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

Ren2k7 · 19-02-2015 04:50PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

And neither was bombing the Serbs out of Bosnia and Kosovo. Nor bombing Gaddafi's regime in Libya. Or mounting operations in Afghanistan.

NATO ops aren't limited to the territory of NATO countries themselves.

Skylinehead · 19-02-2015 04:57PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

A war with Russia in Ukraine would by its very being be a land war primarily. The sea? Block off the Dardanelles and that's useless. You can't hold land with air power, that's been proved time and time again.

Not to mention the fact that the USAF hasn't come up against strong air denial defences since, well, ever. The appetite for a casualty-heavy war, which it would be, doesn't exist in Europe or the States right now.

Dotsie~tmp · 19-02-2015 04:58PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

(A) I'm not American so how could it be jingoism? I'm basing it on an objective assessment of both sides capabilities.
You misunderstand the word "jingoism".
(B) There are no historical lessons unless you consider Iraq 2003 when the Iraqis got their asses kicked during the initial bombing phase without knocking out one American plane largely because they were mostly stealth bombers.
The Iraqi defence system was being picked apart for years previously under the no-fly zone. Was antiquated, lacked depth compared to the modern RU air-defense system. The stealth component in 2003 is just plain wrong.
(C) Radar is largely useless against modern stealth aircraft.
Completely wrong again.

WW2 or something like that is irrelevant to modern fighing as are your "lessons".
So why is it still studied by modern armed forces?

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

It would be a wholly one sided conflict if it was conventional.
It wouldn't be. Russian battle doctrine allows immediate use of tactical nuclear weapons to counter NATO air and precision weapon advantage. IRBM and SRBM would likely knock out many key air and logistical sites in the first hours. These systems cant be countered en-mass. A conventional fight would await over Ukraine and Poland. That or all out nuclear escalation.

Dots

Shurimgreat · 19-02-2015 05:01PM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

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

Interesting statistics - the nuclear weapons are probably irrelevant in a conventional war and the numbers gap the same in a nuclear war too - It would only take a few hundred to wipe each nation from the face of the earth.

Ren2k7 · 19-02-2015 05:01PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

A war with Russia in Ukraine would be its very being be a land war primarily. The sea? Block off the Dardanelles and that's useless. You can't hold land with air power, that's been proved time and time again.

Not to mention the fact that the USAF hasn't come up against strong air denial defences since, well, ever. The appetite for a casualty-heavy war, which it would be, doesn't exist in Europe or the States right now.

Saddam in 1991 had an extensive air defence network supplied by the Soviets. The Americans made mince meat of it in short order. Russian tech is crap, it's why all the former Soviet bloc countries not under the thumb of Russia are getting rid of their legacy Warsaw Pact gear and replacing it with the latest European and US weaponry.

Iwasfrozen · 19-02-2015 05:05PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

A war with Russia in Ukraine would by its very being be a land war primarily. The sea? Block off the Dardanelles and that's useless. You can't hold land with air power, that's been proved time and time again.

Not to mention the fact that the USAF hasn't come up against strong air denial defences since, well, ever. The appetite for a casualty-heavy war, which it would be, doesn't exist in Europe or the States right now.

Block off the Dardanelles, how? With an inferior navy.

I agree but I don't think it would be as casualty heavy as you think.

Shurimgreat · 19-02-2015 05:07PM

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Dots

You probably should learn to multi quote as it makes it easier for me to reply in detail.

That aside, you're reply is full of fallacies.

Radar versus stealth is next to useless and besides many Americans bombers can drop their loads far out of range of even the top Russian radar systems. The Americans didn't spend billions on stealth for no reason.

We are talking exclusively conventional. If you want to bring nukes into it fine we can discuss that too. But if the Russians use nukes in any capacity, they would expect a reply. You think the Americans would accept their soldiers being nuked without a very strong response?

In all aspects, NATO have a massive comparative advantage over Russia.

19-02-2015 05:20PM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

In this week's Economist they mentioned Russia's soft power diplomacy. Specifically mentioned was RTV and also the small army of cyber warriors sent to spread pro-Kremlin messages on western internet sites.

Citing The Economist as a credible authority on the Ukranian crisis is a bit like citing ExxonMobil on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq..

Not only has much of The Economist's coverage been continuously discredited as inaccurate or simply untrue, a magazine that goes around photoshopping a half-naked President onto an armoured tank is about has about as much journalistic credibility as a spotty-faced schoolboy.

No offence to spotty-faced schoolboys in this forum.

Skylinehead · 19-02-2015 05:24PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Block off the Dardanelles, how? With an inferior navy.

It's a very narrow strait, mines and submarines would easily have it covered. Plus the Americans would be stupid to sail a carrier group into the Black Sea in the first place, not exactly much freedom of movement.

I agree but I don't think it would be as casualty heavy as you think.

If it was a fullscale war it would be inevitable. Air power cannot win a war, and that's not even a guarantee that they'd win, given the supposed capabilities of the S3/400s (apparently with anti-stealth and even missile destruction), And once you hit land, you're in Russias comfort zone.

Ren2k7 · 19-02-2015 05:31PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Interesting statistics - the nuclear weapons are probably irrelevant in a conventional war and the numbers gap the same in a nuclear war too - It would only take a few hundred to wipe each nation from the face of the earth.

Nukes are the absolute last resort in any conflict, used only when the very survival of the nation is at stake. It's the reason why the Americans never dropped a nuke on any country it has been at war with since 1945. Ditto Russia, Britain, France and China. They are, for all intents and purposes militarily useless. Even tactical low yield nuclear weapons like the Davy Crockett were scrapped. Nukes would only be used in a NATO-Russia war at the very end of a game of escalation where the entire world was engaged in total war, eg:

NATO and Russia square off in Ukraine
Russian forces beaten back, Ukraine saved
Russian fleet at Vladivostok attack and destroy US Pacific Fleet
NATO retaliates by invading Kaliningrad/Japan seizes Kurils
Russia launches conventional bombing runs on cities in Central Europe
US fires cruise missiles from Ohio class subs in the Gulf of Finland at government complexes in St Petersburg and Moscow
Russia initiates tactical nuclear strikes on NATO command centres in Europe, including Ramstein Air Base, home of US Air Forces Europe
US launches retailitory nuclear strike against hundreds of military targets across Russia, including the Kremlin
Russian fail deadly, nuclear launch system Deadhand activates unleashing the entire Soviet/Russian nuclear arsenal against the Western World (including Ireland).
Everyone dies......

Of course this is all hypothetical.......

daUbiq · 19-02-2015 05:36PM

Would I be right in saying most people posting here support the US position and believe Russia is completely in the wrong?

Ren2k7 · 19-02-2015 05:38PM

daUbiq wrote: »

Would I be right in saying most people posting here support the US position and believe Russia is completely in the wrong?

What, you believe Russia invading another sovereign state is acceptable?

Lockstep · 19-02-2015 05:42PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Citing The Economist as a credible authority on the Ukranian crisis is a bit like citing ExxonMobil on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq..

Not only has much of The Economist's coverage been continuously discredited as inaccurate or simply untrue

Has it? Source?
The Economist is a well-respected international news magazine. If you want to claim it's coverage has been "discredited" you really need to back this up. Especially if it's been done "continuously"

[QUOTE=A Tyrant Named Miltiades!;94357046
a magazine that goes around photoshopping a half-naked President onto an armoured tank is about has about as much journalistic credibility as a spotty-faced schoolboy. [/quote]
The Economist uses a lot of puns, cartoons and caricatures. This doesn't take away from its journalistic reputation.

Ren2k7 · 19-02-2015 05:46PM

More proof that the Russians can not be trusted:

Shelling is reported from several places in eastern Ukraine despite the official ceasefire between government forces and pro-Russia rebels.

Artillery fire could be heard in the region's biggest city, Donetsk, where the truce had been observed so far.

Ukrainian military sources also accused rebels of shelling positions near the port city of Mariupol.

The fighting comes as Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany held further talks over the phone.

Most of the renewed fighting in Donetsk appears to be in the north of the city towards the airport.

Further south, a spokesman for the Ukrainian government forces said rebel units had attacked the village of Shirokyne, killing one soldier, with shells also fired towards Mariupol.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31535512

daUbiq · 19-02-2015 05:47PM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

What, you believe Russia invading another sovereign state is acceptable?

Any country invading another sovereign state is unacceptable just like any country staging a coup in another country is unacceptable... both of these things have been done by the US in the past many times but if they tell gullible people that it's for democracy and other nonsense like that, it's acceptable? The double standards and hypocrisy shown by pro western governments is astounding as is the power of the media in the west... it's okay for the US to protect it's interests but not for Russia.

But that is not what I asked.. is it?

Ren2k7 · 19-02-2015 05:49PM

daUbiq wrote: »

Any country invading another sovereign state is unacceptable just like any country staging a coup in another country is unacceptable... both of these things have been done by the US in the past many times but if they tell gullible people that it's for democracy and other nonsense like thats is acceptable? The double standards and hypocrisy shown by pro western governments is astounding as is the power of the media in the west... it's okay for the US to protect it's interests but not for Russia.

But that is not what I asked.. is it?

What "coup"? More pro Russian rubbish!

Ren2k7 · 19-02-2015 05:49PM

Further proof Russia is a direct threat to Ireland:

The Irish Aviation Authority has confirmed that two Russian military aircraft flew within Irish-controlled airspace yesterday.

In a statement the IAA said the aircraft operated within 25 nautical miles of the Irish coast.

But it said the aircraft did not enter Irish sovereign airspace at any time.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0219/681373-russian-aircraft-raf-escort/

daUbiq · 19-02-2015 05:51PM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

What "coup"? More pro Russian rubbish!

Not necessarily in Ukraine, the US have a long history of interference...

Icepick · 19-02-2015 06:18PM

Gatling wrote: »

So we had a coup paid for by the cia by a population of Ukrainians who want to be ukraine EU state .
Who happen to make up the majority of there country's population .
And have been repeatedly governed by a pro russian puppet government's while only making up 23/24 % of the population whom are ethnic russians.

Now maths wouldn't be my strongest subject but how does 24 % have more control over a sovereign country where 70% of a population is ethnic Ukrainian

Also let's not pretend that all of the 23% want to join with Russia and be ruled by Putin.
The non-existence of pro-Russian guerillas or even protests in territories not controlled by the Russian army speaks volumes.

19-02-2015 06:24PM

Lockstep wrote: »

Has it? Source?
The Economist is a well-respected international news magazine. If you want to claim it's coverage has been "discredited" you really need to back this up. Especially if it's been done "continuously"

I don't really need to, though. Please have some manners. I'm referring to the magazine's warning a few years back that the Central European member states of the EU were about to be bailed out because they had failed to live up to the standards expected of liberal western Europe. Cue liberal Western European economies drowning in red ink, accepting cheques from a lot of handsome slavs.

On Ukraine specifically, commentators like this have been pointing out shortcomings in its reporting, and as you can see it isn't a once-off.

I don't really want to bore you, or waste my time, in fact-checking the magazine's articles line-by-line. Plenty of bloggers, some of them pretty lucid, spend their time doing exactly that.

In any event, the magazine that once protested at Irish famine aid has never denied that it has an ideological axe to grind, and nobody need be surprised at its approach to Ukraine.

The Economist uses a lot of puns, cartoons and caricatures. This doesn't take away from its journalistic reputation.

In your opinion.

Elmer Blooker · 19-02-2015 06:27PM

Lockstep wrote: »

Has it? Source?
The Economist is a well-respected international news magazine. If you want to claim it's coverage has been "discredited" you really need to back this up. Especially if it's been done "continuously"

The Economist uses a lot of puns, cartoons and caricatures. This doesn't take away from its journalistic reputation.

http://www.ukrainebusiness.com.ua/news/14718.html
Economist journalist Edward Lucas has been on RTE radio numerous times, he has never been asked a serious question and his contribution is nothing more than the usual "mounting evidence" .... "evidence shows" ... "a reliable source" ... "it is believed"... etc. Nothing he has ever said has turned out to be true.
He also contributes to the Kiev Post which consistently lies (and to be honest I find some of its propaganda embarrassingly amateurish) Even far right mouthpiece Euromaidan Press publishes his articles.

Icepick · 19-02-2015 06:29PM

FTA69 wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis

There are still some serious questions about the Ukrainian regime and those fighting for them. I think Putin's a bollix to be honest, but it's far from a simple case of goodies and baddies.

greatest threat?
The entire battalion has about 800 members but only 250 of them are unit veterans.

BoJack Horseman · 19-02-2015 06:32PM

daUbiq wrote: »

Would I be right in saying most people posting here support the US position and believe Russia is completely in the wrong?

When a very powerful nation invades & annexes a smaller weaker neighbour, I root for the underdog.

gandalf · 19-02-2015 07:01PM

FTA69 wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis

There are still some serious questions about the Ukrainian regime and those fighting for them. I think Putin's a bollix to be honest, but it's far from a simple case of goodies and baddies.

Extreme times tend to bring out the extremists. I agree there are far right elements at play on both sides of this conflict. What's even sadder is the Russians are screaming Nazi's pointing at the Ukraine and financing and supporting far right parties across Europe at the same time.

Basically this is the case of a large nuclear armed regional power bullying and invading their neighbour. A neighbour that was given assurances by Russia that they would respect their national borders if the Ukraine gave up their Nuclear Weapons. We've seen how Russia keeps it's word.

Military confrontation is not the answer, economic ruin for Russia is.

Shurimgreat · 19-02-2015 08:18PM

Russia is possibly today at the same stage as Germany was in the 1930s. A completely unsustainable economic model that is on the verge of collapsing.

The Russians need a war they can easily win now more than ever as a morale boost and to hope to achieve some economic gain from it.

At least Hitler had his eyes on the agricultural land of Ukraine and the oilfields of the Caucuses.

Modern Russia can hardly gain anything significant from its adventures. Crimea is a bit like Northern Ireland, it needs to be massively subsidised to be viable. As for Eastern Ukraine, its almost completely destroyed. The separatists have inherited a scorched earth. And all they want is more subsidies from Russia.

There is no doubt a wounded Russia is a dangerous animal. It all depends what direction sanctions pushes them. And are they ready to attack the Baltics which would be a case of Russian Roulette for them pardon the pun.

PopePalpatine · 19-02-2015 08:49PM

I wonder if Vlad will prop up his fellow fanatical Orthodox brethren in Golden Dawn after Syriza fall on their arses.

gandalf · 19-02-2015 09:14PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder if Vlad will prop up his fellow fanatical Orthodox brethren in Golden Dawn after Syriza fall on their arses.

They already seem very friendly. The quote below is from an article published last year.

Far-right parties are set to do well in next month’s elections to the European Parliament, a fact that has thrown a spotlight on their links with the Kremlin.

.........

Hungary’s Jobbik and Greece’s Golden Dawn are both invited to the Russian National Forum organised by a group with close ties to Putin to be held later this year.

https://euobserver.com/eu-elections/123887

Looks like only certain "Nazi's" are bad and others are good in the Kremlins eyes.

Iwasfrozen · 19-02-2015 09:41PM

gandalf wrote: »

They already seem very friendly. The quote below is from an article published last year.

https://euobserver.com/eu-elections/123887

Looks like only certain "Nazi's" are bad and others are good in the Kremlins eyes.

http://gdb.rferl.org/926E66D8-9F2F-4AA2-9D87-FA9A2A1E6BC5_mw1024_s_n.jpg

I sure am glad Putin is going to so much effort to protect Europe from fascists.

Elmer Blooker · 19-02-2015 09:51PM

gandalf wrote: »

They already seem very friendly. The quote below is from an article published last year.

https://euobserver.com/eu-elections/123887

Looks like only certain "Nazi's" are bad and others are good in the Kremlins eyes.

I couldn't find the word "nazi" anywhere in that? Lots of stuff about far right parties alright, do any of these European parties you consider "nazi" have torch lit processions commemorating WW2 "heroes" like Bandera who murdered thousands of Poles, Jews, Russians, men, women and children.
While I despise the politics of the far right I agree that the EU is nothing more a pawn in Washington's game to destabilise Russia as Le Pen has said.
Its probably a shrewd move by Putin to have contacts with these parties.

gandalf · 19-02-2015 10:12PM

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I couldn't find the word "nazi" anywhere in that? Lots of stuff about far right parties alright, do any of these European parties you consider "nazi" have torch lit processions commemorating WW2 "heroes" like Bandera who murdered thousands of Poles, Jews, Russians, men, women and children.
While I despise the politics of the far right I agree that the EU is nothing more a pawn in Washington's game to destabilise Russia as Le Pen has said.
Its probably a shrewd move by Putin to have contacts with these parties.

Just for you Elmer, here are some piccies of Putins new buddies in Europe.

From Greece here's Golden Dawn.

From Hungary here is Jobbik

Now if it looks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi and behaves like a Nazi, well guess what they are Nazi's and the Kremlin are supporting them.

So you condemn a far right group in the Ukraine for defending their own country yet you fawn praise upon Vladimir Putin for supporting ones in other countries with the aim of destablising those countries. I find your logic quite skewed here Elmer. Maybe you could clarify it?

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

Comments