Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

You know it just dawned on me, during the height of the protests UR would often mention that the media was down playing the events to make it all look a lot more minor than it actually was. I imagine for some more insulated from these events such as those on the eastern provenances, suddenly hearing that "Oh, by the way, the president has been over thrown and we are pretty much making up the rules as we go." might not go down so well.

[XXSockXX]

You know it just dawned on me, during the height of the protests UR would often mention that the media was down playing the events to make it all look a lot more minor than it actually was. I imagine for some more insulated from these events such as those on the eastern provenances, suddenly hearing that "Oh, by the way, the president has been over thrown and we are pretty much making up the rules as we go." might not go down so well.

That's part of the problem. Actually it's much worse, because the Russian-speaking Ukrainians who get their news from Russian media think that their government has been overthrown by fascists supported by the West and that Russians or Russian-speaking people might be threatened.
That's why correspondents report that people in Crimea, except for the Ukrainians and Tartars there of course, are happy to see the Russian army there.
Bridging that divide in perception and bringing the country together would have been a monumental challenge for any new government, without any external pressure. Now with Russian troops there...

[Sheb]

And again, the government really fumbled. That (failed) attempt at the repeal of the language law was stupid with a capital S.

As for Lithuania, what if the scenario goes pretty much like Crimea? According to the DoS, it wasn't an invasion, it was a "uncontested entry". Are those covered by the NATO treaty? If the Lithuanian army shoot first, in a situation pretty much like this one, did Russia start it, or Lithuania? Again, if we find ourselves in a situation like this one, will we shoot first?

You'll find plenty of people of both side of the Atlantic (granted, mostly in Europe) arguing that this doesn't fit into the NATO treaty, and that we shouldn't fight for a small country of which we know little.

In the run-up to WWII, Czechoslovakia had a formal alliance with France and indirectly the UK. Didn't stop Hitler from calling France's bluff and get off with it.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

NATO is a far cry from an informal alliance.

From wikipedia:

The key section of the treaty was Article V. This committed each member state to consider an armed attack against one state to be an armed attack against all states. This article has only been invoked once in NATO history: by the United States after the September 11 attacks.

They want us there? We're there, all of us, as we are obligated.
To not honor it is unthinkable. No really.
That's why it's a deterrent.

I'm glad Poland & friends are members now.

[Sheb]

I said formal alliance when referring to Czechoslovakia. Also, again, what if the Russian do a "cold invasion" like now? Is it an armed attack? Not a single shot was fired in Crimea after all.

And it's all fine and dandy for the NATO council to accept article 5 when it just means fighting a "War on Terror" against Al-Qaeda (I know NATO then took the lead in Afghanistan, but only in April 2003, well after the war started. Before that it was individual member states.) But I'm sure they'll think twice after shooting at Russia.

Moreover, we don't even need for NATO to do nothing. We just need for it to be a good enough possibility to tempt Russia into trying something. If Crimea was our Sudetenland, Lithuania could be our Poland. 

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Ah, my mistake on the formal bit.

Spoiler: wall of rambling text (click to show/hide)

Nah dude, the NATO's been a keystone of west-east politics & economics since the beginning of the cold war.
An attack on lithuania is an attack on everyone else, it really is- we tell them loud and clear about that, and we take it to heart & don't hesitate to back it up, and they (russia) don't make anything escalate too far.
If I had to guess about the czech-uk-france pact, it suffered from a lack of enforceability, (did the allies even hear about the invasion before it was over? He was fond of the blitz), iirc it was a rushed treaty signed right before hitler said 'go', & he was already planning to start a fight with them too & therefore didn't care if they followed through with their promises.
Not the case nowadays.

Er, if they have weapons I'd say it's 'armed', and if lithuania don't want them there it's an attack.
I suppose the russians could come over and hold peaceful sit-ins, but that's a pretty deep and strange rabbit hole to go down.

No worries about tempting them- the NATO has always had a steely spine. If it's an obvious breach of sovereignty, even for small potatoes like Lithuania, everyone will treat it as an attack.
We've all put our countries' collective treaty-making word on it, everyone knows that's the case, and calling everyone out on their promises knowing full well it could be war is declaring war.
Not to mention anyone that breaches the treaty would have to answer to all the other members. As in sanctions & isolation from most of the world's largest economies (especially in the North Atlantic region) for literally ever.
If it wasn't straight dope the cold war would have turned out a bit differently.

Looking at the troop contributions for Afghanistan, the only country that didn't send troops was Bahrain, (who sent naval vessels). Every single other member contributed in at least some small way, (which isn't cheap to do, mind you).


-e
As for 'cold invasion' like in crimea: Ukraine isn't a NATO country, and is therefore on it's own when it comes to warfare. Plus it's in a bit of turmoil, and Russia's got a hundred thousand dudes mobilized just outside the border--
There wasn't a shot fired because the soldiers were deliberately avoiding justifying a larger 'intervention', as their commanders ordered. (iirc the unmarked soldiers are from the russian naval base & are few in number)



Also, no offense intended for our russian forumites- in the first part of this I'm only talking baseless hypotheticals.

tl;dr
NATO aint nothin to fuck with. (@sheb)

[Sheb]

Actually, I may be wrong about the French-Czechoslovak alliance. I heard it somewhere, but cannot seem to fact-check it now.

Anyway, I don't think we can really make progress, as there is no way to test our respective hypothesis. You say the NATO council would declare it an attack I say it would depends. Actually I believe that the balance of probabilities is that NATO would react, with intense lobbying from the whole Eastern European contingent and Western Europe dragging its feet.

But I believe it boils down to probabilities. Let's say the Latvians elect a far-right government that do some stupid stuff against it's Russian minority, like suddenly deporting unemployed non-citizens (It's a special status). Russia does a "cold invasion". How many Western Europeans would be willing to die to defend a government like that? How many will find excuses and try to wiggle out of their treaty obligations? How many will rationalize that NATO ain't that important to their security anyway?

Treaties are broken all the time. I wish I had your faith in my compatriots and other NATO member states, but I don't.

And as I said, we don't even need for NATO to do nothing in case of a Latvian invasion. We just need for NATO to look weak and irresolute enough to tempt Putin and start a war. And frankly, NATO is doing pretty well on the weak and irresolute front lately.

[Il Palazzo]

Actually, I may be wrong about the French-Czechoslovak alliance. I heard it somewhere, but cannot seem to fact-check it now.

Don't you mean Poland?

[Sheb]

No, I read somewhere that France and Czechoslovakia had an alliance back in 1938.

[Guardian G.I.]

Probable Russian plan, as I see it:

If Putin really wanted to steamroll Ukraine with tanks, provided that he is as bloodthirsty and as willing to violate international law as some portray him, he would have sent them immediately after signing the intervention bill and ordered to open fire first. Right now, there hasn't been any reports of bloodthirsty Russian aircraft bombing Ukrainian bases, bloodthirsty Russian tanks crushing peaceful Ukrainians, bloodthirsty Russian Chekists from the bloody KGB torturing and hanging brave partisans from the Right Sector and so on and so forth. The most intense battle of this 'war' is Russian and Ukrainian troops engaging in a stare-down contest at Perevalny and other bases in Crimea. One may say that Putin is afraid of NATO and getting his ass handed to him by brave Ukrainian troops, but I think that he didn't intend to actually invade in the first place.

The pro-Russian Crimean government is currently heading towards seceding from Ukraine: among other things, they've created their own state security forces and now creating the Crimean military. Pro-Russian elements in the South East are also striving towards seceding. Without Russian support, they would be crushed by Ukrainian security forces and the Right Sector. The threat of Russia using its military forces to 'protect Russian citizens' provides them some cover to operate in the open without any repercussions from the Ukrainian government.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Got unconfirmed info why commander of our navy switched sides - Russians kidnapped his family. Unconfirmed but knowing biography of  "prime minister" of Crimea I think it is very likely

[GrizzlyAdamz]

@sheb
Firstly, Russia getting it's troops in-place for a 'cold invasion' would raise some flags, and holy shit would it become a hornet's nest at that point.

Say they don't though, and they get enough men situated on the border/ready to invade and go in quietly.
They won't stay quiet long- latvian troops would confront them because 'what the hell are you doing here?'- they're a NATO member and everyone else /will/ be backing them up. Nono, they /will/, because even if western europe tries to drag it's feet, (in-spite of NATO's status as sacrosanct being of the highest priority regarding their national security-- it's germany's & france's protection just as much as latvia's), the USA has it's face/reputation so absolutely bound up with enforcing the NATO they'll bring more than a hot iron with them to force compliance.
So not only would the invasion be bloody, (not cold), but it won't even get to that point without everyone noticing and readying their best fighting words & machines.

If Russia got it's jimmies rustled about latvia being a massive prick, they'd exert pressure on us & we'd likely exert an assload of pressure on latvia. Because we have the leverage of the NATO and holy crap all that regional economic power, latvia would listen or else.

The NATO does not get broken.


How is it looking weak? Presenting a unified front on foreign relations? Is that a stipulation of the treaty?




-czech treaty
ah, it appears no.
I guessed from this that there was, and mixed it with what I recollected, but looking at the Munich agreement that section refers to reveals there was no alliance.

-e
replaced lithuania with latvia

[Max White]

Got unconfirmed info why commander of our navy switched sides - Russians kidnapped his family. Unconfirmed but knowing biography of  "prime minister" of Crimea I think it is very likely

Well that is a formula for loyalty. As soon as his family is either rescued or killed he is going to once again turn coat, assuming this is true. It does sound a little like the plot of a James Bond movie... Personally I would have just bribed the man, so much easier, so much more reliable.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Russian Stock market index got -9.5% today and falling.   I wonder why?

[Darvi]

Russian Stock market index got -9.5% today and falling.   I wonder why?

Olympics are over. Meaning fewer tourists and therefore less commerce.