Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

riqster

(13,986 posts)
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 09:15 AM Mar 2014

Putin has succeeded. Therefore, Russia will continue to take over more of its former colonies.

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/putin-has-succeeded-therefore-russia-will-continue-to-take-over-more-of-its-former-colonies/

"Toldjaso. Russia illegally stole the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in order to increase Moscow’s wealth and influence. Lo and behold, the Russian state-controlled energy agency has taken control of gas and oil production in Crimea, thus shutting out other potential companies and countries.

“Gunpoint business deals”, we might call such operations: Russia is not doing anything irrational here. They are using military force to take control of the European energy market. Power, literally flowing from the barrel of a gun.

Yes, Putin’s Peeps are planning to commit massive human rights abuses in the area they have taken over. And yes, they are planning to swallow up more of the former Soviet Union, creating a greater Russia in the process. But there is nothing crazy about what they’re doing.

Immoral, illegal, unethical, inhuman, and despicable, yes. Loony, no. Putin and his renascent empire are acting with cold, pure, infernally logical intent as they seize land and power: power that will continue its accretion until the rest of the world punches Vladimir in the metaphorical nose and stops him."


Beaucoup source info at the link, natch.
105 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Putin has succeeded. Therefore, Russia will continue to take over more of its former colonies. (Original Post) riqster Mar 2014 OP
Estonia is full of fascists steve2470 Mar 2014 #1
Sad to say, you probably did need to. riqster Mar 2014 #2
Yeah, they will start invading NATO countries, tomorrow, no doubt. nt Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #3
As it chances, you aren't far off. riqster Mar 2014 #4
I can only LOL at that. Political rhetoric is one thing, the Third World War another. NT Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #5
I never said WWIII. I said that Russia is moving to expand its territory. riqster Mar 2014 #6
Russia attacking a NATO member state = WW3. Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #7
It is not a silly scenario. Russia IS threatening to invade Estonia. riqster Mar 2014 #8
In international relations, it is bad advice to take every statement at face value. Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #9
Not immediately following a similar event. riqster Mar 2014 #11
Call me when you have spotted Russian tanks in Talinn, ok? Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #13
No doubt many people have found that to be a real knee-slapper. riqster Mar 2014 #14
That's not hilarious. What's hilarious is your assertion that Russia is planning to invade... Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #15
Not my assertion. Russia's. riqster Mar 2014 #17
I tried to point you to the four-letter-difference in this situation. Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #19
Post removed Post removed Mar 2014 #21
I hate to point this out nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #30
I hate to point this out Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #33
Should I remind you how exactly we ended up in WW I nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #36
As someone who has - presumably like you - studied that issue... Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #39
Interesting analogy. riqster Mar 2014 #45
Well this is looking like the series of Balkan crisis nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #50
Well, as I tried to allude to, the notion that Europe "blundered" into WW1 is very naive IMHO Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #58
I'd like to paraphrase one of my instructors nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #68
That's an interesting way to put it. Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #70
You two know history a lot better than I do from what I can see, Benton D Struckcheon Mar 2014 #79
There are many perspectives, and many actors involved. Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #87
Hey, I'll suffer. Benton D Struckcheon Mar 2014 #93
That side adventure had the full attention of the British High Command nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #96
If you assume that Putin is scared of NATO, you could be right. riqster Mar 2014 #32
As an inhabitant of Europe, I have tremendous confidence in that thin straw. Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #35
Death throes can cause a lot of damage if you don't take care. riqster Mar 2014 #43
I agree. Hence "slowly dying". IMHO, strategically, they are in the best position today that they... Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #47
I do hope you are correct, especially if you are currently in Europe. riqster Mar 2014 #52
Well, I hope you are incorrect ;) ... But these things can change quickly, and there is nothing... Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #63
No worries. Passion is part of what drives activism. riqster Mar 2014 #74
I imagine some half-wit laughed about tanks in Sevastopol. LanternWaste Mar 2014 #105
How nice of you. And what a clever way to insulate yourself from a hide. Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #106
Do you really think so? Donald Ian Rankin Mar 2014 #77
Make no mistake, uncommonlink Mar 2014 #78
It is an interesting, and maybe to some extent, an open question. Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #80
Thank you. uncommonlink Mar 2014 #82
That is certainly true. Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #88
As a former spook nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #98
Russia can threaten to move on Estonia all they want, uncommonlink Mar 2014 #46
That assumes an undocumented POV on the part of Putin. riqster Mar 2014 #51
The Russian Generals and Admirals are no fools, uncommonlink Mar 2014 #53
Depending on their TO, their professional opinions may or may not help. riqster Mar 2014 #62
The Russian officer's corps. has gotten better, while their conscripts are in worse shape. uncommonlink Mar 2014 #65
We are very good at COIN nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #64
I'm sure it's entirely the West's fault somehow. NuclearDem Mar 2014 #10
Because Bush, most frequently. riqster Mar 2014 #12
The Crimeans voted LittleBlue Mar 2014 #16
They just threatened to invade Estonia. riqster Mar 2014 #18
They will not invade Estonia LittleBlue Mar 2014 #20
Bullshit joeybee12 Mar 2014 #23
Here is the scenario as I see it: riqster Mar 2014 #28
I'll wager my DU account on it LittleBlue Mar 2014 #34
I'll wager a soda on it. Not my account, though. riqster Mar 2014 #41
I agree. The new Russia wants to expand, but not recklessly. reformist2 Mar 2014 #94
They did not threaten to invade. former9thward Mar 2014 #25
Given the recent events in Ukraine, where Russia used identical language, riqster Mar 2014 #31
Just saw that, you're right, uncommonlink Mar 2014 #56
You need to open your eyes and take down your joeybee12 Mar 2014 #22
I swear I read that exact same post ten years ago, with a different name, of course, Marr Mar 2014 #29
Ever consider that maybe Putin isn't Saddam in that analogy? NuclearDem Mar 2014 #38
Good point. riqster Mar 2014 #42
I don't follow you. Marr Mar 2014 #69
The analogy is that Putin is Bush and the new Ukrainian government is Putin's Saddam. NuclearDem Mar 2014 #72
KNR...I see Du's foreign policy experts are weighing... joeybee12 Mar 2014 #24
Since you must be a foreign policy expert also... former9thward Mar 2014 #26
I'm saying people are ignoring everything else other than what doesn't fit joeybee12 Mar 2014 #27
Well I agree it is complicated. former9thward Mar 2014 #37
And Crimea's Tartar and LGBT population will be under Russian authority. NuclearDem Mar 2014 #40
Yes, LGBT has it so much better in Kiev. former9thward Mar 2014 #48
I never said it was ideal in Ukraine at all. NuclearDem Mar 2014 #54
Ukraine didn't need to codify it. former9thward Mar 2014 #61
Russia certainly didn't need to either. NuclearDem Mar 2014 #66
Upthread, you can find a thread about the upcoming ethnic cleansing in Crimea. riqster Mar 2014 #55
EEK! The Russkies are coming! Give more money he the MIC!! Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #44
Tell it to the Tatars, as they are ethnically cleansed. Again. riqster Mar 2014 #57
They are? Links? Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #60
It's upthread, but here it is again. riqster Mar 2014 #67
Don't you think that's a pretty long stretch to call it "ethnic cleansing"? Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #71
The missing piece is that this happened before. riqster Mar 2014 #75
Well, get back to me when it actually occurs. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #83
I don't think Russia will be the next to annex territory... cherokeeprogressive Mar 2014 #49
Interesting. Explain? riqster Mar 2014 #59
I'm not scared of Putin, sorry quinnox Mar 2014 #73
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2014 #76
You mean Sevastopol, right? NuclearDem Mar 2014 #81
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2014 #84
No worries, it happens. NuclearDem Mar 2014 #85
It's not just military power: economic power is even more important. riqster Mar 2014 #89
I did not realize Crimea had oil and gas. KamaAina Mar 2014 #86
Did you, by any chance see this article in those megabytes? Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #90
Nope. KamaAina Mar 2014 #91
It was meant as a recommendation for further reading, on the oil aspect... In the best of spirits. Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #92
Good article. Touched on some new aspects. riqster Mar 2014 #95
Yes... and further... Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #97
As to the promises, here is an article on South Ossetia today. riqster Mar 2014 #101
That was a very interesting and elightening read. thank you. nt Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #103
Here, a self explanatory map nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #99
It's OK, they've promised not to Bosonic Mar 2014 #100
Well, gosh golly gee whiz, that is certainly credible! riqster Mar 2014 #102
IMHO, they're waiting for events in Eastern Ukraine to play into their hands. Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #104

steve2470

(37,457 posts)
1. Estonia is full of fascists
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 09:16 AM
Mar 2014

The Russian-speaking residents need to be rescued. Urgently.

*

*

*

*

in case I needed to

riqster

(13,986 posts)
6. I never said WWIII. I said that Russia is moving to expand its territory.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 11:14 AM
Mar 2014

And I backed my assertion with references.

"LOL" is not an effective rebuttal.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
7. Russia attacking a NATO member state = WW3.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 11:16 AM
Mar 2014

Do you want me to reference THAT?

There's actually not much non-NATO territory left to grab. Hence my initial reaction to your silly scenario. Belarus, maybe, one day, if we hand it to them on a silverplate like the Ukraine.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
9. In international relations, it is bad advice to take every statement at face value.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 11:34 AM
Mar 2014

As Americans, we should know this, n'est-ce pas?

riqster

(13,986 posts)
11. Not immediately following a similar event.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 11:37 AM
Mar 2014

Part of Russia's stated motivations for the Crimea incursion was "protection" of the Russian population.

Since they just did there what they propose doing elsewhere, it seems advisable to be less dismissive.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
14. No doubt many people have found that to be a real knee-slapper.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 11:44 AM
Mar 2014

Like the Crimean Tatars, who are about to suffer ethnic cleansing. At the hands of the Russians. Again.

Yeah, hilarious.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/crimean-tatars-asked-to-vacate-land-regional-official-says/496451.html

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
15. That's not hilarious. What's hilarious is your assertion that Russia is planning to invade...
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 11:45 AM
Mar 2014

... NATO member states.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
17. Not my assertion. Russia's.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 11:51 AM
Mar 2014
And because they just made the same threats about Ukraine, and then carried them out, a whole population is about to be ethnically cleansed.

Laughing about the possibility of it happening again is in incredibly bad taste.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
19. I tried to point you to the four-letter-difference in this situation.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 11:54 AM
Mar 2014

Fear-mongering unrealistic bullshit scenarios is what I call "incredibly bad taste". To make it clear: I have not laughed at the situation in Ukraine, but at the nonsense that you are conjecturing about on the basis of it. The current situation in Ukraine is a tragedy, and IMHO, unlikely to get any better talking from the perspective of the Ukrainian people.

Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #19)

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
33. I hate to point this out
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:15 PM
Mar 2014

But I believe that Russia's security apparatus is well aware of the significance of Art V

Russia is in no way ready to take on NATO. Putin might do that when his rule is in its last throes, but not when he is on top. That is, at least, my opinion.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
36. Should I remind you how exactly we ended up in WW I
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:17 PM
Mar 2014

Nobody was ready by the way...

At least I hope those in charge remember those lessons.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
39. As someone who has - presumably like you - studied that issue...
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:19 PM
Mar 2014

... I have to disagree. The Germans and Brits considered themselves readier then ever vis-a-vis a growing Russian threat, which was, IMHO, what made it possible that a minor assassination devolved into a second Thirty Year War in Europe. My take on the First World War is positively Fischerian as far as these aspects are concerned.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
45. Interesting analogy.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:26 PM
Mar 2014

But I don't think there was the same definite set of actions on the part of their antagonists, followed by a threat to do it again.

There are a lot of other similarities, though, as you point out. People do love to repeat history, sad to say.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
50. Well this is looking like the series of Balkan crisis
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:28 PM
Mar 2014

That preceded the great war.

And European wars, with the exception of WWII, usually start through an interlocking series of serious miscalculations and verbal escalations. I am sure you noticed armies have upped their posture already (Poland and Rumania). We moved forward fighters as well to forward bases in Poland.

As I said, everybody keeps screaming Anshlus here, I keep going Serbia-Montenegro et al.

And no, history never follows the exact same path away.

But Biden talking Art V is one of those series of micro aggressions that up the ante. No, I am not saying he should not have said it, just that we are now down very dangerous territory.

By the way, the fun did not start in the Crimea, but with Georgia and South Ossetia. The very weak response from the western alliance and lack of leadership by Bush is behind the current escalation. Why the west is now dealing a series of punitive measures. I hope Russian banks are next, because that might make the bear think twice. NATO right now is far from ready IMHO.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
58. Well, as I tried to allude to, the notion that Europe "blundered" into WW1 is very naive IMHO
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:39 PM
Mar 2014

The British, French and German High Command wanted war, and they were all successful in convincing their civilian leaders. I think the same can be said for Imperial Russia, but, contrary to the Western major powers, time was actually working in their favor - a war beginning in 15, 16, 17, 18 etc. would have been more to their favor (if you discount the possibility of an internal overthrow of the Tsar, as I do). Also, I have not studied the Russian side of the conflict as in-depth as the other major powers (language barrier).

And I agree that the hot phase of this new round of imperial folly started in Georgia. Although I disagree that this is on Russia's hands. Chimpy's junior partner Sakschwily played into Russia's hands much like the premature ouster of Yanukovitch in Kiev did this year. Or maybe the hot phase started with the election of Juschtschenko in 2005, which was really the beginning of the end of the status quo in the McKinderite heartland that so obsesses (possesses?) Western and Russian security policy.

It would be interesting to take this further, but I think we are kind of derailing the thread and subthread.

Though you can be assured to read more from me about the former subject come centennial July/August, as there will surely be a shit load of threads on the subject by then.
 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
68. I'd like to paraphrase one of my instructors
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:53 PM
Mar 2014

European wars are usually a series of miscalculations, verbal contests, that end in pissing contests.

The route to each is different. But they all share a bunch of dung throwing.

He had little good to say for the US (except this one) we are always late to the party but excel at the macho game.

Lately been thinking a lot about him, dour old cynical, real politik student, could spot the looney, err propaganda in an instant. I sure hope so, he helped to develop quite a bit of it.

You stay safe.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
70. That's an interesting way to put it.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:58 PM
Mar 2014

And some have blundered into it, no doubt, especially civilians. Others, not so much.

I will... Thank you very much!

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
79. You two know history a lot better than I do from what I can see,
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 02:30 PM
Mar 2014

but in "The Strange Death of Liberal England" which is about England right up to the start of WWI, what comes through is that while Germany was always in the background, the main obsession, right up to the moment of the start of the war, was Ireland and the question of what to do about northern Ireland. Allegedly, at the moment the war started, British officers were refusing to follow orders to fire, if necessary, on loyalists in northern Ireland, which was precipitating a crisis.
Then everyone's attention suddenly turned to what was happening on the Continent, and that crisis suddenly went bye-bye.
So from that evidence it looks like England, anyway, didn't really have its mind on fighting a war with everyone else at that time, being too busy fighting itself.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
87. There are many perspectives, and many actors involved.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 02:51 PM
Mar 2014

I would tend to agree that the average British Officer - especially those serving in Ireland, did probably not expect such a conflict to break out.

Neither did the majority of the officers in Germany, I think.

The perspective that I invoked was that of the high-commands, those dealing with the big strategic picture. I base my views of British readiness for a major conflict mainly on two sources: On the estimations of the German High Command about them, especially after the failing of the fleet convention of 1912. Correct or not, 1912 was the year in which the German High Command came to the conclusion that the British would rather fight Germany than to make them a part of the Imperial project. Add to that the strategic clash of Great Britain and Germany in the Near East, where similarly, any attempt at mutual understanding or sharing of power failed miserably. This view is not very popular among historians concerned with the british side, but Niall Ferguson, f.e. has presented a pretty convincing version of this view, with the documents to prove it. Normally, I find Ferguson a really terrible historian (I once had dinner with him as a sidekick to a German professor, he is quite agreeable in person, actually) but his contributions to the First World War I find very convincing.

You can find a rather condensed version of this in the following book of his:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Pity-Of-War-Explaining/dp/0465057128

For the German side, this almost antiquated book is still pretty convincing:

http://www.amazon.com/Germanys-Aims-First-World-War/dp/0393097986/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395341171&sr=1-1&keywords=Fritz+Fischer

Of course, much of this is opinion, BASED on facts. Whether Europe blundered into the First World War or whether the major powers wanted it, really depends on which actors you focus on. This is also true for American participation in it: Leave out some actors, and you'll have a perfect argument that no one wanted it, include some others, and the position can't be maintained. History, in that sense, is always selective.

(I know that I promised not to write about this anymore in this thread, as it really is off-topic... But obviously I enjoy ransacking my brain about things long not considered, and I really do miss working in an academic environment, where such conversations can be had for a dime a dozen. Plus, my girlfriend is in Munich and I am on forced vacation. What else to do then but make DU suffer for it?)

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
96. That side adventure had the full attention of the British High Command
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 03:42 PM
Mar 2014

and Ireland gained it's independence due to that minor scuffle in the Continent. That is one side adventure that usually gets ignored indeed.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
32. If you assume that Putin is scared of NATO, you could be right.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:15 PM
Mar 2014

But that is a mighty thin straw at which to grasp, and poor risk management.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
35. As an inhabitant of Europe, I have tremendous confidence in that thin straw.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:16 PM
Mar 2014

It has kept us safe from way worse than a slowly dying Russian empire.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
47. I agree. Hence "slowly dying". IMHO, strategically, they are in the best position today that they...
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:26 PM
Mar 2014

have ever been in a very long time.

Then again, I actually have some professional experience in the subject, and am convinced that Russia has not the slightest chance as far as a conventional military assault on a NATO member is concerned. NATO is stronger than ever, and the Russian military is, operationally speaking, very weak when it comes to force projection where it is not adjacent to their borders.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
52. I do hope you are correct, especially if you are currently in Europe.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:33 PM
Mar 2014

Take a gander, though, at NATO's current situation vis-a-vis this specific scenario. Be sure to consider timing and transport.

Again, be safe and I hope you are correct.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
63. Well, I hope you are incorrect ;) ... But these things can change quickly, and there is nothing...
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:44 PM
Mar 2014

... that is impossible in the world of foreign policy.

If the shit hits the fan, being an American might save me. Or the fact that this country has more atomic bunkers than the cheese for which they are famous has holes... But I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

And, sorry if I might have pissed you off. I might have had a sneering tone in the beginning. Certainly you have done nothing wrong by pointing out and linking to what the Russians said.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
74. No worries. Passion is part of what drives activism.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 01:04 PM
Mar 2014


My apologies in return if I came across as rude. All the best to you and yours.
 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
105. I imagine some half-wit laughed about tanks in Sevastopol.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 04:45 PM
Mar 2014

I imagine some under-educated, sub-literate half-wit pretending to be clever laughed about tanks in Sevastopol.

Not that you're a half-wit. No, not at all...

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
106. How nice of you. And what a clever way to insulate yourself from a hide.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 04:49 PM
Mar 2014

Feel free to add anything of substance to the discussion as soon as you're done with dishing out the insults...

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
77. Do you really think so?
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 02:21 PM
Mar 2014

You don't think the rest of NATO would find excuses not to go to the aid of, e.g, Estonia to avoid WWIII?

 

uncommonlink

(261 posts)
78. Make no mistake,
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 02:28 PM
Mar 2014

NATO would come to the aid of a NATO member if attacked by Russia, or any other non NATO member.

The Obama Admin., through VP Biden, has made it crystal clear that any incursion into a NATO member country will be forcefully met.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
80. It is an interesting, and maybe to some extent, an open question.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 02:31 PM
Mar 2014

As things stand at this moment, though, I am convinced that should Russia invade within the next few weeks, NATO would respond conventionally. All this waving around of Article V, IMHO, is not just blustering.
Therein lies the dilemma - Russia knows that it can't stand against NATO in any conventional stand off well outside of its borders. Which, by my reasoning, would make such a conflict nuclear from the start. Which brings me back to Russia: I am convinced that Russia will not risk nuclear war unless Putin's regime in its death throes, which it is not at this moment.

But I am not writing this in stone: There are many factors that could change rather quickly and therefore change my reasoning.
 

uncommonlink

(261 posts)
82. Thank you.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 02:39 PM
Mar 2014

That's exactly the way I see it also.
Russia's Generals and Admirals have probably told Putin that in any conventional war against NATO, they would lose and going nuclear, everyone would lose, and Putin doesn't strike me as suicidal.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
88. That is certainly true.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 02:56 PM
Mar 2014

Plus, I think Putin is smart enough to understand this on his own. You can say many things about him (and rightly so) - but stupid, he is not.
 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
98. As a former spook
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 03:53 PM
Mar 2014

he is a man who's practiced tradecraft. Unlike many of our own leadership (except senior) he has written those intel reports he is now reading. IMO that actually gives him an edge. Though I do count on stovepiping happening there as well

 

uncommonlink

(261 posts)
46. Russia can threaten to move on Estonia all they want,
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:26 PM
Mar 2014

but Putin and his Military leaders know that the Russian Armed Forces are no match for NATO forces.
The Russian Army is nothing more than a hollow shell of what the former Soviet Army used to be, the Russian Navy, except for a few modern warships, is a bunch of rusting hulks that would stand no chance against NATO, much less the U.S. Navy.

No, Putin isn't a fool per se, he may bluster, threaten, have spittle fly from his mouth, but in the end, he'll do nothing against NATO countries.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
51. That assumes an undocumented POV on the part of Putin.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:29 PM
Mar 2014

Given his history, it is inadvisable to rely on such unproven assumptions.

 

uncommonlink

(261 posts)
53. The Russian Generals and Admirals are no fools,
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:34 PM
Mar 2014

they will give a what for to Putin and make it quite clear that taking on Ukraine was easy, Ukraine isn't a NATO member, but moving on Estonia is a whole different ball of wax.

Russia's military leaders know for a fact that against NATO, which would include the best trained, equipped, and combat experienced military in the world, the US, would be the best road to a quick and humiliating defeat, unless it went nuclear, then everyone loses.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
62. Depending on their TO, their professional opinions may or may not help.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:43 PM
Mar 2014

Anybody know if it has gotten better since the old Soviet days?

 

uncommonlink

(261 posts)
65. The Russian officer's corps. has gotten better, while their conscripts are in worse shape.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:47 PM
Mar 2014

The Officer Corps are now given latitude to voice their opinions on whether or not they can win a conflict, unlike the old days when upper echelons of the Soviet Military were expected to walk in lockstep with the Politburo and not question those 13 members.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
64. We are very good at COIN
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:45 PM
Mar 2014

That is the immediate past war. Brigade level and division level operations, not so sure. If I may, it actually has parallels to the "good war." Before we entered that war exercises were done on the direction of staff because they saw the coming European storm, and they knew we were top notch in small encounters. We did ok chasing Sandino. Those early exercises were eye openers.

If this remained conventional though, I hope you are willing to accept the inevitable draft. If tanks go down the Fulda Gap, it will go Nuclear.

This we are the bestest nastiest army ever ignores the army is actually exhausted as well from ten years of COIN, you could even say spent.

The marines recently, after ten years, decided to practice beach landings. The first was a royal cluster. Yes, they are that out of practice.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
10. I'm sure it's entirely the West's fault somehow.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 11:34 AM
Mar 2014

Or we can't say anything about it, because Andrew Jackson or something.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
16. The Crimeans voted
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 11:48 AM
Mar 2014

Whatever you think of the voting process, it's clear that they wanted to join Russia over staying in Ukraine.

The idea that Russia will begin invading other countries is more of the Hitler comparison hysteria. They won't invade Estonia.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
20. They will not invade Estonia
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 11:56 AM
Mar 2014

It's an empty implied threat. Estonia is NATO. This sort of thing is done for leverage.

 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
23. Bullshit
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 11:59 AM
Mar 2014

You really have no clue about any of this do you? You need to stop reading shit on DU by the pro-Putin faction and read other publications to realize what is what in the world, not simply what adheres to what you want to believe.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
28. Here is the scenario as I see it:
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:08 PM
Mar 2014

First, Russia says that Ukranian Russians need protecting from a non-existent threat. They move troops into Crimea. Announcement, followed by action.

Second, within a month, Russia says the same thing about Estonia.

You can assume that the man who threatened to punch you and did so will not punch your brother, even when he says "I am going to punch him". But that is an ill-advised risk to take, no matter how big and bad your brother may happen to be.

Because, you see, the aggressor may not be accurate in his assessment of risk.

Your assumption rests upon Putin being scared of NATO. We do not know that to be the case, and in fact he has given indications that he is not intimidated by the alliance.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
34. I'll wager my DU account on it
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:16 PM
Mar 2014

Why? Because once Estonia is breached by Russian troops, NATO is obligated to defend them. These are all the armies of the west, both Europe and the US. That would be a nuclear confrontation.

The jab at Estonia in no way constitutes a real threat of invasion. Estonia is not Ukraine. You willing to make a wager here?

riqster

(13,986 posts)
41. I'll wager a soda on it. Not my account, though.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:20 PM
Mar 2014

Heck, I'll wager a six-pack on my interpretation. That costs actual money.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
25. They did not threaten to invade.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:03 PM
Mar 2014

Your link says no such thing and you know it. Promotion of hysteria.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
31. Given the recent events in Ukraine, where Russia used identical language,
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:11 PM
Mar 2014

And then moved troops into Ukraine, I stand by my assertion; because it is based on Russian actions.

 

uncommonlink

(261 posts)
56. Just saw that, you're right,
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:39 PM
Mar 2014

they didn't threaten to invade, they expressed concern for the safety of Russian nationals.

I'm not worried about a Russian invasion of Estonia, they know they would stand no chance against NATO in a conventional war.

 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
22. You need to open your eyes and take down your
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 11:57 AM
Mar 2014

Putin poster on your wall..pathetic how much Putin is revered here...

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
29. I swear I read that exact same post ten years ago, with a different name, of course,
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:09 PM
Mar 2014

directed at critics of Bush's proposed invasion of Iraq.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
69. I don't follow you.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:54 PM
Mar 2014

Are you saying people are advocating a certain stance on this issue because they strongly support Obama and whatever he seems likely to support? Because I would agree with that.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
72. The analogy is that Putin is Bush and the new Ukrainian government is Putin's Saddam.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 01:01 PM
Mar 2014

A threat that's overemphasized as some sort of imminent threat to generate nationalistic fervor and justify an imperial expansion on those flimsy premises.

Of course, with one being Bush and the other being Saddam, I don't support either, and oppose the despicable actions of both.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
26. Since you must be a foreign policy expert also...
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:04 PM
Mar 2014

Are you saying Russia is going to invade NATO countries?

 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
27. I'm saying people are ignoring everything else other than what doesn't fit
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:07 PM
Mar 2014

into their tiny little worldview...take alook at other publications other than this shit at DU...Estonia and the Baltics are a prime target for strategic reasons...Putin might not invade, but he'll pull some shit and people who think the Crimean vote was democarcy, who spouse shit like the overthorw in the Ukraine was by a bunch of Nazi are blithering full-fledged idiots...and take a look at how many recs shit like that gets here.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
37. Well I agree it is complicated.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:18 PM
Mar 2014

What people ignore about Crimea is that Ukraine is a economic basket case. Rational people do not want to live in that status. By joining with Russia people's pensions would be tripled, the minimum wage goes up and retirement age is lowered to the Russian age of 60 for men and 55 for women (something we could use in this country). So I think the vote was pretty accurate and would have been much the same whether troops were standing around or not.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
54. I never said it was ideal in Ukraine at all.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:34 PM
Mar 2014

But look at which country has codified homophobia between the two.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
61. Ukraine didn't need to codify it.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:41 PM
Mar 2014

They already have it. Talk to some Ukrainians in this country about gay rights. I have. You will get an earful of hate.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
66. Russia certainly didn't need to either.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:51 PM
Mar 2014

The only country that polled worse on homosexuality than Ukraine in Europe was...you guessed it.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/12/eastern-and-western-europe-divided-over-gay-marriage-homosexuality/

So to add nearly a three-quarters opposition to the very existence of the LGBT community, Russia's parliament unanimously made it a crime to even be gay in public.

So again, Ukraine is shitty when it comes to gay rights, but as it stands from the data, the only place shittier to be a member of the LGBT community is Russia.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
55. Upthread, you can find a thread about the upcoming ethnic cleansing in Crimea.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:38 PM
Mar 2014

Russians, again, are going to "relocate" the Tatars.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
44. EEK! The Russkies are coming! Give more money he the MIC!!
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 12:22 PM
Mar 2014

Step right up! See the All New (well, refurbished), Scariest, Meanest, Naughtiest, most Fearsomest, Bogeyman since Uncle Ho, and the Bearded Man Fidel!

And, you can buy protection from our very own Military Industrial Complex. Which guarantees your safety for the low, low, low, price of....whatever our congressional sales agents can milk out you.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
71. Don't you think that's a pretty long stretch to call it "ethnic cleansing"?
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 01:00 PM
Mar 2014
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/crimean-tatars-asked-to-vacate-land-regional-official-says/496451.html

Crimean Deputy Prime Minister Rustam Temirgaliyev said Tuesday that the new government in Crimea, where residents voted Sunday to become part of Russia, wants to regularize the land unofficially taken over by Crimean Tatar squatters following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

"We have asked the Crimean Tatars to vacate part of their land, which is required for social needs," Temirgaliyev said. "But we are ready to allocate and legalize many other plots of land to ensure a normal life for the Crimean Tatars," he said.


Many Crimean Tatars have taken over unclaimed land as squatters by building houses, farms and mosques. Ukrainian authorities have in the past failed to settle the land disputes.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
75. The missing piece is that this happened before.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 01:21 PM
Mar 2014

And when they were repatriated, much of their original lands were not restored to them, thence the squatting.

Since the Russians forcibly relocated them the first time, and then screwed them when they were allowed to return, I don't trust the motives.

Or the word "ask".

It reminds me of the trail of tears and other shameful episodes from American history. The US did not often say openly "we are stealing your land, have a nice death march, you motherfuckers". No, the party line was that a negotiated treaty had been agreed and so on. Kinda like "we are asking them to voluntarily give up everything they have and go elsewhere".

Response to riqster (Original post)

Response to NuclearDem (Reply #81)

riqster

(13,986 posts)
89. It's not just military power: economic power is even more important.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 02:59 PM
Mar 2014

And the big piece for Russia is natural gas. They are aggressively using force to secure their market position. If you go to the link in the OP, there are links on the blog site that lead to enlightening information on:
Pipeline locations,
Increased Western drilling in the region,
Other projects like the recently-inked Estonian/Finnish LNG infrastructure.

Bottom line: Russia is facing increased competition in this, a crucial economic sector. And they just used their military to help them minimize foreign competition. Successfully. (Gazprom just took over the sites that Shell and Exxon were bidding on). Shell backed out when Crimea was seized.

Military force is not an end in itself: it serves political and economic ends, as it has in this case.

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
86. I did not realize Crimea had oil and gas.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 02:45 PM
Mar 2014

That puts a whole new spin on things. Interestingly, that fact has not surfaced in the megabytes of discussion I've read on the topic until now.

Fortunately for Estonia, they don't have oil. -)

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
90. Did you, by any chance see this article in those megabytes?
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 02:59 PM
Mar 2014

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/06/ukraine-crisis-great-power-oil-gas-rivals-pipelines

I think Nafeez adds a unique perspective, and discusses the oil politics involved rather well. Of course, he might be accused of having a slight anti-western bias, with which I agree to a very, very limited extent.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
95. Good article. Touched on some new aspects.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 03:39 PM
Mar 2014

Bottom line: Russia (and its adversaries) are locked in a struggle over power and control. As the former Soviet states and other regional players become less dependent on Gazprom, Russian influence and profit wane.

That troops are being brought into the process is very concerning.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
97. Yes... and further...
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 03:52 PM
Mar 2014

Putin's power depends on a favorable economic environment, to a large extent. This has so far been provided by steadily rising oil prices. Russia failed to build an economy where they would no longer face this cluster risk.

This strategy is no longer viable as the financial crisis dented demand. When demand slowly recovered, much production capacity outside of Russian control came online, thereby slowing the inevitable soar of prices. This leaves Russia with one option: Increasing its domestic production. This can be done by enlarging Russian territory just as easy as it can be done by investing in new exploration projects. It's probably even cheaper, at least for the Russian state (since they own the major companies). This too is a rather sobering and scary thought as far as the future of Russian foreign policy is concerned.

But as to how significant this is, especially concerning Crimea, I couldn't tell. Though I find it hard to believe that this would bring anything but a very limited temporary relief to their economic woes. Especially since they have committed to investing a shitload of rubles in Crimea if they want to keep even a fraction of the promises that they made before the referendum.

Bosonic

(3,746 posts)
100. It's OK, they've promised not to
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 04:00 PM
Mar 2014
(AFP) Russia promises not to attack east Ukraine: US

Washington — Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu promised his US counterpart Chuck Hagel in a telephone call Thursday that Moscow would not assault eastern Ukraine, the Pentagon said.

Hagel voiced concern about Russian movements, but Shoigu assured that "the troops he has arrayed along the border are there to conduct exercises only and they have no intention of crossing the border into Ukraine and that they would take no aggressive action," Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby told reporters.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hzldfWsaApS2RRHEU3lNy5cD3qag?docId=5ec701a0-5b4c-4666-a14e-6831d84a11b2

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
104. IMHO, they're waiting for events in Eastern Ukraine to play into their hands.
Thu Mar 20, 2014, 04:22 PM
Mar 2014

A little civil war, or unrest, and I'm willing to bet that they would take their chances. That's why it is imperative that the new Ukrainian government gets a hold on its wilder junior partners, so as to not provide the Russians with another (albeit self-serving) excuse. Further, they should be on the watch for the Russians pursuing a strategy of tension in Eastern Ukraine.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Putin has succeeded. Ther...