Print

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

Until I figure out how to un-close it, at least.

0 (0%)

So yeah.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: May 01, 2014, 02:06:40 pm

[nenjin]

Anyway, what do you think is more likely: Putin genuinely wants separatists to disarm but doesn't control them, or he signed the deal knowing full well the militias wouldn't back it just to look reasonable? Real question here, not rethorical.

Of cause Russia will not order "militia" to disarm, that would be admitting that they control them
I think Putin wants to win time here. Don't know why he needs it. Maybe to bring more forces to Ukraine, maybe to prepare for impending sanctions better, maybe to delay the action and launch the main phase just before the elections...

My feeling is that he's going for plausible deniability for as long as possible. Publicly you tell protestors and insurgents to stand down. Privately, your infiltrators keep the same orders. So that if/when sanctions increase, Russia can say "Look, we told them to stand down the same as you. What more do you want? Your sanctions are in violation of international law."

[misko27]

I don't think Russia would do anything in a place it is literally monitoring as part of a peacekeeping force. That would be perhaps too audacious even. Plus now there are Americans there. Who would be in the crossfire.

I think it wants to be seen as a positive force in Ukraine. Russia not there=Anarchy. Russia there=Peace. Plus Obama appears to be holding Russia personally responsible for the situation. And sanctions, despite what some may say, suck. Especially for Russia right now.

[Sheb]

You know that Russia was "peacekeeping" in Abkhazia and South Ossetia until 2008?

[smjjames]

The problem here is (again) that nobody wants to make Putin angry. Or sad. Or generally unhappy in any way whatsoever. I mean, nobody from the West. Russia basically says "Do what we want or we will do what we want anyway." And Obama and... Whoever it was on EU side just reply "Dude, that's not nice! But oh well, OK, if you insist. Just don't kick us in the nuts." That's a wrong way to go about it. It was wrong to begin with; on the first sign of Russian invasion of Crimea, NATO should be all like 'Hey, get out of there'. There should be a freaking aircraft carrier on the Black Sea, along with all the companions, not a single destroyer; offer of military assistance aimed at Ukraine as soon as any kind of invasion become even possible, and actual American* troops flying into Crimea way before the 'referendum'. Why? Because:
a) USA guaranteed that the Ukraine will stay intact after giving up nuclear weapons;
b) it is pretty much obvious to anybody with half a brain that _not_ doing that will just make Putin want more.

But it's not like the US can take any of it's military operations to the end. Not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq, not to mention things like Libya or Syria, so I wouldn't expect any better this time. Or next time.
Well, it will generally accomplish one thing - everybody will either give up or stack up military stuff. There are already voices in the Ukraine that the country should get some nukes back; in Poland there are talks about upping the army expenses, and so on.

*Yeah, I moved from NATO to just USA there, because let's admit it, it's not like the rest of the NATO could do much. As far as the EU goes, there is so little will to fight at all, that if not for the Americans, Russia would steamroll all the continent to Lisbon with less resistance than Hitler, due to populations just... Giving up. And the politicians are even worse here.

While I'll admit that we have had some problems with planning on an end game for the recent wars, we never had boots on the ground in Libya or Syria, the Iraq war ended (took Obama to end it though) and the Afghanistan one is ending at some point this year.

As for Russia steamrolling Europe all the way to Lisbon, come on, that is just BS. You're from Poland, right?, do you even think Poland is going to sit there and let their country get steamrolled again for the nth time? Somehow, I think you just called your own countrymen cowards. I can see France being a surrender monkey, but Germany? Italy? Austria? Hungary? The Balkan states?

The EU doesn't want to get into a war if they can't help it, but not wanting to get themselves into a war doesn't mean that they won't fight back if they have to.

[Sheb]

Still, I wouldn't like to be an Estonian right now.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

BlindKitty, Hey, for a Polish nationalist you have way to little trust in your nation. Do you really think that Russia can just march to Warsaw?

[Sergarr]

The problem here is (again) that nobody wants to make Putin angry. Or sad. Or generally unhappy in any way whatsoever. I mean, nobody from the West. Russia basically says "Do what we want or we will do what we want anyway." And Obama and... Whoever it was on EU side just reply "Dude, that's not nice! But oh well, OK, if you insist. Just don't kick us in the nuts." That's a wrong way to go about it. It was wrong to begin with; on the first sign of Russian invasion of Crimea, NATO should be all like 'Hey, get out of there'. There should be a freaking aircraft carrier on the Black Sea, along with all the companions, not a single destroyer; offer of military assistance aimed at Ukraine as soon as any kind of invasion become even possible, and actual American* troops flying into Crimea way before the 'referendum'. Why? Because:
a) USA guaranteed that the Ukraine will stay intact after giving up nuclear weapons;
b) it is pretty much obvious to anybody with half a brain that _not_ doing that will just make Putin want more.

But it's not like the US can take any of it's military operations to the end. Not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq, not to mention things like Libya or Syria, so I wouldn't expect any better this time. Or next time.
Well, it will generally accomplish one thing - everybody will either give up or stack up military stuff. There are already voices in the Ukraine that the country should get some nukes back; in Poland there are talks about upping the army expenses, and so on.

*Yeah, I moved from NATO to just USA there, because let's admit it, it's not like the rest of the NATO could do much. As far as the EU goes, there is so little will to fight at all, that if not for the Americans, Russia would steamroll all the continent to Lisbon with less resistance than Hitler, due to populations just... Giving up. And the politicians are even worse here.

While I'll admit that we have had some problems with planning on an end game for the recent wars, we never had boots on the ground in Libya or Syria, the Iraq war ended (took Obama to end it though) and the Afghanistan one is ending at some point this year.

As for Russia steamrolling Europe all the way to Lisbon, come on, that is just BS. You're from Poland, right?, do you even think Poland is going to sit there and let their country get steamrolled again for the nth time? Somehow, I think you just called your own countrymen cowards. I can see France being a surrender monkey, but Germany? Italy? Austria? Hungary? The Balkan states?

The EU doesn't want to get into a war if they can't help it, but not wanting to get themselves into a war doesn't mean that they won't fight back if they have to.

Notice: French, the nation which conquered all of Europe and a big part of Russia in 1800-1812 time period, gets called ''surrender monkeys"

But Italy, the possibly worst nation military-wise in previous 2 world wars, doesn't.

That's the power of propaganda.

[Sheb]

French as cheese-eating surrender monkeys is a meme by now. Nothing serious.

[Sergarr]

French as cheese-eating surrender monkeys is a meme by now. Nothing serious.

I always thought they were frog-eaters?

[Baffler]

I've heard snails too, but here at least it's the surrendering you hear about the most.

[Zangi]

French as cheese-eating surrender monkeys is a meme by now. Nothing serious.

Still used as an insult in some places regardless.

[smjjames]

@ sergarr: blindkitty was pretty much calling all of Europe surrender monkeys in his post, including Poland.

[Sheb]

Frog, snails, horses, cheese: you name it, the French eat it.

[Loud Whispers]

Notice: French, the nation which conquered all of Europe and a big part of Russia in 1800-1812 time period, gets called ''surrender monkeys"
But Italy, the possibly worst nation military-wise in previous 2 world wars, doesn't.
That's the power of propaganda.

Not really no. Italy is often joked as the allies' greatest ally in WWI and WWII, as long as it fought against them. France gets called surrender monkeys but Italy gets it worst. Though there is also a great joke about that one battle where 300 Italians lost to 5 Frenchmen, and the joke is even in victory the French surrendered

It's all friendly banter until they start going on the warpath again. C'est la vie.

[mainiac]

Frog, snails, horses, cheese: you name it, the French eat it.

Not bulls though.  Napoleon accidentally ordered criadillas on a day where the matador lost and vowed no Frenchman would ever make that mistake again.

Not really no. Italy is often joked as the allies' greatest ally in WWI and WWII, as long as it fought against them. France gets called surrender monkeys but Italy gets it worst. Though there is also a great joke about that one battle where 300 Italians lost to 5 Frenchmen, and the joke is even in victory the French surrendered

Which was brilliant self promotion on Rommels part.  "Sure you might think I'm a shit general 'cause I got 300k of Germany's finest surrounded and captured, but it was all the dang Italians fault."