus for similar reasons.

This is the Ukrainian PM insinuating that Germany and Ukraine (Lumped in together for some reason) were invaded by the USSR. Portraying Germany as the victim and not the aggressor and ignoring the fact that the Nazis started the war and invaded Ukraine which was as much a part of the USSR as Russia at the time.

Stalin had a peace agreement with the Poles prior to the invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union.
Stalin had a peace agreement with the Nazis prior to the invasion of Russia by Nazi Germany.
Is one pig more equal than the other?

The USSR/Russia have been portraying themselves as the victim for decades.

Are we expected to pretend that Soviet concentration camps, such as IX Fort in Kaunas, didn't exist prior to Operation Barbarossa?

It's distorted thinking.

The Russians have asked Germany for their official stance on this piece of "History" from the Ukrainian PM. They refused to be drawn on it. They should have outright condemned the notion.

Why?
Poland has waited 70+ years for an apology from Russia for the invasion of Poland under the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

Putin choose the narrative which suits his interests, that British/French appeasement of Hitler forced Russia into signing the secret pact, including the secret clause carving up Poland and Lithuania.

It seems unreasonable for Russia to call on other nations until they are prepared to fulfil their own obligations.

Poland wants September 1, 1939, to remain etched in the world's memory as the beginning of the greatest tragedy of the 20th century,' said Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk yesterday.
He promised to remind Mr Putin 'who had been the executioner and who the victim during World War Two'.

Far right groups in Ukraine are largely taboo in Western media for some reason. It seems to muddy the waters of the current narrative that prevails. The grey areas of far right ideological groups and real far right politicians including the PM are conveniently ignored.

How much coverage did the publication of Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine get in the Western Media?

Open Russia has published a list of 272 Russian soldiers reported to have been killed in Ukraine, which was made available by a source within the Ukrainian Defense Ministry. Many of the names on the list have been reported in recent months by The Interpreter, as Russian journalists and human rights activists have verified them.

It's a Russo-centric view. Russia is not the centre of world attention, it's not even a global power, it's just a regional power.

In October 2007, the city of Lviv erected a statue dedicated to Bandera. yes a major City in Ukraine, in modern times, erected a massive statue honoring the man who committed mass murder of Poles and Jews. This was done by the leaders of the "Orange revolution", many of whom, including Yulia Tymoshenko, are still important politicians in Ukraine.

Have you never heard Putin justify the return of Soviet Era monuments by comparing the British having a statue of Cromwell?
Recall the role played by Stalin in the Ukrainian famine

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/10528072/Vladimir-Putin-press-conference-Joseph-Stalin-v-Oliver-Cromwell.html
Asked which Soviet leader he would most like to reconstruct in the form of a statue, Vladimir Putin made an unexpected comparison between Oliver Cromwell and Joseph Stalin.
“There is no difference. Cromwell is just as much of a bloody dictator as was Stalin.”
He pointed out that there is a monument to Cromwell in London (outside the House of Commons) and no one seeks to knock it down.

Dannyboy83

Hibernosaur wrote: »

Is it ok to be a neo Nazi if you are fighting Russia?
Surely Merkel should be refusing to work with anyone who considers an SS officer a hero and tries to rewrite history to paint the Nazis as victims?

Possibly the strangest aspect of the current Russian narrative, is that Russia seems to have completely forgotten that it has the most active neo-nazi groups within it's own borders:

Neo-Nazi violence in Russia, after declining between 2009 and 2012, is again on the rise with an increasing share of it now directed against immigrants from Central Asia rather than “persons of Caucasus nationality” because those involved in such attacks feel they are less likely to be punished if they do, according to the SOVA Center.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/anti-immigrant-riots-in-moscow-highlight-tensions-a-927792.html
Xenophobic Riots: Moscow Nervous after Violence Erupts
Fear of domination by foreigners has overtaken the fear of terrorist attacks in recent Russian opinion polls, and ethnic tensions in the country's big cities are the "biggest danger for Russia's national security," says Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-30380415
Get Taxi says drivers with names originating in Asia or the Caucasus had been receiving lower ratings on its booking app, which allows passengers to review their experiences. As an "experiment", the company decided to Russify the drivers' identities, apparently with their permission, to see if it made a difference to people's reviews, the RB.ru business news website reports. "We don't want one driver to get a lower rating than another, just because of his name," says Get Taxi's owner Shahar Waiser, adding that all drivers have the same training and knowledge. He says the aim was to "reduce nationalism", but acknowledges it may have backfired.

According to prominent Russian blogger Rustem Adagamov, the smartphone app for a rival taxi firm offers a "Slav driver" option at no extra charge.

Hibernosaur

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The neo nazi presence in Ukraine is vastly over blown by Russian media to suit their own ends.

Svoboda only holds 7 out of 450 seats in parliament.

As for Yatsenyuk it was a stupid thing to say but the guy obviously isn't a Nazi.

I totally agree. I think that Russia uses these as a propaganda tool to Scare Ordinary Russians into a polarized siege mentality. This is partly how Putin maintains his support.

However I think, leaving the Russian government and their propaganda out of it, The west is still largely turning a blind eye to the far right question in Ukraine.

The fact that they are not popular enough to win many votes didn't seem to hinder them becoming effective militia groups that have changed the countries course. In fact it's their very undemocratic nature that makes them so dangerous, These groups can oust a government without popular support.

As for the Ukrainian PM, he is not a Nazi but he has been associating and working with far right groups for a long time as they have been useful. As has Tymoshenko.

Nevertheless his obvious (and deliberate - as he's not stupid) misinformation regarding Ukraines history is just the tip of the iceberg in Ukrainian mainstream media.

There is a trend towards defining what it means to be Ukrainian, outside of being a region of the Russian Empire and USSR. This is understandable given that Ukraine needs to define itself now, of all times. It needs to create a Ukrainian narrative that is unique from Russia, despite both countries having the same origins in the Kiev Rus.

The danger is, (As we have found in Ireland when we were trying to solidify our identity outside the UK) that in solidifying their national Identity, it may also lead to a rise in pseudo-history which begats nationalism.

The fact that Ukrainian nationalism has a strong association with nazism is worrying. If the West does want to nurture the new Ukraine, it needs to make it clear that, while we support your European choice, there is no room for these types of groups in the EU.

Ignoring the nazi's was a mistake that cost Europe, and the world massively before. How quickly we forget.

Hibernosaur

Dannyboy, while I see where you're coming from (and don't disagree) I don't think you are addressing the issues. Rather you are making comparisons with Russians being guilty of the same things.

Nobody is denying that Russia has a far right problem. But Russia is not trying to join the EU and NATO. So lets forget about Russia and focus on Ukrainian domestic politics. The Ukraine crises will end, one way or the other. The legacy of the Ukraine crises should not give flight to far right policy in a country that has already achieved legally binding EU association and soon to be EU visa free travel.

I want to welcome Ukraine into the EU. But not 200K (Which is the official estimate) of far right activists who have been actually fighting, and killing Russian Ukrainians and Rebels.

These militias are sent to the front lines by Kiev (Who in fairness, are desperate for fighting men). Aidar, Ukraina, DNDMetinvest, Kiev1 Azov, Donbas, Dnepr1, Dnepr2.. The list goes on.

Do we want these people having EU access?

Dannyboy83

Hibernosaur wrote: »

Dannyboy, while I see where your coming from, and don't disagree, I don't think you are addressing the issues. Rather you are making comparisons with Russians being guilty of the same things.

Precisely, I'm confirming that the Russians are guilty of the same of which they accuse.
It's important to distinguish between whataboutery and hypocrisy - If Russia wishes to claim the moral high ground, or point out the Ukrainian flaws, then they must remove the log from their own eye first.

Nobody is denying that Russia has a far right problem. But Russia is not trying to join the EU and NATO. So lets forget about Russia and focus on Ukrainian domestic politics. The Ukraine crises will end, one way or the other. The legacy of the Ukraine crises should not give flight to far right policy in a country that has already achieved legally binding EU association and soon to be EU visa free travel.

All the statements levelled at the Ukrainians, by the Russians, are
I want to welcome Ukraine into the EU.

I agree with you, but on different terms.
I do not welcome the Ukraine into the EU, in general, not at least they have undergone radical reform.

The far right element is completely overblown, particularly by Russian propagandists.
The corruption however is not.

I refer you to my thoughts here rather than repeat them in this thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93604963&postcount=48


p.s.
Concerning the Nazi element - it's important to stress the point that the Russians are now using this tactic against Belarus.

http://belarusdigest.com/story/russi...ng-minsk-21055
First, the widely-read pro-Kremlin blogger Aleksandr Shumsky has published a detailed post saying that Belarus was a natural part of Russia and suggesting that Russia should actively prevent attempts of a pro-Western revolution in Belarus.

Then, the popular entertainment TV channel REN TV on December 20 aired a half-hour long film about Belarus claiming that the West is preparing a coup d’etat in Belarus, criticising both the Belarusian opposition and the regime of Lukashenka.

The influential nationalistic online publication Sputnik & Pogrom is regularly publishing articles denouncing the right of Belarusians to have an independent state, denouncing the existence of the Belarusian language and culture.

Other publications have in the past weeks been even more aggressive in criticising things like the growth of popularity of Belarusian traditional clothing or the non-Russocentric view of Belarusian history by Belarusians.

Some of the articles, in a typical manner, portray the Belarusian democratic opposition as Nazis and accuse Lukashenka of being weak and opportunistic. The fact that Lukashenka has maintained good relations with Ukraine in 2014 is also a topic for hysterically critical publications on different levels.
.
.

.
.
Gleb Pavlovsky, a former Kremlin ideologue and PR mastermind, said in his recent interview when commenting on the media attack being mounted against Lukashenka "[Putin’s system today] can’t bear any compromises and must turn an insecure ally [like Lukashenka] into an enemy".

Moreover, the criticism of Lukashenka will be a good topic for the Kremlin to turn society’s attention away from the economic problems and the failure of the war in eastern Ukraine, Pavlovsky said.

More on this topic here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93667727&postcount=157

Hibernosaur

It's apparent that Ukraine and Russia are not that dissimilar from each other regarding rampant Corruption and issues with extreme nationalism. Yet we Condemn one and welcome the other. Surely in this we (The collective "West") are as hypocritical as the Russians.

I think we, the EU, should stick to our morals a bit more when getting involved in international affairs. Instead of speaking out of both sides of our mouth. It reminds me of when the USA suggested arming the rebels in Syria who they are now bombing in Iraq 1 year later.

We either condemn Neo-Nazi politics completely or we don't. We can't have good Nazis and bad Nazis just like we cannot have good Jihadis and bad Jihadis.(As the US discovered).

The problem is that the West seems to turn a blind eye to war crimes if it hurts Russia in some fashion. Just like the USA were willing to turn a blind eye to Islamic extremism, and even arm and assist them in order to hurt the Russians and their allies in the Afghani-USSR war/invasion and the more recent Syria conflict.

This geopolitical East / West Grappling should have been left in the 80's where it belongs. Merkels "The lady's not for turning" approach to Russia is starting to wear thin considering her very own country nearly wiped out European civilization as we know it just 75 years ago and is now turning a blind eye to politicians she supports who are either spouting strikingly similar rhetoric to the Nazi state Germany left behind, or supporting and arming groups that enact the same rhetoric violently in present day Ukraine.

A minority yes, but then again the Nazi's were a small minority in Germany too.

Armistice

Arseniy Yatsenyuk is a PR disaster for Ukraine. He should have stayed retired. I would say Merkal will start to distance herself from him more and more as he continues to make a fool out of himself on the international stage. President Poroshenko is a lot more diplomatic and tactful and should put a muzzle on Arseniy. It's important to state that while West Ukraine certainly has a larger population of people with far right leanings then the rest of Ukraine, they are still a minority that are hated by most ordinary people. My experience of Ukraine, Having been there many times and marrying a Russian-Ukrainian, is that these people are largely hated by the average Ukrainian and that the average Russian Ukrainian does not like the cossack extremists either. Sort of like how most Irish people feel about the IRA types and the Orangemen/ Extreme loyalists.

I think most people just want peace and to live their lives normally. While we should condemn and keep an eye on extremist groups in all forms, I don't think that they will be big problem in the future as the situation begins to normalize which I think it will in 2015. Extremist groups are useful weapons in a war, but become freezed out as normality returns because they are too radical and unpredictable to contain in peace times. I am not justifying it, but it's a sad reality.

I have already discussed much of this before in another thread (referenced by Dannyboy83) and I believe it is in the interests of all Ukrainians and Russians if Ukraine were to have a 'divorce' with itself like the Czech Republic and Slovakia did. I think a smaller more pro European Ukraine would enact reforms easier. Just as the Eastern Ukrainian Donbass region would be able to maintain it's beloved trade and cultural links with Russia. Most importantly, any solution where people stop getting killed is a good one in my book.

Manach

To put this in context, AFAIR, History Today magazine about 2 issues back mentioned the back-story to various Ukrainians who served on either side of WWII. It is only since the passing of the USSR that other sides of that struggle have been able to be discussed in public. That is not to say either side were all good or bad in that context, but the situation was very complex and not amenable to simplified analysis.

Busted Flat.

To put it in context the Kiev regime is run by a puppet imposed by the EU/US. he is totally out of his depth, his "so called" grip on intelligence and reality is astounding. His president poncing around Paris is disgusting regarding how he came to power himself.

Iwasfrozen

Busted Flat. wrote: »

To put it in context the Kiev regime is run by a puppet imposed by the EU/US. he is totally out of his depth, his "so called" grip on intelligence and reality is astounding. His president poncing around Paris is disgusting regarding how he came to power himself.

Proof?

Busted Flat.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Proof?

Open your eyes.:eek:

Gatling

Have i come to a different after hours

BoJack Horseman

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Open your eyes.:eek:

That's that then.

Iwasfrozen

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Open your eyes.:eek:

Objective proof?

Elmer Blooker

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Proof?

Are you serious?
An authentic phone call between the US State Dept (Nuland) and the US ambassador in Kiev discussing who THEY want in power (good ol' Yats) and you're looking for evidence!!

This should an interesting documentary ......... thats if it ever gets finished.
http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/01/01/2192

Iwasfrozen

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Are you serious?
An authentic phone call between the US State Dept (Nuland) and the US ambassador in Kiev discussing who THEY want in power (good ol' Yats) and you're looking for evidence!!

This should an interesting documentary ......... thats if it ever gets finished.
http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/01/01/2192

Nowhere in that phonecall is there proof that "the Kiev regime is run by a puppet imposed by the EU/US"

SeanW

Hibernosaur wrote: »

Yulia Tymoshenko herself was quoted as saying "take up arms and kill the f*****g Russians" just last year. Remember Ukrainian Russians make up a large percentage of Ukraine.

It should be pointed out that the Russians in Ukraine are a bit exactly like the situation with Protestants in Northern Ireland. I.E. Stalin moved them into the Ukraine en-masse with the explicit intention of destroying the Ukranian nationality. They did the same in Estonia and the other Baltic states.

The same thing the UK tried to do to Ireland, the same thing China is doing to the Tibetans.

This is the root cause of the Ukranian conflict (other than Vlad just being a warmonger who wants to keep Ukraine under Moscow's thumb in any case) and while in Ireland we've come to terms the past genocide (a fully independent Republic of Ireland and a shared, mutually inclusive Northern Ireland) the Ukranians have come to no such conclusion not least because of the lack of partition but also because Moscow is still ****ing around in their business, supporting corrupt leaders, keeping Ukraine from looking West all with the support of their "planters".

You can do that kind of **** to the Tibetans as the Chinese are doing because the Tibetans are peaceniks, but you can't be surprised when you try to wipe out a group of people and those people in turn get pissed off.

Elmer Blooker

Stalin moved them into the Ukraine en-masse with the explicit intention of destroying the Ukranian nationality

Russians have lived in eastern Ukraine for generations - long before Stalin's time. They didn't recognize the German installed puppet regime in 1918 and they don't recognize this one either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk–Krivoy_Rog_Soviet_Republic

Iwasfrozen

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Russians have lived in eastern Ukraine for generations - long before Stalin's time. They didn't recognize the German installed puppet regime in 1918 and they don't recognize this one either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk–Krivoy_Rog_Soviet_Republic

No one is saying Russians can't live in Ukraine but they should respect Ukrainian sovereignty.

paul71

OP, Milos Zeman IS NOT the Czech Prime minister as you stated he is the Czech president, an office with powers akin to that of our own Presient or perhaps the King of Denmark, Queen of England. He is not as you stated a European leader, but is in a serious embarassment to Czech Republic and without overstating is regarded there as a Drunken Loon.


If I was seeking to score creditabilty on the world stage this is not a charactor I would be holding up a pargon of virture, his endorsement of Russian actions and policies would be something I would be trying to hide if I were a proponant of Russian policies.


BBC News - Czech president pelted with eggs on revolution ...

www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30086495
'Drunk' Czech president Milos Zeman can hardly stand on ...

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Drunk-Czech-president-Milos-Zeman-hardly-sta...
Czech president shocks nations in expletive-filled interview ...

www.telegraph.co.uk › News › World News › Europe › Czech Republic

'American beer is just filthy water' - Czech President - RT.com

rt.com/news/208459-zeman-beer-czech-filth/

Dannyboy83

Yatsenyuk referenced a "Soviet invasion of Ukraine, as well as of Germany."
.
.

Yatsenyuk later told the television station he was speaking about the post-WWII Soviet occupation

Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky has called for the creation of a "patriotic internet" to reinforce Russian values and keep out anti-Moscow voices that are "against the truth," the Moscow Times reported.

The country must "consolidate the state and society on the basis of values instilled by our history," Medinsky wrote in a statement published Tuesday on the website of a military historical society he chairs.

"Against us — and that means against the truth — a new blitzkrieg has begun," Medinsky wrote. "We need a patriotic trend in the public conscience. We need films, books, exhibitions, modern video games, we need a patriotic Internet, patriotic radio and television."

This **** is unbelievable. Just come out and say it - Pravda


Seriously tho, Russia is not restoring the USSR - Russia is going full National Socialist now, altho with the artifacts of the Soviet Union.
The clock is ticking for Belarus Anschluss

The Economist reports that Russia is seeking to prosecute people who 'deserted' the Soviet Army, during the collapse of the Soviet Union and warning them not to leave EU/NATO territory

I wonder if there is a legal case for Lithuania to sue Russia for reparations against the Soviet Union then?

Latvia’s presidency of the EU will seek greater support for the Ukraine against “the aggression of Russia”, Latvian prime minister Laimdota Straujuma has told the European Parliament.

Hibernosaur

SeanW wrote: »

It should be pointed out that the Russians in Ukraine are a bit exactly like the situation with Protestants in Northern Ireland. I.E. Stalin moved them into the Ukraine en-masse with the explicit intention of destroying the Ukranian nationality. They did the same in Estonia and the other Baltic states.

The same thing the UK tried to do to Ireland, the same thing China is doing to the Tibetans.

This is the root cause of the Ukranian conflict (other than Vlad just being a warmonger who wants to keep Ukraine under Moscow's thumb in any case) and while in Ireland we've come to terms the past genocide (a fully independent Republic of Ireland and a shared, mutually inclusive Northern Ireland) the Ukranians have come to no such conclusion not least because of the lack of partition but also because Moscow is still ****ing around in their business, supporting corrupt leaders, keeping Ukraine from looking West all with the support of their "planters".

You can do that kind of **** to the Tibetans as the Chinese are doing because the Tibetans are peaceniks, but you can't be surprised when you try to wipe out a group of people and those people in turn get pissed off.

Russians have lived in East Ukraine since the Tsars. And Crimea has been Russian since the Tartars Got their asses kicked out by the Russians.
These are historical facts that are well documented.

pablomakaveli

Hibernosaur wrote: »

Russians have lived in East Ukraine since the Tsars. And Crimea has been Russian since the Tartars Got their asses kicked out by the Russians.
These are historical facts that are well documented.

So in other words the Tartars have more claim to Crimea than the Russians. Funnily enough they had been returning to Crimea under Ukrainian rule but have been getting chased out again by the Russians.

Hibernosaur

pablomakaveli wrote: »

So in other words the Tartars have more claim to Crimea than the Russians. Funnily enough they had been returning to Crimea under Ukrainian rule but have been getting chased out again by the Russians.

Again not true. Crimean tartars were a mongol style horse militia. Russia built the cities there (Ancient Greece founded some cities).

The Tartars, Ukrainians, Jews and Ukrainians are all equally at home in Crimea.

Ukraine treated the Tartars badly. They were always protesting and crying foul. They are doing the same under Russia , but people are only noting it now because it's on the map. In fact Tartars have more rights in Russia then Ukraine.

Under Ukraine the Tartar holidays and language were not legal.
In Russia they are legal national holidays for the entire region and the language is an official language. As it is in the republic of Tartarstan in Russia.

How many times you been to Crimea?

Me? - Many times.

Name a European country where Muslim minority groups are not crying foul ? Russia is no different.

SamHarris

It's incredibly ironic Putin - and a lot of modern Russian media - saying this and that group is neo-Nazi when it is so very easy to see the parallels between modern Russia and Nazi Germany.

Hitlers idea of lebensraum has direct parallels with the "new Russia" theories proposed by politicians and theorists in Russia today.

The nibbling away at the borders of neighbouring states - in Georgia and Ukraine most recently harking back to the Russian empire, again something the Nazis did.

The constant conspiracy theories. To the Nazis it was the global Jewery, to Russia today it is the West - or more specifically the US. All you have to do is check out RT, or even listen to the occasional statement from the government itself (its incredibly infantile) for every major event they come out with another "alternative" theory that is just lapped up by conspiracy theories in the West. Everyone is familiar with how much actual evidence actually corroborates these versions of events.

The relationship with business - some are massively enriched by state funds thereby ensuring their loyalty (the oligarchs) but small business barely gets a look in. All about corruption and massive government contracts in both.

The extreme nationalism, of course, posturing like it is a global power when it is very much regional.

the silencing of dissent - both of any opposition and media based. Well documented in both cases.

In short its all very obvious to any impartial observer.

How quickly and often they resort to outright threats and even nuclear ones is worrying though. Them acting like a world power and a foil to the US may play well with some in the West and at home but their inability to actually do so may well end in disaster for everyone.

Iwasfrozen

Hibernosaur wrote: »

Russians have lived in East Ukraine since the Tsars. And Crimea has been Russian since the Tartars Got their asses kicked out by the Russians.
These are historical facts that are well documented.

The English have lived in Ireland since the start of recorded history and Ireland had been English since the Irish got their asses kicked out west by Cromwell.
These are historical facts that are well documented.

Not so black and white when you're talking about your own country is it?

Elmer Blooker

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The English have lived in Ireland since the start of recorded history and Ireland had been English since the Irish got their asses kicked out west by Cromwell.
These are historical facts that are well documented.

I've read this post several times and I haven't a clue what you're on about!
Actually Ireland "had been English" for about 500 years before Cromwell!
These are historical facts.
By the way I was going to reply to SamHarris post but I decided not to because of the xenophobic tone of his post but I did find it amusing describing Russia, a country that spans 11 time zones from Europe to the Pacific and with vast mineral resources, as a "regional power"

Iwasfrozen

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I've read this post several times and I haven't a clue what you're on about!
Actually Ireland "had been English" for about 500 years before Cromwell!
These are historical facts.

I'm "on" about the cognitive dissonance inherent in supporting Russian imperialism while decrying British imperialism.

By the way I was going to reply to SamHarris post but I decided not to because of the xenophobic tone of his post but I did find it amusing describing Russia, a country that spans 11 time zones from Europe to the Pacific and with vast mineral resources, as a "regional power"

Russia is certainly only a regional power, this video explains it well.

WakeUp

SamHarris wrote: »

How quickly and often they resort to outright threats and even nuclear ones is worrying though. Them acting like a world power and a foil to the US may play well with some in the West and at home but their inability to actually do so may well end in disaster for everyone.

I would disagree with the part in bold, three examples being Georgia, Syria, Ukraine and to some extent Iran. clearly the Russians can and have influenced certain situations. look at a map and youll see how close the Russian capital is to the Ukrainian border. Ukraine will never be a NATO member if it even looks remotely like happening the place will be steamrolled by the Russians in a week. and it will be backed up by their strategic nuclear deterrent. When analysts and the some of the experts give their opinion on the Russians and what they may or may not be capable of they fail to either recognise or take into account the importance of physical geography to geopolitics and its affect on the power equilibrium that exists on the planet and in the future. geography is the mother of all strategy. Mackinders pivot of history or heartland theory in the early 1900s vis a vis Russia and then Zibigs theory in the grandchess board clearly explain the importance and relevance of geography/Russia to the balance of power that exists in the world. the world is multipolar and the Russians will not back down not now not ever with regard to Ukraine. the sooner the west in particular the Americans realise this the safer it will be for all of us. Ukraine along with Georgia are red lines not to be crossed. this is taken from the council of foreign of relations....

_________________________________________________________________________

From Russia’s perspective, the seeds of the Ukraine crisis were planted in the Cold War’s immediate aftermath. After the Soviet Union collapsed, the West essentially had two options: either make a serious attempt to assimilate Russia into the Western system or wrest away piece after piece of its former sphere of influence. Advocates of the first approach, including the U.S. diplomat George Kennan and Russian liberals, warned that an anti-Russian course would only provoke hostility from Moscow while accomplishing little, winning over a few small states that would end up siding with the West anyway.

But such admonitions went unheeded, and U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush chose the second path. Forgetting the promises made by Western leaders to Mikhail Gorbachev after the unification of Germany -- most notably that they would not expand NATO eastward -- the United States and its allies set out to achieve what Soviet resistance had prevented during the Cold War. They trumpeted NATO’s expansion, adding 12 new members, including former parts of the Soviet Union, while trying to convince Russia that the foreign forces newly stationed near its borders, in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania, would not threaten its security. The EU, meanwhile, expanded as well, adding 16 new members of its own during the same period.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141538/alexander-lukin/what-the-kremlin-is-thinking

doesnt matter how many bases or nukes or whatever the Americans and nato have unless they are prepared to use them. question is are they because to wrestle Ukraine from a Russian orbit that is what you are talking about.

Iwasfrozen

@Waeup the US doesn't have to wrest Ukraine from Russian sphere of influence, Ukraine has achieved that task itself. The US only needs to back up Ukrainian sovereignty. It's important in these discussions not to overestimate Russian strength, Russia is not a threat to US dominance, in military and diplomatic power they are more akin to the United Kingdom or France.

Putin will never invade Ukraine, he's smart enough not to provoke a war he can't win, Putin only wants to maintain the illusion of war to keep his own people in check while he continues to consolidate his power like any good dictator.

Busted Flat.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

@Waeup the US doesn't have to wrest Ukraine from Russian sphere of influence, Ukraine has achieved that task itself. The US only needs to back up Ukrainian sovereignty. It's important in these discussions not to overestimate Russian strength, Russia is not a threat to US dominance, in military and diplomatic power they are more akin to the United Kingdom or France.

Putin will never invade Ukraine, he's smart enough not to provoke a war he can't win, Putin only wants to maintain the illusion of war to keep his own people in check while he continues to consolidate his power like any good dictator.

All I can post,:rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

Busted Flat. wrote: »

All I can post,:rolleyes:

Anything to add to the conversation? I'm still waiting for you to back up that claim you made earlier btw.

PopePalpatine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Anything to add to the conversation? I'm still waiting for you to back up that claim you made earlier btw.

I'm still waiting for the Putinbots to discuss SamHarris's post.

WakeUp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

@Waeup the US doesn't have to wrest Ukraine from Russian sphere of influence, Ukraine has achieved that task itself. The US only needs to back up Ukrainian sovereignty. It's important in these discussions not to overestimate Russian strength, Russia is not a threat to US dominance, in military and diplomatic power they are more akin to the United Kingdom or France.

Putin will never invade Ukraine, he's smart enough not to provoke a war he can't win, Putin only wants to maintain the illusion of war to keep his own people in check while he continues to consolidate his power like any good dictator.

Ukrainian sovereignty is a myth they are stuck between a rock and a hard place how do you propose the Americans are going to back that up for them longterm short of sending in their own troops and equipment? the Russians dont even consider the place a country the slavic translation of the word Ukraine means borderland and thats exactly how the Russians view it. Ukrainian politics and energy politics are one and the same resources is power. they are dependent on Russia for their gas and now their coal along with nuclear fuel to power their soviet built nuclear reactors which in turn power their electricity stations. they have lots of uranium but they cant mine it properly and when they attempted to swap Russian fuel rods with western ones they nearly caused a disaster at the largest nuclear power plant on the continent Zaporizhia. the Ukrainian economy is heavily dependent on Russia being their largest trading partner. a lot of the wealth in the country is under the control of Russian backed rebels. they wont be joining the EU and certainly not NATO both will be viewed as provocations by Russia the latter would just be lights out for them. the EU trade agreement has been binned. whilst not overstating the power of the Russians some 1800 nuclear missiles is a serious amount of firepower. right now as things stand Im not sure Ukraine has managed to free itself completely if at all from Russias sphere of influence. will they ever I dunno they might but I think its unlikely. you could also make an argument that Russia is a threat to US dominance because US thinkers and strategists have always seen control of Eurasia as the grand prize. control Eurasia thats the key which contains a massive amount of the entire worlds resources and the Russians even though it isnt just them alone stand in the way of that. Georgia though more specifically Ukraine is central to this for all sorts of reasons. the Russians will not give in without a fight.

Iwasfrozen

WakeUp wrote: »

Ukrainian sovereignty is a myth they are stuck between a rock and a hard place how do you propose the Americans are going to back that up for them longterm short of sending in their own troops and equipment? the Russians dont even consider the place a country the slavic translation of the word Ukraine means borderland and thats exactly how the Russians view it. Ukrainian politics and energy politics are one and the same resources is power. they are dependent on Russia for their gas and now their coal along with nuclear fuel to power their soviet built nuclear reactors which in turn power their electricity stations. they have lots of uranium but they cant mine it properly and when they attempted to swap Russian fuel rods with western ones they nearly caused a disaster at the largest nuclear power plant on the continent Zaporizhia. the Ukrainian economy is heavily dependent on Russia being their largest trading partner. a lot of the wealth in the country is under the control of Russian backed rebels. they wont be joining the EU and certainly not NATO both will be viewed as provocations by Russia the latter would just be lights out for them. the EU trade agreement has been binned. whilst not overstating the power of the Russians some 1800 nuclear missiles is a serious amount of firepower. right now as things stand Im not sure Ukraine has managed to free itself completely if at all from Russias sphere of influence. will they ever I dunno they might but I think its unlikely. you could also make an argument that Russia is a threat to US dominance because US thinkers and strategists have always seen control of Eurasia as the grand prize. control Eurasia thats the key which contains a massive amount of the entire worlds resources and the Russians even though it isnt just them alone stand in the way of that. Georgia though more specifically Ukraine is central to this for all sorts of reasons. the Russians will not give in without a fight.

Ukrainian sovereignty will be helped by economic and/or military aid. The US has done a good job of securing independence for the Baltic regions, Poland and East Germany and bringing those countries under it's sphere of influence while at the same time building up their power to oppose Russian influence in the region. I can't see why Ukraine would be any different.

I'm aware Russia considers Ukraine theirs but Russia's post colonial hang ups are Russia's problem. Ukraine are by and large pro-western and a possible powerful ally for the United States if their independence are be secured.

I'm not exactly sure why the energy issue would be a main barrier or any more problematic for Ukraine that it has been for any other post communist country. I'm sure other former Soviet Western allies like Lithuania or Poland will be able and more than happy to advise Ukraine on the most efficient way to transition away from Russian energy dependence. The problem is large but it is not unmeetable.

Poland is slowly weaning itself away from Russian energy dependence by building pipelines to source alternative sources from the West. http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/04/poland-and-russia

Similarly Lithuania are harvesting gas from the Baltic, allowing them to supply the other Baltic countries to reduce their dependence on Russia too. https://euobserver.com/news/126272

Ukrainian dependence on Russian energy is a problem, but it is not a problem that cannot be over come the important thing now is to maintain Ukrainian independence while alternatives can be developed.

I'm aware of Mackinder's book but the pivot area by itself does not make a country powerful, Brzezinski wrote “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”

And Mackinder put it perhaps even more concisely, "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland, who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island, who rules the World-Island controls the world."

Well ask yourself who controls Eastern Europe? Because it certainly isn't Russia.



Also: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/03/why-poland-wants-a-u-s-military-base/
And: http://www.army.mil/article/124808/

WakeUp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ukrainian sovereignty will be helped by economic and/or military aid. The US has done a good job of securing independence for the Baltic regions, Poland and East Germany and bringing those countries under it's sphere of influence while at the same time building up their power to oppose Russian influence in the region. I can't see why Ukraine would be any different.

I'm aware Russia considers Ukraine theirs but Russia's post colonial hang ups are Russia's problem. Ukraine are by and large pro-western and a possible powerful ally for the United States if their independence are be secured.

I'm not exactly sure why the energy issue would be a main barrier or any more problematic for Ukraine that it has been for any other post communist country. I'm sure other former Soviet Western allies like Lithuania or Poland will be able and more than happy to advise Ukraine on the most efficient way to transition away from Russian energy dependence. The problem is large but it is not unmeetable.

Poland is slowly weaning itself away from Russian energy dependence by building pipelines to source alternative sources from the West. http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/04/poland-and-russia

Similarly Lithuania are harvesting gas from the Baltic, allowing them to supply the other Baltic countries to reduce their dependence on Russia too. https://euobserver.com/news/126272

Ukrainian dependence on Russian energy is a problem, but it is not a problem that cannot be over come the important thing now is to maintain Ukrainian independence while alternatives can be developed.

I'm aware of Mackinder's book but the pivot area by itself does not make a country powerful, Brzezinski wrote “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”

And Mackinder put it perhaps even more concisely, "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland, who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island, who rules the World-Island controls the world."

Well ask yourself who controls Eastern Europe? Because it certainly isn't Russia.



Also: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/03/why-poland-wants-a-u-s-military-base/
And: http://www.army.mil/article/124808/

How much money is the west prepared to throw at Ukraine considering the state of the place at what point is enough is enough or is it limitless or is it a case of bailing them out whenever they request assistance. I dont think you can maintain such an approach especially taking into consideration their economy and predicament. Ive said it before on other threads but if someone can show me a plan that diversifies European energy supplies making us non reliant on Russia which is economically viable and works Im all for it but I dont see it. And Ukraine falls under that bracket too as the EU apparently consider it so. But it isnt just gas for them its their coal and fuel for their nuclear reactors notwithstanding Russia is their largest trading partner. That gas that is going to Poland via Germany still orginates in Russia. Its heading east to west to east again. It also has to transit through Belarus and them and the Russians are a supranational union state so they are tight and firmly in Moscows corner.

And if the Poles do manage to get their lng terminal off the ground as alluded to in the article it may not even be profitable but it will have a Polish flag on it? As if that id something to write home about dafuq sort of an achievement is a flag on something that isnt economic viable not sure why they bothered pointing that out. The Lithuania , Estonia , Latvia terminal could be promising depending on market forces/supply though hopefully it works out we shall see at least that would be those states sorted out.

The pivot area is key .Brezinziskis quote is exactly the reason why the Russians will not give up Ukraine without a fight. because without it or as an independent state (independent of Russia under US/Western hegemony ) as he states it poses Russia all sorts of problems.

Mackinders quote isnt as straightforward as it might appear on the surface as what constitutes eastern Europe? to begin with there is no outright consensus as to its precise area due to interpretations of Geopoliticial,socioeconomic,geography,cultural it has any number of meanings or connotations. Is eastern Europe a cultural/economic entity or is it a geographical entity ? or is it something more. arguments can be made for both though each of them open different doors posing different questions. and the powers that be are vying for influence.

_________________________________________________________________________

A low-key tug of war is developing between the EU and Russia as both sides battle for the long-term allegiances of Eastern European states, according to the president of the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber.
Background:
Central and Eastern European/South Eastern European (CEE/SEE) countries are a major trading and financial partner for the euro zone. The annual surplus in the balance of payments with eurozone countries is estimated at €60 billion.
Despite impressive economic development in recent years, GDP and financial services penetration in the region still lag behind Western industrial neighbours. The overall growth rate in Eastern European countries is expected to be positive this year, but Hungary and the Baltic states are likely to face recession.
A sharp decline in demand for the region's exports, falling investments and reduced access to lines of credit are combining to bring significant increases in unemployment. In addition, there is concern about currency devaluation.

http://eurodialogue.eu/49

Iwasfrozen

@Wakeup with regards to how much money the US is willing to throw at Ukraine if they show themselves to be loyal allies the answer would be a lot. Look how powerful the military of Poland and Lithuania has become since the fall of the Soviet Union, that's not a coincidence, America knows having strong and loyal allies on Russia's border is a strong deterrent to the latters aggression.

With regards to a Russian invasion of Ukraine, again I just don't see it happening. If you compare the military of NATO to that of the US it's quite obvious to see a NATO alliance of several members would steamroll the out dated under founded military. Yes Russia have nuclear weapons but they can't be used.

BoJack Horseman

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If you compare the military of NATO to that of the US it's quite obvious to see a NATO alliance of several members would steamroll the out dated under founded military.

Take away the US (who themselves are rapidly diminishing militarily), European nations are no match for Russia.

To their shame, Europe has effectively demilitarised over the past 2 decades, something apparent to all, especially the man sitting on his throne in Moscow.

Iwasfrozen

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Take away the US (who themselves are rapidly diminishing militarily), European nations are no match for Russia.

Well first of all I wouldn't say the US are diminishing military, and even if they are they are still way beyond any competition.

And secondly a NATO alliance even without the US is more than capable of taking on Russia.

To their shame, Europe has effectively demilitarised over the past 2 decades, something apparent to all, especially the man sitting on his throne in Moscow.

Europe has had the luxury of demilitarizing as the line of Russian control pushed further East. Countries like the Baltic states and Poland haven't demilitarized, Having said that if Russia keeps violating other countries territorial integrity I can see them demilitarizing very quickly.

It's worth remembering that European nations still have access to the full NATO armoury so re-militarizing for them is just a matter of buying the equipment they don't have a twenty five year gap in technological development to make up to make up like Russia.

BoJack Horseman

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well first of all I wouldn't say the US are diminishing military, andd even if they are they are still way beyond any competition.

Yes... They are diminishing.
Its not opinion, its fact..... There is no metric showing otherwise.
(I didn't say they weren't the strongest though)

And secondly a NATO alliance even without the US is more than capable of taking on Russia.

I genuinely believed that too, but the reality is different.... Disastrously so, take the very weak Germans for instance.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/germany-cant-manage-its-weapons-7207fe64433d

Countries like the Baltic states and Poland haven't demilitarized,

Poland is competent, but ultimately outmatched.
The 3 Baltic's are a mess, their military budget combined barely surpasses Ireland & would only take a Russian division each to be totally overwhelmed. (If even).

It's worth remembering that European nations still have access to the full NATO armoury[/quote]
Where is this?
NATO dont possess anything of the sort, its members do, but European states have sold off most of their unused kit.
America may be withdrawing much of the kit stored in Germany & Norway

re-militarizing for them is just a matter of buying the equipment

Really?
Where that so.
Aside from naval yards, military manufacturing is modest.
(Open to correction) but I think the only MBT still being manufactured in the EU is the Leopard.
Europe can't ramp it up at s moments notice.

twenty five year gap in technological development to make up to make up like Russia.

A myth.

What weapon system possessed by European militaries is far & above the Russian counterpart?

The only thing off the top of my head is the Sampson/PAAMS AAW systems used on Type-45 destroyers & Horizon' class frigates.... But only 10 such vessels exist.

Technologically there are differences, but superiority is harder to determine.

Iwasfrozen

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yes... They are diminishing.
Its not opinion, its fact..... There is no metric showing otherwise.
(I didn't say they weren't the strongest though)

When you're miles ahead o any competition diminishing a small bit isn't so important.

I genuinely believed that too, but the reality is different.... Disastrously so, take the very weak Germans for instance.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ger...s-7207fe64433d

In what way is reality different, take the combined might of all of European NATO compared to Russia. Even without America Russia would be no match.

Where is this?
NATO dont possess anything of the sort, its members do, but European states have sold off most of their unused kit.
America may be withdrawing much of the kit stored in Germany & Norway

I don't mean a physical armory of course, but NATO countries have access to shared NATO technology they don't have to make up or a 25 year technological shortfall like Russia.

Really?
Where that so.
Aside from naval yards, military manufacturing is modest.
(Open to correction) but I think the only MBT still being manufactured in the EU is the Leopard.
Europe can't ramp it up at s moments notice.

It doesn't matter where tanks are built, it doesn't matter where any equipment is built.

A myth.

What weapon system possessed by European militaries is far & above the Russian counterpart?

The only thing off the top of my head is the Sampson/PAAMS AAW systems used on Type-45 destroyers & Horizon' class frigates.... But only 10 such vessels exist.

Technologically there are differences, but superiority is harder to determine.

This bad girl for a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier there will be two of them in operation in two years time and they far outstrip anything the Russians can offer.

But why are we only talking about Europe? The US would inevitably take the lead in any retaliation against Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Just look at these stats http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=Russia&country2=United-States-of-America&Submit=COMPARE the idea that Russia could successfully invade a Ukraine with US military backing is ludicrous.

cerastes

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

@Waeup the US doesn't have to wrest Ukraine from Russian sphere of influence, Ukraine has achieved that task itself. The US only needs to back up Ukrainian sovereignty. It's important in these discussions not to overestimate Russian strength, Russia is not a threat to US dominance, in military and diplomatic power they are more akin to the United Kingdom or France.

Putin will never invade Ukraine, he's smart enough not to provoke a war he can't win, Putin only wants to maintain the illusion of war to keep his own people in check while he continues to consolidate his power like any good dictator.

He may be doing what you say with his own people, but what if they did invade? as unlikely as I think that is. It seems a lot less likely than crimea but that happened.
Will this be a red line like Syria? will the west then go to war over it?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

@Wakeup with regards to how much money the US is willing to throw at Ukraine if they show themselves to be loyal allies the answer would be a lot. Look how powerful the military of Poland and Lithuania has become since the fall of the Soviet Union, that's not a coincidence, America knows having strong and loyal allies on Russia's border is a strong deterrent to the latters aggression.

With regards to a Russian invasion of Ukraine, again I just don't see it happening. If you compare the military of NATO to that of the US it's quite obvious to see a NATO alliance of several members would steamroll the out dated under founded military. Yes Russia have nuclear weapons but they can't be used.

Georgia seemingly increased its military, but got steam rolled.
I expected more of them but they seemed not to even wait to get routed.

Christ on a bike, do people still think this? Russia hasnt been steamrolled before and even if they came close to it, then there may end up being some limited nuclear option that everyone thinks wont or cant happen.
Even during the cold war there have been times when the nuclear decision was in the hands of an officer at the controls in the US, maybe not now, as for Russia? how much central control do they have over their nuclear deterrent?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

When you're miles ahead o any competition diminishing a small bit isn't so important.

In what way is reality different, take the combined might of all of European NATO compared to Russia. Even without America Russia would be no match.

I don't mean a physical armory of course, but NATO countries have access to shared NATO technology they don't have to make up or a 25 year technological shortfall like Russia.

It doesn't matter where tanks are built, it doesn't matter where any equipment is built.

This bad girl for a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier there will be two of them in operation in two years time and they far outstrip anything the Russians can offer.

But why are we only talking about Europe? The US would inevitably take the lead in any retaliation against Russian invasion of Ukraine.

But just look at these stats http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=Russia&country2=United-States-of-America&Submit=COMPARE the idea that Russia could successfully invade a Ukraine with US military backing is ludicrous.

Quantity has a quality of its own! Russia has that where it needs, it wouldnt matter how many tanks NATO could churn out, even though they have already sold off a lot of that equipment, Russia is already churning out simple and effective counter measures. Im not even saying they would be dealt with in a direct military confrontation which I think they would fare a lot better than some are saying, a direct confrontation would be a very bad idea, it seems at the moment its an economic confrontation, how long will that be tolerated? as long as the circumstances of it dont get too bad, then maybe its possible and even a useful tool for Putin, but if people become dissatisfied rapidly over some rising cost of basic goods, who's to say they wouldnt use what they have(ground forces) while they still can.
An aircraft carrier or two will be damn all good in that confrontation and potentially easily dealt with. Its not like Russia doesnt have subs and new hunter killer types, diesel and nuclear powered, all it takes is one torpedo and billions down the drain along with the resource, aircraft and crew.
There are also countries not aligned or who may turn on the US in such a scenario.
As many bases as they have, these are isolated dots on the map, not whole countries they control or that are easily traversible by land or air, or more importantly have friendly local populations that might not turn against them or easily turned or infiltrated by nearby influences that are opposed to the US.

BoJack Horseman

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

take the combined might of all of European NATO compared to Russia. Even without America Russia would be no match.

They match on paper.
Where Russia has the advantage is 1 c&c vs 26.
1 government without opposition vs 26
Huge imbalances in ready-deployable strength also (ie: Europe has little).

NATO countries have access to shared NATO technology they don't have to make up or a 25 year technological shortfall like Russia.

Where is this 25 year shortfall?
Their only weakness is perhaps surface naval power.
But considering, armour, artillery, missiles, air-power, submarines.... Europe is not so superior (inferior in parts).

It doesn't matter where tanks are built, it doesn't matter where any equipment is built.

K.... So where are they built then?
Let's hope Russia doesn't think to destroy the 1 place tanks are built!

This bad girl for a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier there will be two of them in operation in two years time

2023 at the earliest, depending on when the F35-B comes on stream (if ever)..... So, a 1,000 ft aircraft carrier with no aircraft for up to a decade & those aircraft are well outmatched by the opposition!

and they far outstrip anything the Russians can offer.

Checkmate.... One of several.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PJ-10_BrahMos
The Phalanx CIWS of the QE can't scratch these.

But why are we only talking about Europe

A counterpoint to the perceived wisdom of NATOs overwhelming superiority.
NATO is something of a paper tiger.

Iwasfrozen

cerastes wrote: »

He may be doing what you say with his own people, but what if they did invade? as unlikely as I think that is. It seems a lot less likely than crimea but that happened.
Will this be a red line like Syria? will the west then go to war over it?

If he invaded? Who knows but I could see the US getting involved directly, or if not at least funding anti Kremlin militias.

Georgia seemingly increased its military, but got steam rolled.
I expected more of them but they seemed not to even wait to get routed.

Georgia is a much smaller country than Ukraine, don't get me wrong Ukraine without US support would get steamrolled but if the US decided to ight for them I really don't see Russia winning.

Christ on a bike, do people still think this? Russia hasnt been steamrolled before and even if they came close to it, then there may end up being some limited nuclear option that everyone thinks wont or cant happen.
Even during the cold war there have been times when the nuclear decision was in the hands of an officer at the controls in the US, maybe not now, as for Russia? how much central control do they have over their nuclear deterrent?

Nuclear weapons that can't be used aren't going to do anything in a war.

Quantity has a quality of its own! Russia has that where it needs, it wouldnt matter how many tanks NATO could churn out, even though they have already sold off a lot of that equipment, Russia is already churning out simple and effective counter measures. Im not even saying they would be dealt with in a direct military confrontation which I think they would fare a lot better than some are saying, a direct confrontation would be a very bad idea, it seems at the moment its an economic confrontation, how long will that be tolerated? as long as the circumstances of it dont get too bad, then maybe its possible and even a useful tool for Putin, but if people become dissatisfied rapidly over some rising cost of basic goods, who's to say they wouldnt use what they have(ground forces) while they still can.
An aircraft carrier or two will be damn all good in that confrontation and potentially easily dealt with. Its not like Russia doesnt have subs and new hunter killer types, diesel and nuclear powered, all it takes is one torpedo and billions down the drain along with the resource, aircraft and crew.
There are also countries not aligned or who may turn on the US in such a scenario.
As many bases as they have, these are isolated dots on the map, not whole countries they control or that are easily traversible by land or air, or more importantly have friendly local populations that might not turn against them or easily turned or infiltrated by nearby influences that are opposed to the US.

No one wants war, especially not Putin, there are those in the military and Durma who would gladly take the opportunity to dispose of Putin as soon as the war started to turn sour. He knows this he's no fool. He would only invade Ukraine if he was certain the US would not intervene.

Iwasfrozen

A counterpoint to the perceived wisdom of NATOs overwhelming superiority.
NATO is something of a paper tiger.

NATO is overwhelmingly superior, all the problems you point out fade away when America is added to the equation. A war would not be fought without American leadership so I don't know why you're trying to isolate them from Europe at large.

WakeUp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

@Wakeup with regards to how much money the US is willing to throw at Ukraine if they show themselves to be loyal allies the answer would be a lot. Look how powerful the military of Poland and Lithuania has become since the fall of the Soviet Union, that's not a coincidence, America knows having strong and loyal allies on Russia's border is a strong deterrent to the latters aggression.

With regards to a Russian invasion of Ukraine, again I just don't see it happening. If you compare the military of NATO to that of the US it's quite obvious to see a NATO alliance of several members would steamroll the out dated under founded military. Yes Russia have nuclear weapons but they can't be used.

Whatever side of the discussion one happens to be on I think we can all agree that the situation is serious and cool heads are needed on all sides. there is just too much at stake and the Russians are not going to back down from their point of view they can't.

---

(International Business Times) Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, without necessarily taking sides with Russian President Vladimir Putin, told a German news magazine that NATO instigated the current Ukraine crisis because it had chosen to not adhere to the provisions of the Paris Charter of 1990, thus saying the dangling nuclear between the bloc and Russia is just a matter of time.

With both sides flaunting their respective nuclear arsenal, Gorbachev told German magazine Der Spiegel the world “will not survive the next few years” if either side lost its nerve in the current stand-off. “Moscow does not believe the West, and the West does not believe Moscow. The loss of confidence is catastrophic"
http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/01/gorbachev-nato-expansion-into-ukraine-risks-nuclear-war/

---

Russia has shut off gas supplies through Ukraine to six EU states, ostensibly due to Ukraine’s alleged illegal siphoning gas from the pipeline. The European Union warned that the sudden cut-off to some of its member countries was ‘completely unacceptable’. The move comes just as winter begins to bite across Europe.

The pipeline crossing Ukraine supplies over 60% of the entire EU’s natural gas. Six countries – Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Croatia, Romania and Turkey – report a complete halt of gas coming in from Russia.

Yesterday, Ukraine confirmed that Russia had completely cut off their supply. Croatia said it was temporarily reducing supplies to industrial customers while Bulgaria said it had enough gas only ‘for a few days’ and was already in a ‘crisis situation’.

There is the risk of an energy crisis and it is worrying that the move comes about at a time of increased maneuverings and posturing by NATO and the Russian army and deepening conflict in Ukraine.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-16/russia-drastically-reduces-gas-supply-–-eu-warns-“completely-unacceptable”

cerastes

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If he invaded? Who knows but I could see the US getting involved directly, or if not at least funding anti Kremlin militias.
I dont know if thats a typo? I didnt say he (Putin?) I said they, meaning Russia. I dont know if Militias would stand up to a full on assault of Russian ground forces, I dont think in this case of what they may seem to consider defending their national frontier, if they would stand for guerrilla activity, in such a case, Id say whatever success of guerrilla activity near Russian military, civilian casualties would be high and militias either flattened before they had a chance to gain a strong foothold, or as in the case of I think Serbia, they'd allow special units, ie their own militias to deal with civilians and opposing militias creating a worse situation for civilians, while the Russian army focused on more military objectives, such as fighting the Ukranian army, which going by its history in Crimea folds, taking territory, and key points.
The US supported Georgia but when the Russian army rolled in, the Georgians were left on their own, Id be wary if I were the Ukranians, not just that I think its in Europes interest to not support the Ukraine but seperately because I think what harm to have a buffer, its on Russias doorstep.

Georgia is a much smaller country than Ukraine, don't get me wrong Ukraine without US support would get steamrolled but if the US decided to ight for them I really don't see Russia winning.

How would the US support the Ukraine? a military build up of a credible force could take months, if that can even be interrupted, it might take much longer or never be possible, The Russian army could be surrounding Kiev before the US started to do anything, other than threatening a response, it could be nearly over before any response could be formulated.

Nuclear weapons that can't be used aren't going to do anything in a war.

That seems like the only plausible threat the west have, I cant see how they could get a large credible conventional force and the joint cooperation of everyone to do this, at the least someone would be trying to defuse a further military and more serious confrontation, going straight to an armed response of a non NATO and a pretty much basket case corrupt country is insanity.

No one wants war, especially not Putin, there are those in the military and Durma who would gladly take the opportunity to dispose of Putin as soon as the war started to turn sour. He knows this he's no fool. He would only invade Ukraine if he was certain the US would not intervene.

I have yet to look up Russia cutting off gas supplies, a good time for them to do it now, is this recent? is it a threat or a precursor to something more, at the moment I dont think so and hope not, but if the west doesnt back off a bit, maybe?

pablomakaveli

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Checkmate.... One of several.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PJ-10_BrahMos
The Phalanx CIWS of the QE can't scratch these.

The Phalanx is the only announced self-defence weapon which means their could and more than likely will be more. There are other weapon systems that can shoot down incoming missiles.