nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Russia fires on Ukranian vessels

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/breaking-russian-warships-fire-ukrainian-13644427

BREAKING Russian warships fire on Ukrainian Navy boats in the Black Sea

This could get very messy very fast.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Irish Praetorian

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Well I am no Russian apologist.

I don't care for any of the geopolitical games. Be it from Russia, China, or the US. Why? Because the losers are always everyone else. Frankly they need to meet and agree to stop ****ing around with this stuff, before we all pay the Piper.

A war with Russia is the end. You comprehend that Gatling? No winners and no going back, So all your bluster about bullys and the perceived good guys will be meaningless when we are all dead. regardless of the **** they are doing, negotiation and de-escalation are key. That has to come from all sides. My point about the missiles are another area of antagonism that needs to be de-escalated. End of.

You don't care to apologize for Russia. Fine with me. You don't like the ongoing geopolitical games. Again, fine with me. I think its a bit naive to suggest that these powers would get together and agree to rein themselves in, but its not something I think is bad or wrong. So again, that's fine with me, but I don't care to simply withdraw from the issues or fail to see the difference between those powers, just because we want to shrug our shoulders and say 'shure aren't they all bad' when it comes to international affairs.

Now as for a war being at the end, I think we're not exactly coming from the same viewpoint, which is understandable, so I'll set out my stall and see what you make of it. At the first instance, I don't think the kind of 'war to end all wars' as in a US - Russia nuclear exchange is in anyway likely; both sides have too much to lose and neither side seems to be convinced the other will conduct a first strike in any likely scenario. If memory serves me Russian nuclear doctrine basically restricts their use to if the Russian state faces an existential threat, and I don't see the US quite frankly having the means to do that. A more limited regional conflict either between proxies or directly between the two sides is more plausible, but again very unlikely and not likely to escalate to a nuclear scenario. In any lower intensity conflict the involvement of nuclear weapons is simply unthinkable.

There is however, a problem that I see and I think the problem arises when people are so utterly driven by the fear of war (and the even more remote possibility of nuclear war) that they rush to argue that effectively we should acqueiese to Russia's unreasonable actions. I do not share this view and I think you can find a good precedent for why you shouldn't hold this view either in the form of the appeasement policy of the late 1930s. The short version of this story is if you start indulging the unreasonable demands of a country, the demands become more unreasonable until they reach a breaking point. The problem is measuring when reasonable becomes unreasonable; Russia's actions during the Georgian War were not entirely unreasonable but they appeared to my mind to go too far, it's actions in Crimea might have had the idea of uniting Russian speakers as a reasonable underpinning, but invading and annexing part of another country was not, invading two more provinces of that country and precipitating a frozen conflict was entirely unreasonable, as it's latest actions have been. I do not particularly care to see yet more unreasonable behaviour left unanswered, especially when the next states in line could be the Baltics, many of whose citizens are our coworkers and friends. I do not care to countenance putting their countries and lives at risk, let alone leaving them to become yet another part of the Russian 'near abroad' and I would submit you might not want that either. That is my line of argument, you make like it, or you may not.

Gringo180

Have the big bad Russians toppled Kiev yet :pac: Storm in a tea cup.

Gatling

Gringo180 wrote: »

Have the big bad Russians toppled Kiev yet :pac: Storm in a tea cup.

There still trying to find their testicles

Gringo180

Gatling wrote: »

There still trying to find their testicles

So why do we need a European army if Russia hasnt got the balls? Russiaphobia is back with a bang I see, although it didnt last long.

Dohnjoe

Gringo180 wrote: »

Have the big bad Russians toppled Kiev yet :pac: Storm in a tea cup.

Nah the Kremlin facilitated a war in the East of the country and annexed Crimea. If the Ukrainians retaliate, there's the very real chance that Russia will go to full-scale war with them (a lesson learnt from Georgia 2008)

Gatling

Gringo180 wrote: »

So why do we need a European army .

To give people something to complain about

Gringo180

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nah the Kremlin facilitated a war in the East of the country and annexed Crimea. If the Ukrainians retaliate, there's the very real chance that Russia will go to full-scale war with them (a lesson learnt from Georgia 2008)

Russia acted the way any state would react when there own citizens were under threat, especially in Crimea and South Ossetia. The British done it in the Falklands.

I dont like Putin but his foreign policy is much much safer for world peace than that of Britain, France and the U.S.

Gatling

Gringo180 wrote: »

Russia acted the way any state would react when there own citizens were under threat, especially in Crimea and South Ossetia.

What threat where they under in Crimea with russian naval forces already in place and no threats from any sources .

Didn't think this one through

Dohnjoe

Gringo180 wrote: »

Russia acted the way any state would react when there own citizens were under threat, especially in Crimea and South Ossetia. The British done it in the Falklands.

The Kremlin historically sees Crimea as Russian territory, so they used the protests in Ukraine as a pre-text to annex the territory. Likewise they triggered a war in the East of Ukraine. I would not like to be Ukrainian right now with such a hostile neighbour.

I dont like Putin but his foreign policy is much much safer for world peace than that of Britain, France and the U.S.

Putin is a leader, those are countries, interesting distinction.

Billy86

By the sounds of things Gringo180 wants us to invade Northern Ireland?

Dohnjoe

Does the history of Britain bother you? Niggled by the Cold War antics of the US? peeved with the French because they're French?

Come bitch about those countries and their entire history on any Putin thread! Bonus points for mentions of Iraq!

[Deleted User]

Gatling wrote: »

Bollox the west stood by at the end of ww2 ,the west and Europe stood by when russian tanks and troops massacred protestors in Hungary and Czechoslovakia ,
The west and Europe stood by when flight kal 007 was shot down ,
The west and Europe stood by when russia interfered in Ukraine and eventually invaded , occupied parts of Ukraine (sovereign Ukraine)
The west and Europe stood by when russian forces shotdown flight MH17 killing all on aboard ,

Negotiate and de-escalation what you mean is placate the bully and apologie to them for bullying it's neighbours and Europe yeah that will solve everything.

A strong and United Europe is needed also a strong military force is badly needed to defend the rights of tens of millions of eastern Europeans who don't want to be under russian occupation

In the era of the Cold War, spheres of influence plus not forgetting the tiny matter of deployed nuclear arsenals what was the alternative?

DS86DS

The whole area around the Black Sea, including down through the Bosphorus straits is an absolute tinderbox.

Russia, though with a massive landmass has an extremely constrained westward naval passage issue. The Baltic and the North Seas are too heavily patrolled by the navies of NATO members

The Northwest of the country at the Arctic Ocean is another enormous barrier for the Russian Navy, though that has more to do with heavy ice sheets which make it extremely difficult to navigate large naval ships through.

The Black Sea and the Bosphorous Straights not only are surrounded by countries that have tensions with Russia ........but it's a major geo-political point of importance for Russia and its naval access to the Mediterranean and the Middle East and elsewhere in the world.

As far as Crimea is concerned, they may as well sign that off as a part of Russia. The Kremlin will fight tooth and nail to claim Crimea and regain control over the seas that give it's navy the option of moving westward.

Russia after 1991 has been extremely constrained in its westward naval mobility. And to add fuel to the fire, Russia feels that it's been encircled by the United States and NATO all the way up to and around its borders.

Hopefully cool heads will prevail, though with hawks like John Bolton in the White House, I'm not sure they will.

DS86DS

Gatling wrote: »

A strong and United Europe is needed also a strong military force is badly needed to defend the rights of tens of millions of eastern Europeans who don't want to be under russian occupation

A strong and unified European Army if it's even feasible, would be a purely defensive affair.

As much as I hate to say it, given that each of these small Eastern European countries have their own cultures and enjoy their independence......the US military, all bluster aside is not going to go to war with Russia over the Ukraine or the Batlic states.

So what exactly is a European army, which will be second fiddle to the US Military going to do?

And considering that after Brexit, that France will be the only nuclear armed power in the EU.

Russia has a firm policy of Mutually Assured Destruction with an enormous nuclear arsenal to back that up...and if it feels it's territorial integrity or geopolitical interests are at stake, they will lash out.

Can you see President Macron, without a US backup plan declaring war on Russia over the Ukraine........all so that Paris would be reduced to dust in the space of seconds?

prinzeugen

Gringo180 wrote: »

Russia acted the way any state would react when there own citizens were under threat, especially in Crimea and South Ossetia. The British done it in the Falklands.

I dont like Putin but his foreign policy is much much safer for world peace than that of Britain, France and the U.S.

If you had to compare the Falklands with what is going on in Crimea then Russia would play the part of the Argentineans.

A dictator thinking they can take another states territory. The difference however is that the UK did something about it. Ukraine has not.

SterlingArcher

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

There is however, a problem that I see and I think the problem arises when people are so utterly driven by the fear of war (and the even more remote possibility of nuclear war) that they rush to argue that effectively we should acqueiese to Russia's unreasonable actions. I do not share this view and I think you can find a good precedent for why you shouldn't hold this view either in the form of the appeasement policy of the late 1930s. The short version of this story is if you start indulging the unreasonable demands of a country, the demands become more unreasonable until they reach a breaking point.

Ha the reason those missile systems sell so well is the fear of war.

There was once was a battle between two great generals. One rushed his army, forced march. picked the high ground and his soldiers all agreed., The other general took his time. The general who took his time, his own soldiers thought it was unreasonable to have let the enemy have the high ground advantage. The general on the highground never questioned why his adversary took his time, That is Until he and his army froze to death on that higher ground, unable to move.

The difference was one planned to win, the other planned ahead.

What exactly do you think is happening in the Ukraine. Do you think as Gatling does. Russia is just some mindless bully throwing its weight around said - eany, meany, miny Moe, let's bring Ukraine to their knees before they blow..

Gatling thinks he has all the rules figured out, the only problem is he doesn't even know what game is being played.

What if you see further ahead into the future and know the moves being made, do you question the one unreasonably intercepting the play or the one making the play. Which one makes you the apologist.

Gatling

SterlingArcher wrote: »

What exactly do you think is happening in the Ukraine.
Russia is just some mindless bully throwing its weight around said -

That's exactly what is happening .

But hey very insightful thoughts there russia good everyone else bad .

Kermit.de.frog

Russia has a smaller economy than Italy.

T'is a fact.

SterlingArcher

Gatling wrote: »

That's exactly what is happening .

But hey very insightful thoughts there russia good everyone else bad .

Haha never once said Russia good.

I'm sensing some heavy mouth breathing. If that's all you got I'll pass.

Irish Praetorian

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Ha the reason those missile systems sell so well is the fear of war.

There was once was a battle between two great generals. One rushed his army, forced march. picked the high ground and his soldiers all agreed., The other general took his time. The general who took his time, his own soldiers thought it was unreasonable to have let the enemy have the high ground advantage. The general on the highground never questioned why his adversary took his time, That is Until he and his army froze to death on that higher ground, unable to move.

The difference was one planned to win, the other planned ahead.

What exactly do you think is happening in the Ukraine. Do you think as Gatling does. Russia is just some mindless bully throwing its weight around said - eany, meany, miny Moe, let's bring Ukraine to their knees before they blow..

Gatling thinks he has all the rules figured out, the only problem is he doesn't even know what game is being played.

What if you see further ahead into the future and know the moves being made, do you question the one unreasonably intercepting the play or the one making the play. Which one makes you the apologist.

I enjoy the analogy of battle but lets get down to brass tacks about what exactly I think Russia is doing in Ukraine. In short, I think it's doing the same thing it does in most of the other countries it shares borders with; namely trying to preserve the legacy of Soviet influence or produce de-stabilization so severe as to preclude those nations from properly emerging from that influence.

The latter appears to be the kind of modus operandi that we can observe most clearly in Moldova, Georgia and now Ukraine, as well as to a lesser degree, Armenia and Azerbaijan. It's a fairly straightforward process involving the presence of Russian troops, occasional ethnic cleansing and typically a deal to 'freeze' the conflict, and thus the status of the victim country, precluding them from actions that might be detrimental to what Russia perceives as its interest. Moldova is a good and early example of this, which, by virtue of the Russian presence on it's land, is unable to join things like the EU or NATO or emerge from the spectre of Russian influence more generally. If you observe the pattern of Russian trade 'disputes' over the previous 15 years or so, you can see a similar trend emerging with Russian 'health and safety restrictions' tending to accompany those nations that displease Moscow.

Now, forgive me for jumping ahead here but I've been to this tango before and I suspect I can imagine what you're going to say next which would be some variation on 'Russia needs to defend itself and keep itself self by dominating these countries' - presumably in a more polite and eloquent manner. I do not care for this philosophy that sees other nations as simply pawns of larger neighbours, readily disposed of as necessary. There is a reason why institutions like the EU and NATO are so popular in the Russian 'near abroad' and it's because the represent a more stable and equitable arrangement than dealing with Russia. One can see the absurdity of this situation when you consider our own dealings with the UK and the EU - can you imagine how you might react if upon Brexit the UK felt that it had a right to forcibly intervene in Ireland to 'secure its interests' or 'keep itself safe' - do you imagine we would see the same kind of fawning obsequiousness that surrounds the treatment of Russia by certain groups today? I would hope not, and it is that principle which I think is crucial when we are talking not just about Ireland, but about the home countries of many of our fellow citizens in Eastern Europe.

Ten of Swords

DS86DS wrote: »

Hopefully cool heads will prevail

Thread needs more Stanislav Petrov

Irish Praetorian

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Russia has a smaller economy than Italy.

T'is a fact.

Yeah I see that one a lot but to be fair if we adjust for PPP we have a better indication of the size of national economies, and although it's still not anywhere near the US or China, it is about analogous to Germany.

Gatling

SterlingArcher wrote: »

I'm sensing some heavy mouth breathing. If that's all you got I'll pass.

And now comes the petty insult,s,

but your still wrong

Russia is the aggressor and bully in this case not Europe not Ukraine not America no amount claims of a siege or other made up claims will change that

[Deleted User]

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Thread needs more Stanislav Petrov

And less Wesley Clarke. The tale of the Pristina Airport incident in June 1999 is an interesting story of how things can still go potentially wrong. Needless to say Clarke lost his job not long after. The 'go in and bash em regardless' advocates like Gatling should take note with their amateur strategy advice.

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And less Wesley Clarke. The tale of the Pristina Airport incident in June 1999 is an interesting story of how things can still go potentially wrong. Needless to say Clarke lost his job not long after. The 'go in and bash em regardless' advocates like Gatling should take note with their amateur strategy advice.

Lol so again russia interfered with a NATO operation so they could install their forces into a conflict unnecessarily ,

So nothing has changed then ,

I'd be wouldn't be surprised if they then refused to leave the country after

But yet here we are again russian interference in another sovereign state

[Deleted User]

Gatling wrote: »

Lol so again russia interfered with a NATO operation so they could install their forces into a conflict unnecessarily ,

So nothing has changed then ,

I'd be wouldn't be surprised if they then refused to leave the country after

But yet here we are again russian interference in another sovereign state

There was no 'interference', it was planned as a joint NATO-Russia operation. The blame lies with Clarke who wanted to pursue an aggressive line with the Russians over the Pristina airport deployments. He was 'advised' by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 'retire early' from his command after, ie, he f**ked up.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

There was no 'interference', it was planned as a joint NATO-Russia operation. The blame lies with Clarke who wanted to pursue an aggressive line with the Russians over the Pristina airport deployments. He was 'advised' by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 'retire early' from his command after, ie, he f**ked up.

Nothing to do with the russians who wanted to set up a separate zone and sent their troops in first?

Ten of Swords

Deleted User wrote: »

And less Wesley Clarke. The tale of the Pristina Airport incident in June 1999 is an interesting story of how things can still go potentially wrong. Needless to say Clarke lost his job not long after.

I seem to recall an interview with James Blunt about that, he was a Tank Commander back then and was at Pristina airport that day. If the order had been given his unit would have been the spearhead :eek:

[Deleted User]

Grayson wrote: »

Nothing to do with the russians who wanted to set up a separate zone and sent their troops in first?

The Russians were in-situ at the airport. Clarke's orders was reckless as confirmed by General Mike Jackson who told him "I'm not starting The Third World War for you".

Originally posted by Ten of Swords: I seem to recall an interview with James Blunt about that, he was a Tank Commander back then and was at Pristina airport that day. If the order had been given his unit would have been the spearhead

Yep, he said he would have faced a court martial rather than follow Clarke's orders.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/how-james-blunt-saved-us-from-world-war-3-2134203.html

Gatling

The gas thing Grozny proved everyone wrong russia got hammered by rebels who wiped litterally hundreds of Russian armoured vehicles and helicopters in a short period of time ,any NATO clashes would have likely short and no so good for the Russians .

But hey let's placate the bullyboys because they have nukes ,
God forbid the west and Europe call their bluff and protect Ukraine and the Baltic States