Print

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

[Sheb]

NATO did not invade Afghanistan. The US and the UK did. NATO stepped in later then Germany proposed that it should be NATO supervising the ISAF instead of individual member countries.

[XXSockXX]

Yes, initially only some NATO members invaded, the others came in much later in 2003 IIRC. ISAF was initially under UN mandate, later under NATO supervison. But, and that's the important point, NATO declared 9/11 an attack under article 5 (an attack on a member state is an attack on all members) pretty soon after it happened, on 2. October 2001.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

You guys keep doubting 'signed slips of paper' as if they aren't the bedrock of civilization, as if they aren't that which let the world go round.


Touting singular incidents of abductions or graffiti is silly. Not unless it's state-sponsored or /wide-spread/ is it relevant.

According to NPR, that Ukrainian soldier that was killed was killed by a pro-russian sniper, (not a russian(yet)), and ironically the Russian troops were the ones that stopped him.
(looking for confirmation now)

[XXSockXX]

According to NPR, that Ukrainian soldier that was killed was killed by a pro-russian sniper, (not a russian(yet)), and ironically the Russian troops were the ones that stopped him.

According to the Crimean police a sniper killed a pro-russian militia member and an Ukrainian soldier, and injured two in Simferopol. It really isn't clear what happened yet, except it seems that two people died and some were injured.

[Sheb]

Actually, I though they declared it an attack on the 12th of September. But the cost of declaring it an attack was low. I'm sure many government will drag their feets should the cost of declaring something an attack means fighting Russians.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

A hypothetical Russia that isn't afraid of inviting a war with NATO & expanding via force of arms into the west isn't the same kind of threat & clear case of article 5 as the USA declaring 'AFGHANISTAN & TALIBAN & OSAMA BIN LADEN = SAME THING = GETEM'.

[XXSockXX]

It was declared on the 12th, but only confirmed later, in October, because the US had to prove what kind of attack it was first. It's a bit of a special case anyway because it was a terrorist attack.

If soldiers in Russian gear without insignia would be seen wandering around in Estonia, that would fool nobody anymore. Also NATO was initially founded to protect against a potential conflict with Russia, I doubt many governments would be that reluctant, seeing how worried Eastern Europe is already.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

To move from NATO discussing stuff... I think Baltic states will be the last step of reassembling of the USSR, so NATO has quite a lot of time

I am worrying about Lukashenko, assassinating him and annexing Belarus without real government is a very practical way to continue that gathering of Russian lands.

Armenia may have some weird self-defense units appearing on its territory because it has Russian base on it's territory

Central Asian countries are interesting direction for annexing, "nationalizing" their gas would be a huge buff for Gazprom but here China has serious interests and may answer with something more dangerous than deep concern.

Of cause Transinistria, Abkhazia and Ossetia are in the list, too. But it may be easier to keep them in that state

[XXSockXX]

Well, according to an article I linked earlier, Lukashenko has said that corruption was the cause for the revolution in Kiev, which isn't exactly Putin's view of things. Kazakhstan and Kirgistan have also distanced themselves a bit from Putin's current course. Moldova is worried obviously.

Ukraine is in a very particular situation compared to these countries, especially with Crimea. I don't know how easily that model could be repeated ouside of Crimea, and how the locals would react. Really the question remains what will happen in Eastern Ukraine now, a lot depends on that.
I'm not sure what Putin wants, maybe Crimea will be enough. Maybe he does dream of reuniting the USSR territories, but that could prove way harder than it was gaining Crimea (and even that is not fully achieved yet).

[Dutchling]

I was under the impression that the only reason Lukashenko hasn't made his country join Russia yet is that Russia doesn't want Belarus.

[Descan]

Maybe he'll do a backwards Hitler and do an Anschluss of Belarus -after- the Sudetenland of Crimea...

[Dutchling]

Forget about the Crimea, or Belarus...

[Beznogim]

On centuries-old treaties: They still are legally binding, very much so. The close cooperation between Portugal and England is based on a treaty from the 12th century IIRC, and it was never revoked. Revolutions and such don't matter: The legal successor still has to follow any agreements and fulfill any duties that were previously agreed upon. That's why the BRD had to pay the Weimar Republic's reparations for WWI, you know?

Of course, Turkey is not interested in a war, and so these speculations are completely hypothetical. But they have a valid claim (if that treaty is valid, that is).

Turkey since under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is de-jure not the successor of the Ottoman empire, but an entirely new country. One of the many reasons for this was the necessity to escape huge money debts after WW1.
So, this basically annuls any centuries old treaties Turkey could possibly have.

But even if we consider, that Turkey would attempt to reclaim its former glory, then it would also give Turkey several huge pains in the ass, such as paying reparations for armenian genocide and etc.

Edit: corrected some grammatical errors

[Comrade P.]

Forget about the Crimea, or Belarus...

No way. Alaska was sold legally. Not like I approve it, but there is no chance of any kind of independence/annexation. Their claims are just... meh, stupid. They do not tolerate gays - they do not speak or interact in other way with them.

EDIT: In English it's Ottoman Empire, not Osman, Beznogim.

[Veylon]

Central Asian countries are interesting direction for annexing, "nationalizing" their gas would be a huge buff for Gazprom but here China has serious interests and may answer with something more dangerous than deep concern.

The seizure of Crimea basically destroys any reason for Russia's neighbors to trust them. Kazakhstan could well fall into Beijing's orbit. If that happens, then China has a jumping-off point nearly as close to Moscow and Volgograd (former Stalingrad) as Ukraine is. Most of the major cities of Russia hug the southern, a quick blitz away for invading forces. If the Kazakhs call in China, Russia is a short spit from losing Siberia - and maybe independence altogether. It's possible we'll look back on this Crimean situation as the beginning of the end for Russia.

In general, everything is closer to Moscow than it was in the Cold War. If war breaks out, it won't be in the middle of Germany or in the conquered buffer state of Poland, but right on the Kremlin's doorstep. And the Warsaw Pact is dead. Warsaw itself is likely to be the staging area for war on Russia. Russia is just a shadow of the Soviet Union; it has less than half the people it once did.