Russian-Ukrainian war

And there you go. Crimea annexed, gunboat base secured. Anything happens beyond this point except a few more eastern regions actually voluntarily voting to join Russia, I'd be amazed.

Also, cue massive unrest in Ukraine in a few years tops without anyone having to organize them for about the same reason any regular Ukrainian was protesting this time around, except with more people and a worse economic situation. Except EU will be talking about faschists, and Russia may or may not even pay attention.
 
Last edited:
lujo said:
^ even if there's some extra profit in Crimea, it still changes nothing.
Click to expand...

Oh, the link was not a response to your comment, i just browsed a few articles on that subject and for some reason i never thought about other potential schemes that Might have been the main reason for the whole thing. Now that i think about it, the Georgian conflict had a few "pipelines" in it too, if my memory serves. In any way, i just posted that as an interesting hypothesis.
[h=1][/h]
 
Crni Vuk said:
putin would crush obama. He's a martial arts expert. And Ex-KGB. Hell, they should do a movie about him, where the Kremlin gets overrun by terrorists and Putin saves the day, Rambo style.
Click to expand...
That's why Obama would have to sneak his Nobel Peace Prize into the fight and use it as a club.
 
now on the other hand if there would be a dance contest between Obama and Putin ...



thats where black people shine. Russians are the killers. Did you guys learn nothing from CoD?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope the soldiers of the Ukraine, trapped in Crimea, will be allowed to leave peacefully - with their equipment.
 
AskWazzup said:
Russia already showing concerns for the way Estonia (and of course mainland Ukraine) treats Russian people, and in my own country, provocators waving Russian flags near the parliament building.

It's also interesting to note that the Russian official REPRESENTITIVE in the council of Europe, in his facebook, wrote that Russia is going to reclaim Alaska, Baltic countries, Poland and Finland. In any other case this would be rambling of a absolute lunatic not worthy of news, however this time, it's rambling of an official Russia's representitive (who is a lunatic)...

In the meantime, France (a NATO country) is going to sell two Mistral battleships to Russia.
Click to expand...

That is fucked up. But, but...
1. If Russia touches nato, they're in for WW3.
2. If they touch Alaska, Americans will lose their shit, and it's WW3

It's tempting to say the Finns would pwn Russia once more, but times have changed, and I'm not sure the Finns have the same "nothing to lose" mentality that they had back then. Either way, Russia vs NATO is not very realistic, and it's even less realistic to actually advertise about it beforehand.

What is more likely, is that this message is "meant" for Russians to see - for Russians to get their egos bloated, by seeing a representative of theirs "bravely" talk tough against the whole west. Don't forget, George Bush (representing an ally, not an enemy!) threatened the entire alliance, with the "with us or against us" rethoric. That too was quite an outlandish statement, bluntly put, but ultimately meant as an angrandizing effect.

I agree that it is quite unsettling to see the leader of a superpower talk like that, and Ukraine is allready a bit too close to home, Poland is closer, and Finland is right around the corner, in the end Norway actually shares a border with Russia, and it's the only stretch of frontier we actually take seriously :I
 
Last edited:
Walpknut said:
All of this situation sounds like out of a Pulp magazine....
Click to expand...

It certainly does, even to me. It seems like they completely lost their fucking minds, the things they are saying and actually doing. 70 billion dollars on investments gone in 2 months and they say - "fuck it, we don't care".
 
zegh8578 said:
AskWazzup said:
Russia already showing concerns for the way Estonia (and of course mainland Ukraine) treats Russian people, and in my own country, provocators waving Russian flags near the parliament building.

It's also interesting to note that the Russian official REPRESENTITIVE in the council of Europe, in his facebook, wrote that Russia is going to reclaim Alaska, Baltic countries, Poland and Finland. In any other case this would be rambling of a absolute lunatic not worthy of news, however this time, it's rambling of an official Russia's representitive (who is a lunatic)...

In the meantime, France (a NATO country) is going to sell two Mistral battleships to Russia.
Click to expand...

That is fucked up. But, but...
1. If Russia touches nato, they're in for WW3.
2. If they touch Alaska, Americans will lose their shit, and it's WW3

It's tempting to say the Finns would pwn Russia once more, but times have changed, and I'm not sure the Finns have the same "nothing to lose" mentality that they had back then. Either way, Russia vs NATO is not very realistic, and it's even less realistic to actually advertise about it beforehand.

What is more likely, is that this message is "meant" for Russians to see - for Russians to get their egos bloated, by seeing a representative of theirs "bravely" talk tough against the whole west. Don't forget, George Bush (representing an ally, not an enemy!) threatened the entire alliance, with the "with us or against us" rethoric. That too was quite an outlandish statement, bluntly put, but ultimately meant as an angrandizing effect.

I agree that it is quite unsettling to see the leader of a superpower talk like that, and Ukraine is allready a bit too close to home, Poland is closer, and Finland is right around the corner, in the end Norway actually shares a border with Russia, and it's the only stretch of frontier we actually take seriously :I
Click to expand...
The Fins, as brave as they might be as nation, have realistically absolute zero chance though in a military conflict. Its simply not the same situation like in 1939. And even then, the Fins "technicaly" just avoided a complete occupation, but they lost a lot of territory.

But, the real defence the Fins have, is the fact that the Russians would shoot themself attacking them. I feel really sorry for the Ukraine, but lets be realistic here. The world doesnt care if Russia would even occupy the whole Ukraine. But Finnland? They would see a hell lot more of support.
 
If America gets its imperialist/military industrial way in Iraq/Afghanistan, then Russia is going to claim its chunk of assets in its sphere of influence in eastern Ukraine/Crimea. I doubt the security council will do more than sanctions as long as Russia doesn't demand more. As to Crnis topic of the muslims in the PRC, China has essentialy paid off the U.S. to look the other way while it handles the situation, no different than with Tibet. China has always been the middle man, playing the other security council members off of eachother to its own benefit. In the end, it is alarming however that many nations who had some degree of unity are now a politically fractured mess (Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc). The silly little conspiracist in me thinks this has been orchestrated by outside forces, but to what purpose?
 
Apparently, there is kind of an unofficial "manual" for Russian power and growth, that explain the course of actions that are important to take. I've only wikied this a bit, and obviously, this is in no way official, but the material in itself is believable as a more than possible enough government policy. I can't remember what it was called, but it cannot possibly be that difficult to muster up if you research a bit about Russian geopolitics. It is written by some ex-high-ranking army guy in 1997, so 1997 should give you more clues, sorry I'm not of more help than that :D
(I've swapped computers since then, so I don't even have it in my history, but I found it by clicking around topics of Russian geopolitics)

But - this book basically predicts the Ossetia-Abkhazia seizure, well, who didn't right? The wording is quite harsh, and deals only in best outcomes, Georgian independence is deemed "unacceptable", Azerbaijan is to "possibly" be "given to" Iran. There's lots of giving along with the taking. Russia was best to stay allied with Iran and Germany, while keeping France close, and Britain cut off from Europe. Crimea was discussed as essential to annex, and Ukraine itself was deemed "the greatest threat" to Russian dominance, and had to be eliminated. Baltic states were to be given "special status", and Finland and Poland were to be absorbed peacefully (In fact, Finland was to be delegated to Kola and Karelia, not even given separate status :D). Just like that, so clearly these are all "optimal, best-outcome" ambitions, but still believable to some extent. America was to be thoroughly destabilized (specifically using racial tensions, and such political friction), and the use of fascist/antifascist tensions was also specifically mentioned as a means of peaceful territorial absorbtion. China was mentioned as a possible challenge, but one whos expansion southwards were to be supported if need be. The Kyril islands were best kept as a bargaigning chip with Japan, in order to turn them against USA. Turkey was a challenge to be destabilized if possible. To my relief, Scandinavia wasn't mentioned, but this was only a quick summary of course

A point seemed to be to avoid open military confrontation, and use psychological warfare instead. Countries are to be 'absorbed', not conquered.

Again, I stress that this is one dude, writing opinions about how Russia can become a dominant global power, hell - it goes as far as to remind of a alt-history nerd playing war-games, dreaming of total world dominance, but the exact points were interesting to note.
 
Last edited:
Not talking about that document in particular, but a book about specific strategies to be employed for a realistic world-dominance ambition, but yeah, it isn't too shocking to imagine a Russian elite who would like to see neighbors re-included into their realm. This goes for many nations, especially the more powerful ones.

Such plans can be seen as both lunatic ramblings "first we take ossetia, then we take ukraine", but also as a relatively humble list of suggestions, none were too far fetched, none of them implied direct military confrontation, although some examples were discussed in a more aggressive tone than others, notably Georgia and Ukraine, which are both strategical locations. The whole "feel" of it was that of pure, one-sided pragmatism, focused solely and only on expanding Russian influence globally. Again, I only read a short summary, so the complete works may very well include alternative ideas and procedures. Since they are written by a prominent individual in the Russian military, they are strategies that politicians can feel relatively confident about.

Most nations also have various "war-game"-plans, where they envision worst-case scenarios and how to handle them. Powerful nations have the benefit of being able to also envision and plan for offensive actions, such as the recently-ish released Soviet invasion plan of Germany (I should be able to find this one, as I know where a link is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine)
 
Last edited:
I have a question you chaps may be able to answer. Why does Russia still control that patch of land on the Baltic coast east of Danzig? That makes no sense to me, unless they made old Konigsburg a war trophy or something. Which is still a pretty weak excuse.
 
not if youre a Russian. They love their trophies. And I am sure someone up there could explain you, why and how Russia is conected to that piece of land. For what ever reason.

Anyway claims on places or land because of "historical" roots is a rather strange concept in my opinion. If you go down that route, then half of the world would have to give someone something back because one of his ancestors had a dog there at some point in human history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top