No.
If the Nork's did that you'd see quite quickly how many friends they have.
That conflict would effectively be over in 15-20 minutes.
Is WW3 coming ?
- Thread starter Shakeandbake
- Start date
- Status
If the Nork's did that you'd see quite quickly how many friends they have.
That conflict would effectively be over in 15-20 minutes.
They have about 20,000 troops currently in place and they are actively involved in shelling the Ukrainian forces from just their side of the Russian border in order to assist the "separatists" - actually mainly Russian and Chechen volunteers and mercenaries. There are about 12,000 separatists and about 30,000 Ukrainian troops. The Ukes avoid firing back, as they do not want to provoke an all-out invasion.
Qualitatively, the Russians could kick Ukrainian ass. Many of the Ukes are recent volunteers. There are leadership problems and equipment problems due to years of corruption and neglect in the Uke armed forces.
There's no indication that Putin thinks invading Ukraine is worth the economic and diplomatic fall-out. 20,000 troops doesn't conquer much of a country. The issue is that Putin sells his image to his homeland people as a "tough guy" who will make Russia as strong as the USSR used to be. It's all a bluff because modern Russia has only a fraction of the strength of the old Soviet Union. But he's based his political career on it.
What is possible is that he might push into Eastern Ukraine and kick the Uke army away from Donetsk and Lugansk and maintain an army there as "security" for the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. This would save his rep in Russia where the citizens expected him to have beaten the shit out of Ukraine months ago. It would also force him into maintaining an expensive army of occupation in a foreign country in the face of increasing diplomatic and economic pressure from the rest of Europe and North America. So it's an unattractive option, but may be a political necessity to save his ass in Moscow.
Right now, he is hoping that the Ukes fall apart in front of Donetsk and that he doesn't have to make the decision whether to invade, as it is a lose-lose. The Ukes are slowly and inefficiently winning, although the real question is how they will do in city fighting.
In the meantime, Putin shovels in as much heavy equipment - including AAA and heavy artillery - to the separatists militia as he can to attempt to deter the Ukes from closing right in and fighting it out to a conclusion.
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"
American knows how and when.
Just give him a land corridor to Crimea and let's move on.
I think that's all they really want.
I will give you a hint. I speak fluent Russian.
Now it is my turn. Have you been to Ukraine or Russia, or did you draw your conclusions based on Russia Today reports?
Nice to meet a Russian who doesn't think Putin-khuilo is god's gift to mankind.
That might be true, but there is a little problem... You see, in the good 'ol days, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Ukraine found itself in possession of 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Nobody really liked that, so Ukraine signed a treaty to give up its nuclear stock in exchange for guarantees on territorial integrity. And the guarantors were Russia, UK, USA, and a few other countries. So, after the annexation of the Crimea by Russia, suddently UK and USA found itself in a situation where their word means nothing. The guarantees were broken, and UK and USA are unable to do anything. It is a major blow to western diplomacy, it reduces value to ANY treaty signed by US and UK to zero. Do you think, that these guys can afford to let the situation proceed in this direction? ALL treaties worth nothing. All of them. Russia needs to be tought a lesson, or the world as we know it is over.
Hope not so many unfinished things to do before I die. Like have more sexual threesome...lol.. just calm down
A lot of Russia/Putin bashing going on. That's the Western mainstream media at work, on behalf of those who control our governments. The latter are not truly democratic by any means, especially the USA. The USA hasn't been truly democratic since Eisenhower. A vote in the US doesn't mean squat anymore, since there are no limits to campaign contributions by vested interests/lobbies. Powerful and rich lobbies (Monsanto, AIPAC, GE, Banksters etc) offer to fund individual politicians' campaigns, or large parts of it, in exchange for them supporting various self-serving policy items contained in supplied briefing notes. If they refuse, the lobbies simply go to his rival and give him an overwhelming funding advantage. Why do people still vote for those politicians? because the mainstream media is owned by some of the same people/conglomerates who conspire with other lobbies, such as Rupert Murdoch, and give the sheeple only one side of the story. Murdoch has been largely responsible for putting in power successive British Prime-ministers, by vilifying their rivals through his gutter tabloid press. He owns Fox and the Wall Street Journal as well, and the former continues the tradition through electronic means. The US sheeple still believe that the news they watch on TV is the God-given truth, whereas viewers in not so democratic countries just assume that their own media is mostly garbage.
Obama does not really control US foreign policy. The Neocons still control it. Neocon doctrine was developed by Paul Wolfowitz, ex-assistant secretary of state in the Dubya administration, and under-secretary of defense for policy in the George HW Bush presidency. Secretary of State James Baker and his peers called him and his fellow neo-cons the 'crazies', and thought that his doctrine (Project for a New American Century) was not according the America's traditional Republican values. That's what the US has been implementing since the Dubya administration, when Dubya hired Dick Cheney, the head Neocon and the first de-facto Prime-Minister of the US, to run things for him. The fundamental point of this doctrine is: now that the US has won the cold war, and is now the only superpower left, how can it take advantage of it for its own benefit? The answer is through coercion and the force of arms against any other nation that dares stand in the way of what it wants.
Russia was a basket case in the '90s under Yeltsin, China had growing pains and internal distractions in the Communist Party. However, Russia's economy is growing fast, and so is China's. Both have undertaken armament and rearmament programs, including China's newly emerging Blue Water Navy, where it seeks to protect its trade routes over the seas and oceans. The US is seeing that as a threat to its hegemony (remember that it wound up as the only big kid on the block and wants to remain so). The US is moving more Naval resources to the Pacific to 'contain' the Chinese threat. At the same time, they have been seeking to expand NATO's influence Eastwards in Europe against its cold war adversary Russia because, for the neo-cons and war party in Washington, the Cold War never really ended. Russia sees the establishment of US/NATO ABM's on its doorstep in Ukraine (400 km from Moscow) as a major threat to its nuclear deterrence capability, and the potential loss of its Naval base in Sevastopol in Crimea, where it has been for two centuries, as a major loss of influence over its traditional sphere of interest in the Black Sea, it's underbelly. The crazies and Washington war party still think they can defeat Russia through a nuclear first strike; Dubya abrogated the ABM treaty with Russia in 2003 and now the US has a pre-emptive nuclear strike doctrine against Russia.
That is the WW3 threat. It gets there through escalation. The escalation is already under way.
Obama does not really control US foreign policy. The Neocons still control it. Neocon doctrine was developed by Paul Wolfowitz, ex-assistant secretary of state in the Dubya administration, and under-secretary of defense for policy in the George HW Bush presidency. Secretary of State James Baker and his peers called him and his fellow neo-cons the 'crazies', and thought that his doctrine (Project for a New American Century) was not according the America's traditional Republican values. That's what the US has been implementing since the Dubya administration, when Dubya hired Dick Cheney, the head Neocon and the first de-facto Prime-Minister of the US, to run things for him. The fundamental point of this doctrine is: now that the US has won the cold war, and is now the only superpower left, how can it take advantage of it for its own benefit? The answer is through coercion and the force of arms against any other nation that dares stand in the way of what it wants.
Russia was a basket case in the '90s under Yeltsin, China had growing pains and internal distractions in the Communist Party. However, Russia's economy is growing fast, and so is China's. Both have undertaken armament and rearmament programs, including China's newly emerging Blue Water Navy, where it seeks to protect its trade routes over the seas and oceans. The US is seeing that as a threat to its hegemony (remember that it wound up as the only big kid on the block and wants to remain so). The US is moving more Naval resources to the Pacific to 'contain' the Chinese threat. At the same time, they have been seeking to expand NATO's influence Eastwards in Europe against its cold war adversary Russia because, for the neo-cons and war party in Washington, the Cold War never really ended. Russia sees the establishment of US/NATO ABM's on its doorstep in Ukraine (400 km from Moscow) as a major threat to its nuclear deterrence capability, and the potential loss of its Naval base in Sevastopol in Crimea, where it has been for two centuries, as a major loss of influence over its traditional sphere of interest in the Black Sea, it's underbelly. The crazies and Washington war party still think they can defeat Russia through a nuclear first strike; Dubya abrogated the ABM treaty with Russia in 2003 and now the US has a pre-emptive nuclear strike doctrine against Russia.
That is the WW3 threat. It gets there through escalation. The escalation is already under way.
So do I. I lived there for a very very long time and I am married to ... you guessed it!
Nothing. I was following the conflict closely and so far that was the only weakness from Putin geo-politically speaking. Western Empire is in a weak position right now, so yeah he could've sent
"peace keepers" circa USA in 90s Yugoslavia, the only reasoning I see so far is that Russia already absorbed most of the valuable human resources, right now there is nothing to inherit but ruins in that land. I was expecting Putin to intervene back in April-May. Now the situation is getting only worse.
I like your cherry picking. It was also guaranteed that NATO will not expand and those words meant shit. So what happened?
And Reagan promised Gorbachev that after the Baltic states returned to independence, NATO would not expand eastward. It did, and is now on Russia's doorstep. All bets are off. US' word means nothing.
Russia doesn't have to do anything. Ukraine is on the verge of economic collapse. They are going to run out of money shortly, even to pay their soldiers. The IMF is supposed to 'rescue' them. However, they typically impose severe austerity measures, such as they did to Greece: [fire]sale of state enterprises, slashing of state pensions, dropping of subsidies, chopping the civil service, cutting back on the social security system and public services. Everybody is wondering how they will heat their homes over the winter. Whereas people thought they would instantly experience an economic miracle and become like Poland, there is going to be great disappointment, probably leading to mass unrest. Maidan square is still occupied and is resisting dismantlement of camps and barricades. Putin knows this. The EU is not going to prop up Ukraine, presently a non EU state, when it cannot do the same for Greece and other East-European members.
If WWIII comes it won't be because of a planned conspiracy. Like the last two world wars it will come about by blunders of statecraft.
- Status
