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

[Sheb]

Now Europe is united. Too bad Ukraine was still outside, but at least Poland and Romania didn't decide to annex part of Ukraine this time.

Excuse me, but when did Romania annex Ukrainian territory ?

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I didn't mean that Romania invaded Ukraine in the past, I was comparing the situation to the Sudetenland. The reson I talked about Romania is that apparently Russia offered to divide Ukraine between Russia, Poland and Hungary.

Somebody told me that you heard Putin talking out loud about dividing Ukraine awhile ago. Is that true?

Oh yes, President Putin made a speech at the Bucharest NATO Summit in 2008, at which he spoke about Ukraine as an artificial country put together from bits of other countries. And yes, we have received a letter from the deputy speaker of the Russian Duma, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, proposing that Poland take five provinces of Ukraine. He sent similar letters to Hungary and Romania, also making territorial proposals to them.

When?

It was a month ago (The interview date from April the 18th). We told him we were not doing it.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

@Mainiac
I'll go ahead and refer to the pipes I kept mentioning a while back, and to

What he is worried about is A. The /actual/ sanctions that would follow an invasion and B. The collateral PR damage said sanctions and Ukrainian land war would cause at home.

These things would be real problems for him. The sanctions would hurt, along with an auto-limit on the gas exports which is out of everyone's hands. Plus it seems the general Russian bay12er opinion is that Crimea was popular while an invasion of Ukraine isn't.
These things combined would probably destroy the gains Putin's made with the Crimea business, perhaps more.
Though, he has brought up the pipes and cutting them off- bluffing he may be, but bringing them up is dangerous as it puts his face at stake. 'tis worrisome.

Meanwhile, I don't think NATO's rearing for the opportunity to have a conventional war with Russia. Not that they'll bend over to avoid it, but that shit's costly.



Otherwise, I agree with what Mainiac's saying.

It is much easier and safer to just play it on as separatist groups. For example for NATO member countries, article 5 covers pretty much only foreign threat. It can be interpreted in many ways. So the strategy that Putin used in Crimea could theoretically be also used on a smaller NATO nation.

If NATO leadership would like to sneak away from applying article 5, they could do so under the faux-separatist strategy that Putin is using. However this would pretty much destroy any kind of legitimacy that NATO has, since defending it's member states is one of it's goals.

I don't buy this one. single. bit.
To do that is cowardly and incompetent on an incredibly massive scale, and Putin would have to be equally massivly incompetent to have such a low estimation of NATO.
Being so arrogant as to assume your rivals are cowards and dullards and then provoking them is how a fool starts a war. (Hitler: "If England and France declare war over Poland, I'll eat my shoes.")
And I don't think Putin's a fool, (nor our collective military leaders, for that matter).




Influencing a vote in Ukraine isn't the same as in Crimea. Yeah, they'll try to mess with it, but Ukraine has the overwhelming advantage here, (similar to, but not quite as good as, Russia's advantage in Crimea). The most Russia could do without invading before the election is organize a boycott, and with such small numbers of Russians/pro-Russians that would have limited to no success-- other than giving Russia the 'it's illegitimate because (5-10%) didn't vote' (lol) talking point.

[BlindKitty]

Being so arrogant as to assume your rivals are cowards and dullards and then provoking them is how a fool starts a war. (Hitler: "If England and France declare war over Poland, I'll eat my shoes.")

Just pointing out - the England and France declared war... And done totally nothing and waited for Germany's next move. Weren't Hitler so hell-bent on taking the whole Europe, he could wait a couple of years and probably make peace with them on basis of 'Look, they are better of with us there than before!'.
But, well, Hitler was probably clinically insane.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Well, France did have the Maginot-line. You don't make one of those and not use it. Must've planned on harrying German trade & such as punishment or something.
Anyone know the reason?

[Sheb]

The reason for what?

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Just pointing out - the England and France declared war... And done totally nothing and waited for Germany's next move.

[Sheb]

The French wanted to fight a defensive war on the Maginot line. The British under Chamberlain weren't ready for a large-scale offensive. Honestly, given that the Allies enjoyed a 4-to-1 numerical superiority on the Western front, this was probably the stupidest strategical decision ever.

Also it's worthy noting that during that time there was a lot of talk about sending troops to Finland to help fight the Winter War. With Hitler invading Norway, these troops were dispatched there instead, but it makes for a nice alternate history scenario.

[BlindKitty]

Let's not forget (I've already mentioned it in one of those threads) that it would be much more effective to kick the Germans out of the Rheinland after it was re-militarized by Hitler; it wouldn't even require mobilization, just minor intervention to show that such behavior will not be tolerated. Of course, going back in time, there a few more places that could use some more strategic thinking, like the treaty ending WW I. But actually, yeah, those are mostly geopolitical scenarios, while Strange War was classical military mistake on unprecedented scale.

[mainiac]

The French wanted to fight a defensive war on the Maginot line. The British under Chamberlain weren't ready for a large-scale offensive. Honestly, given that the Allies enjoyed a 4-to-1 numerical superiority on the Western front, this was probably the stupidest strategical decision ever.

Yes the French should have sent conscripts against the defensive line that the Germans had directly opposite the Maginot line.  This would play directly into the plan out wearing down a country with twice your population through attrition.  Gee, what the hell were they thinking?

But, well, Hitler was probably clinically insane.

This isn't an explanation, it's an expression of personal ignorance.

Let's not forget (I've already mentioned it in one of those threads) that it would be much more effective to kick the Germans out of the Rheinland after it was re-militarized by Hitler; it wouldn't even require mobilization, just minor intervention to show that such behavior will not be tolerated.

So the French should invade Germany for occupying it's own territory?  I assume you likewise support Putin's right to invade Ukraine for retaking buildings in East Ukraine?

People with the hindsight of history speak as if they expect the people at the time to be clairvoyant and to not have to deal with public opinion.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Heh, this might be a little off-topic.

[mainiac]

I don't see why, I mean it's a documented fact that Putin is exactly like Hitler so it's no wonder that people are making so many spot on comparisons.

[miljan]

I don't see why, I mean it's a documented fact that Putin is exactly like Hitler so it's no wonder that people are making so many spot on comparisons.

Ehh Putin needs to do a lot of more things to be anything close to Hitler. Also, i am not sure you can use word fact for something that is not yet know to be a fact, but more different news and information from different mediums, some more or less biased for one side or another.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Heh, Mainiac was mocking the hitler people.

[Sheb]

Yes the French should have sent conscripts against the defensive line that the Germans had directly opposite the Maginot line.  This would play directly into the plan out wearing down a country with twice your population through attrition.  Gee, what the hell were they thinking?

Well, I'm sorry, but if the right time for offensive is not when most of the enemy's army is busy on the other side of the country, I don't know what is. Of course, I can understand why the French commandment made that mistake (they were still scared of offensive after WWI and overconfident in their Maginot line), but it was still a big mistake.

Also, Germany was banned by treaty from militarizing the Rhineland. They had no right to station troops there.

[WealthyRadish]

Let's not forget (I've already mentioned it in one of those threads) that it would be much more effective to kick the Germans out of the Rheinland after it was re-militarized by Hitler; it wouldn't even require mobilization, just minor intervention to show that such behavior will not be tolerated.

Best case scenario it'd start a war early (it might not have even been the war, if the Soviets didn't join), but more likely it would've ended in French embarrassment. France was in no position to fight a war at the time, Hitler had an international justification with the Fraco-Soviet pact, and Britain was too shaky on the whole thing (and had just been in negotiations for the remilitarization anyway). Really, after Hitler took power, the only way to prevent WWII as it specifically unfolded would've been to immediately invade and restore the Republic, which beyond the ridiculousness of such a solution would've had the same (probably more intense) legitimacy problems as the Weimar Republic in the eyes of the right, leading to the same problems later. The only real possibilities by the 1930s for the dying republic were the Nazis or a military dictatorship, both of which would've been almost certain to start WWII eventually.

Not that this has anything to do with Ukraine, though.