[Archived] Is world war 3 about to kick off, starting in Ukraine

[Steve Moss]

Here's few sensible options which will cause Putin a few sleepless nights second guessing his Crimea and Georgian ventures:

http://www.strategypage.com/on_point/2014031822308.aspx

[jim mk2]

Here are some I recommend: (1) We can't flip-flop NATO Article 5, NATO's commitment to mutual defense. The U.S. must demonstrate it takes its NATO obligations seriously. So, deploy U.S. troops to Poland. The U.S. withdrew its last tanks from Germany in 2013. The Poland garrison needs a U.S. armor brigade. (2) Cancel all defense budget cuts. Faculty club snark aside, peace through strength means something. (3) Open federal lands to natural gas "fracking" and start shipping gas to Europe. Undermining Russian gas sales is a real economic sanction. (4) Arm the Baltic nations. They are also NATO allies. And (5) deploy the GBI's to Poland, and build a more robust missile defense system. As for permanently deploying U.S. Patriot PAC-3 short-range anti-missile missiles in Poland -- that's an idea whose time has come .

In other words surround Russia with armaments and gear up for world war 3. That article is a joke written by a neo-con US nutcase.

[Steve Moss]

Unless Russia thinks we've "geared up for WW3", we'll get more of the same.

[jim mk2]

The US has always over-estimated Russia's capabilities.

[Guest Norbert]

Apart from Reagan of all people!

As long as nukes were not used, an EU/US army would teach them a lesson. However, Russia still has many nukes, and there is always a risk they could be used by both sides. Then no-one wins. Unless you are a radiation suit salesman with a massive shareholding in drug companies that make anti-cancer drugs.

[somersetrover]

I think the Russians are only a majority there because the likes of Stalin killed and deported hundreds of thousands of Tartars, replacing them with Russian speaking people. So the reasons for the land grab are a bit shaky. We'll do nothing as usual though, because we're all scared about gas supplies.

Well they were deported for a very good reason and that was due to the fact that they collaborated with the Nazi's during The Great Patriotic War. Surely you don't think that should go unpunished, do you?

[Guest Norbert]

All 200,000 or however many it was that were killed and deported? Stalin did that sort of thing with whole populations before the war too. There had been moves for forcing the area to be Russianised (if that is a word) by the Soviets and the Tsars before them by force with thousands of Russians moving in. I suppose it would be OK for the Russians to have a pop at the Finns again too.

[Paul]

http://www.strategypage.com/on_point/2014031822308.aspx

Yeah! Let's go bomb Europe. We don't live there so who gives a f.....

[thenodrog]

Well they were deported for a very good reason and that was due to the fact that they collaborated with the Nazi's during The Great Patriotic War. Surely you don't think that should go unpunished, do you?

Should we have kicked the Irish out of Ireland then?

Now I don't know the answer to this but you might ask why (if they did) did they collaborate with Germany. Also why are you referring to WW2 as 'The Great Patriotic war' as if you were a Russian? Are you?

All 200,000 or however many it was that were killed and deported? Stalin did that sort of thing with whole populations before the war too. There had been moves for forcing the area to be Russianised (if that is a word) by the Soviets and the Tsars before them by force with thousands of Russians moving in. I suppose it would be OK for the Russians to have a pop at the Finns again too.

Ultimately Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler in the final total wasn't he?.... and they were his own people!

[Steve Moss]

Yeah! Let's go bomb Europe. We don't live there so who gives a f.....

Exactly where did the article advocate bombing Europe? Or are you of the camp who believes Putin would fight? And if you think he would fight, is it your contention that you should give him what he wants, whenever he wants, as an alternative to "bombing Europe"?

[Paul]

.

[Paul]

Exactly where did the article advocate bombing Europe? Or are you of the camp who believes Putin would fight? And if you think he would fight, is it your contention that you should give him what he wants, whenever he wants, as an alternative to "bombing Europe"?

The last paragraph if the article states:

"Obama's post-aggression sanctions regimen is not merely inadequate, it is a joke. Russian hard-power aggression, annexation and expansion require a hard-power response. Here are some I recommend: (1) We can't flip-flop NATO Article 5, NATO's commitment to mutual defense. The U.S. must demonstrate it takes its NATO obligations seriously. So, deploy U.S. troops to Poland. The U.S. withdrew its last tanks from Germany in 2013. The Poland garrison needs a U.S. armor brigade. (2) Cancel all defense budget cuts. Faculty club snark aside, peace through strength means something. (3) Open federal lands to natural gas "fracking" and start shipping gas to Europe. Undermining Russian gas sales is a real economic sanction. (4) Arm the Baltic nations. They are also NATO allies. And (5) deploy the GBI's to Poland, and build a more robust missile defense system. As for permanently deploying U.S. Patriot PAC-3 short-range anti-missile missiles in Poland -- that's an idea whose time has come ."

So the article and yourself promotes the use of American military force in and around the Ukraine. If this "threat" were carried out America would have to be prepared to follow through to the ultimate conclusion. If you were not prepared to do so why bother in the first place or is it just further proof of the bullying, blustering attitude present in your country.

I don't advocate allowing Putin to do whatever he wishes but I do advocate achieving a conclusion without resorting to the use of overwhelming military force in the way you do. Yes, I do believe he would fight if pushed hard enough.

As I've pointed out before the consequences for Europe militarily and economically are very significant. For America it's just another war thousands of miles away with no direct impact on the country.

In the 21st century aggression is not the only way to resolve conflict though it's clear America and Americans have yet to learn the lesson.

Either that or is it just more willy-waving on America's behalf? Let's just imagine combat actually occurs, you would advocate engaging to what level? When do we avoid nuclear attack? Hmmmmm?

If America sends this military power to Europe why bother if ultimately you don't have the balls to use it? Because that is what this boils down to. Put your 500,000 troops on the ground and you have to be prepared for them to die. Fail to do that and Putin knows he can do whatever he wishes.

Sadly it's a once only option.

[otto man]

Well they were deported for a very good reason and that was due to the fact that they collaborated with the Nazi's during The Great Patriotic War. Surely you don't think that should go unpunished, do you?

Aren't you living in the wrong country comrade?

[otto man]

So the article and yourself promotes the use of American military force in and around the Ukraine. If this "threat" were carried out America would have to be prepared to follow through to the ultimate conclusion. If you were not prepared to do so why bother in the first place or is it just further proof of the bullying, blustering attitude present in your country.

I don't advocate allowing Putin to do whatever he wishes but I do advocate achieving a conclusion without resorting to the use of overwhelming military force in the way you do. Yes, I do believe he would fight if pushed hard enough.

As I've pointed out before the consequences for Europe militarily and economically are very significant. For America it's just another war thousands of miles away with no direct impact on the country.

In the 21st century aggression is not the only way to resolve conflict though it's clear America and Americans have yet to learn the lesson.

Paul. Please tell us how you would force Putins hand and resolve this conflict then.

[Paul]

Paul. Please tell us how you would force Putins hand and resolve this conflict then.

Sanctions and negotiation. This situation is only a few weeks old, much of Europe has yet to agree on the type and depth of such action. We have to take our time to find the non-military solution. The economies of Europe and Russia are now so closely interwoven a solution has to and will be found.

The military option relies on Putin backing down under military threat. If he does not what next? The militarists would throw force at the problem and ultimately either have to go to war or back down.

I'd like someone who supports military force to outline the benefits of war in Europe? Before this even becomes a thinkable option everything else has to be considered

Steve Moss put forward a number of suggestions two of which are to ban Russia from the World Cup and put 1m European and 0.5m US troops into the area. Just like the playground bully first we take the ball away and second we beat you up. A pathetic and weak approach. Do what we say or we will stamp on you.

Just how long does the stand off last? Amass 1.5m troops against Russia and what will be the response? More Russian troops. Then the "Allies" push a bit more and Russia responds again. Ultimately someone has to back down or fight.

If the military option goes in knowing it will ultimately back down there is no point to the action. If we are prepared to fight the consequences for, at least, Europe would be catastrophic.

So my suggestion, because I'm not stupid enough to pretend I know the answer, unlike some, is to look for negotiation every step of the way and avoid sabre rattling at all costs.

[otto man]

Sanctions and negotiation. This situation is only a few weeks old, much of Europe has yet to agree on the type and depth of such action. We have to take our time to find the non-military solution. The economies of Europe and Russia are now so closely interwoven a solution has to and will be found.

The military option relies on Putin backing down under military threat. If he does not what next? The militarists would throw force at the problem and ultimately either have to go to war or back down.

I'd like someone who supports military force to outline the benefits of war in Europe? Before this even becomes a thinkable option everything else has to be considered

Steve Moss put forward a number of suggestions two of which are to ban Russia from the World Cup and put 1m European and 0.5m US troops into the area. Just like the playground bully first we take the ball away and second we beat you up. A pathetic and weak approach. Do what we say or we will stamp on you.

Just how long does the stand off last? Amass 1.5m troops against Russia and what will be the response? More Russian troops. Then the "Allies" push a bit more and Russia responds again. Ultimately someone has to back down or fight.

If the military option goes in knowing it will ultimately back down there is no point to the action. If we are prepared to fight the consequences for, at least, Europe would be catastrophic.

So my suggestion, because I'm not stupid enough to pretend I know the answer, unlike some, is to look for negotiation every step of the way and avoid sabre rattling at all costs.

So you don't have the answer but you do know what won't work?( Rather a contradiction there don't you think?) Putin won't negotiate this with the west as he believes we are part of the problem in the first place. (Enticing the Ukraine's, Nato etc etc) So that's that option out. Sanctions? Putin retaliates,.( How are you going to cope without gas?) You continually talk of U S bullying and aggression whilst seemingly condoning Russia's aggressive expansionism by advocating appeasement. Check your history books. See how much good that did Chamberlain. In short. Do you really want to see a return to the days of the cold war? Because if Russia is left unchecked that's where we are heading.

[jim mk2]

Sanctions are the way forward. Russia's economy is closely interwoven with the west and sanctions will hurt. Already Russian companies are repatriating people and assets in anticipation of a clampdown. Russia's new middle class with its newfound prosperity and increasingly important voice will not suffer a downturn in prosperity for long and prolonged sanctions will force Putin to the negotiating table.

[otto man]

Sanctions are the way forward. Russia's economy is closely interwoven with the west and sanctions will hurt. Already Russian companies are repatriating people and assets in anticipation of a clampdown. Russia's new middle class with its newfound prosperity and increasingly important voice will not suffer a downturn in prosperity for long and prolonged sanctions will force Putin to the negotiating table.

Really? Please do tell which sanctions you would put in place that will hurt. Now tell us how you would cope with any retaliatory sanctions the Russians would put in place.

.

[jim mk2]

Well, I would start by reducing my vodka intake but I'll leave international sanctions to the G8 thanks.

http://news.yahoo.com/merkel-russia-faces-more-sanctions-g8-suspended-085807123.html

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Sanctions on Gazprom and Rosneft would cut Russia. It would cause a few difficulties in Europe too, but you have to weigh those costs.

NATO is already flexing its military muscle. F-15 and F-16 jets in Poland and the Baltic states, a joint military exercise with Ukrainian forces to be carried out in Lviv soon, and warships in the Black Sea. How much has that scared Russia so far?

[otto man]

Well, I would start by reducing my vodka intake but I'll leave international sanctions to the G8 thanks.

http://news.yahoo.com/merkel-russia-faces-more-sanctions-g8-suspended-085807123.html

So you can't actually answer the question then?

[thenodrog]

Paul. Please tell us how you would force Putins hand and resolve this conflict then.

By binning off those ageing hippies, associated work shy agitators and ne'er do wells and invest heavily in fracking here and across Western Europe!

tbf I think Turkey is the key currently. They control the Bospherous and have threatened to close it to Russian shipping. If they do that then having control of the Crimea becomes fairly useless to Putin. Course it will mean massive bribes to the Turks... entry into the EU and lots of trade deals with Europe and the US I'd imagine.

So you don't have the answer but you do know what won't work?( Rather a contradiction there don't you think?)

Lots of folk like that one here on all sorts of topics. Plenty of criticism but little of the constructive kind.

[jim mk2]

So you can't actually answer the question then?

I thought I had.

In the end it's all political posturing. While Republicans get themselves into a frenzy over Crimea the US is not going to declare war on Russia and sanctions, while hurting Russia in the short term, will be lifted. In 6 - 12 months the whole episode will be forgotten.

[Paul]

So you don't have the answer but you do know what won't work?( Rather a contradiction there don't you think?) Putin won't negotiate this with the west as he believes we are part of the problem in the first place. (Enticing the Ukraine's, Nato etc etc) So that's that option out. Sanctions? Putin retaliates,.( How are you going to cope without gas?) You continually talk of U S bullying and aggression whilst seemingly condoning Russia's aggressive expansionism by advocating appeasement. Check your history books. See how much good that did Chamberlain. In short. Do you really want to see a return to the days of the cold war? Because if Russia is left unchecked that's where we are heading.

I don't see anything unusual or contradictory in believing one course of action won't work while being unsure of the right solution. it's a process I would expect most people to be familiar with. As I've said I think sanctions and negotiations are the preferable route. The military route has only one conclusion and that is war.

So my question to you and others who advocate the military approach is straightforward; are you prepared to fight a European war with Russia? To what point would you escalate? Given the weapons available to both sides how will you prevent a nuclear attack?

How are we going to cope without gas? I'll turn that one round then. The EU is Russia's biggest trading partner accounting for 41% of trade, which includes 84% of Russia's oil exports and 76% of her gas exports. It swings both ways. Our trade ties are so close, so large the pain is felt on both sides.

As for condoning Russia's "aggressive expansionism" I think you missed this part of my post;

"I don't advocate allowing Putin to do whatever he wishes but I do advocate achieving a conclusion without resorting to the use of overwhelming military force in the way you do. Yes, I do believe he would fight if pushed hard enough. "

My issue is not with America itself, Obama seems to be taking a measured approach, but with those Americans who advocate military force to resolve this issue. It is typical of a large part of American society and politics which sees force as the solution to most problems. Very fortunately for these people, unlesss it reaches WW3 levels, they will not have to suffer the consequence in their own backyard - in itself interesting.

So for the militarists questions:

How do you know Putin will back down?

If he doesn't how far will the military threat go?

At what point do you open fire?

Ultimately you have to be prepared to go to war with Russia. It may not be what you want but it's what your approach demands. Personally I'm not prepared to run that risk.

[otto man]

I don't see anything unusual or contradictory in believing one course of action won't work while being unsure of the right solution. it's a process I would expect most people to be familiar with. As I've said I think sanctions and negotiations are the preferable route. The military route has only one conclusion and that is war.

For the record; I agree that negotiation is the preferable route, but I'll ask you again how do you negotiate with someone who refuses to come to the table?

So my question to you and others who advocate the military approach is straightforward; are you prepared to fight a European war with Russia? To what point would you escalate? Given the weapons available to both sides how will you prevent a nuclear attack?

I'll turn that round and ask; What if sanctions fail? How far are you prepared to allow an expansionist Russia to go? Do you really want to see a return to a "Soviet empire" albeit under another name?

Are you prepared for a return to the cold war days and the very real threat of full scale nuclear strikes that involved?

How are we going to cope without gas? I'll turn that one round then. The EU is Russia's biggest trading partner accounting for 41% of trade, which includes 84% of Russia's oil exports and 76% of her gas exports. It swings both ways. Our trade ties are so close, so large the pain is felt on both sides.

Do you really believe Russia can't find alternative markets for her commodities?

As for condoning Russia's "aggressive expansionism" I think you missed this part of my post;

"I don't advocate allowing Putin to do whatever he wishes but I do advocate achieving a conclusion without resorting to the use of overwhelming military force in the way you do. Yes, I do believe he would fight if pushed hard enough. "

Once again; appeasement is in itself condoning expansionist aggression.

My issue is not with America itself, Obama seems to be taking a measured approach, but with those Americans who advocate military force to resolve this issue. It is typical of a large part of American society and politics which sees force as the solution to most problems. Very fortunately for these people, unlesss it reaches WW3 levels, they will not have to suffer the consequence in their own backyard - in itself interesting.

Not in their own back yard eh? 9/11 mean anything to you?

So for the militarists questions:

How do you know Putin will back down?

How do you know he won't?

If he doesn't how far will the military threat go?

How many countries are you prepared to allow him to annexe before you'll act?

At what point do you open fire?

When do you stop turning a blind eye?

Ultimately you have to be prepared to go to war with Russia. It may not be what you want but it's what your approach demands. Personally I'm not prepared to run that risk.

War is never something you should want. However at some point we all have to make a stand against bullies.

He who stands for nothing, falls for anything..