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

[Steve Moss]

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.

I don't know that Putin will back down. I'm not a mind reader. But I believe he will, if kicked hard enough. He's counting on Obama and the West being either reasonable or fearful or both.

If he doesn't back down, the economic and military threats should go all the way. And by that I mean: 1) missile defense shields; 2) cutting off access to the Mediterranean; 3) American armor brigades in Poland and the Ukraine; 4) an American fleets in the Black and Baltic Seas; 5) Re-arming Japan (which may be necessary anyway); 6) Fracking and LNG to reduce the value of Russian gas (if you have more energy options, then the value of Russian gas/oil plummets, turning Russia into a third world country); 7) ejecting Russia from the G8, World Cup, Olympics, Champions League, etc..

We'd open fire only if: 1) He invades more of the Ukraine; 2) He engages in actions which give rise to a credible threat of action against a NATO member; or, 3) Any of the above provoke him to start shooting. And then we destroy him.

I don't want war. But push comes to shove, war is preferable to allowing Putin to gobble up Eastern Europe.

[yoda]

I don't know that Putin will back down. I'm not a mind reader. But I believe he will, if kicked hard enough. He's counting on Obama and the West being either reasonable or fearful or both.

If he doesn't back down, the economic and military threats should go all the way. And by that I mean: 1) missile defense shields; 2) cutting off access to the Mediterranean; 3) American armor brigades in Poland and the Ukraine; 4) an American fleets in the Black and Baltic Seas; 5) Re-arming Japan (which may be necessary anyway); 6) Fracking and LNG to reduce the value of Russian gas (if you have more energy options, then the value of Russian gas/oil plummets, turning Russia into a third world country); 7) ejecting Russia from the G8, World Cup, Olympics, Champions League, etc..

We'd open fire only if: 1) He invades more of the Ukraine; 2) He engages in actions which give rise to a credible threat of action against a NATO member; or, 3) Any of the above provoke him to start shooting. And then we destroy him.

I don't want war. But push comes to shove, war is preferable to allowing Putin to gobble up Eastern Europe.

Are you Kenny Everet in disgiuse

[jim mk2]

Putin is not Stalin and this is not 1945. Russia isn't going to expand its "empire" and neither is the USSR going to be reformed. The US libertarians frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a conflict needs to calm down.

[otto man]

Putin is not Stalin and this is not 1945. Russia isn't going to expand its "empire" and neither is the USSR going to be reformed. The US libertarians frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a conflict needs to calm down

Then perhaps you'd care to explain why the first thing the Russians secured was the Sevastopol naval base? Naive? Naive aint in it! Blind refusal to face facts more like.

[yoda]

Then perhaps you'd care to explain why the first thing the Russians secured was the Sevastopol naval base? Naive? Naive aint in it! Blind refusal to face facts more like.

What good will it do them

[Steve Moss]

Are you Kenny Everet in disgiuse

No. I'm Maurice James Christopher Cole.

Under either name he was seriously funny. And more a thinking Tory (i.e. conservative light, in American lingo).

Putin is not Stalin and this is not 1945. Russia isn't going to expand its "empire" and neither is the USSR going to be reformed. The US libertarians frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a conflict needs to calm down.

Really? And exactly what prompts this conclusion?

Here's some evidence for the prosecution:

1. Georgia.

2. Crimea.

3. GRU agents infiltrating eastern Ukraine.

4. Troops massed on the Ukrainian border.

5. Russian war games against supposed "Baltic terrorists" as the enemy.

6. Putin's stated policy that Russia will resort to armed invasion whenever the interests of non-citizen Russian speakers in other nations so require- in the sole judgement of Vladimir Putin.

All in all, I think the similarities are very telling.

So the question is, do we stand up to him now, when it would be relatively easy to cage the Russian Bear, when he's still testing boundaries, or do we want until he grows utterly contemptuous of Western warnings and it will require blood to restore the status quo?

[Paul]

I don't know that Putin will back down. I'm not a mind reader. But I believe he will, if kicked hard enough. He's counting on Obama and the West being either reasonable or fearful or both.

If he doesn't back down, the economic and military threats should go all the way. And by that I mean: 1) missile defense shields; 2) cutting off access to the Mediterranean; 3) American armor brigades in Poland and the Ukraine; 4) an American fleets in the Black and Baltic Seas; 5) Re-arming Japan (which may be necessary anyway); 6) Fracking and LNG to reduce the value of Russian gas (if you have more energy options, then the value of Russian gas/oil plummets, turning Russia into a third world country); 7) ejecting Russia from the G8, World Cup, Olympics, Champions League, etc..

We'd open fire only if: 1) He invades more of the Ukraine; 2) He engages in actions which give rise to a credible threat of action against a NATO member; or, 3) Any of the above provoke him to start shooting. And then we destroy him.

I don't want war. But push comes to shove, war is preferable to allowing Putin to gobble up Eastern Europe.

You need to think this through.

You're not sure Putin will back down - end result war

1,3,4, 5 - threaten far enough, see above

2 - don't know the effects of that

6 - fracking certainly can't be brought on line fast enough and raises a whole set of other issues in the UK. It's a very different thing from fracking in the US. LNG I don't know

7 - frankly so what

[Steve Moss]

You need to think this through.

You're not sure Putin will back down - end result war

1,3,4, 5 - threaten far enough, see above

2 - don't know the effects of that

6 - fracking certainly can't be brought on line fast enough and raises a whole set of other issues in the UK. It's a very different thing from fracking in the US. LNG I don't know

7 - frankly so what

Before I respond in turn, as a general proposition if the other side believes that your primary focus is always to avoid war, no matter the provocation, you will get nothing but more provocation.

Said another way, if Putin thinks the West won't fight, and the only consequence is a series of gradually escalating sanctions, then we cede the initiative to him. He can decide what he wants to take and what cost he's willing to bear, and can do so over a period of time where his people gradually become adjusted to the economic or cultural sanctions we impose.

In other words, Putin's only check is Putin. That appears to be the way most appear to want to go. And I believe that path is the path, ultimately, to war. Show strength early and up front, you may deter him. If you don't, you won't until its too late to avoid blood.

1, 3, 4, and 5, might lead to war. Or it might be enough show of resolve to avoid future war. It's not only a matter of capability, it's also a matter of will. We have the capability. We apparently lack the will. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are designed to show that the will, exists. It's up to Putin to decide if he wants his posterior kicked all the way back to Siberia.

As to 2, it's easy, if the Turks cooperate, and impossible for the Russian's to break militarily. And the Turks will cooperate, as they are NATO allies, hate Russia, and there are significant Tatars in Crimea who will doubtless be abused by Russian security forces. And it completely negates any benefit Putin/Russia might obtain from the taking of Crimea.

As to 6, it will take 1-10 years (depending on the energy source) to completely bring everything online. And that's perfect. It give's Putin, and Russia, the chance to see their wealth gradually trickle away as a result of their actions. The preparations for fracking alone (such as removing the legal hurdles to business setting up the infrastructure) will be enough of a warning shot to bring the Russian's scrambling to the negotiation table. 70% of Russia's export is gas/oil. Strip them of that and they are nothing, but an impoverished dictatorship with delusions of grandeur and a WWII level military that wouldn't be able to fight any Scandinavian country of your choice, let alone NATO.

7 is purely symbolic and has no real economic effect. But it's something that gets the direct attention of the common Russian. It can't be spun or avoided. Everyone in Russia will be well aware of Russia's isolation, with the vodka swillers reminiscing about Russian's international sports exploits before Putin invaded Crimea. Again, it's one of many signals, with no real cost to us, which demonstrates our willingness to stick a finger in Russia's eye.

I think gradual, escalated sanctions are a mistake. It gives the initiative to Putin. But if the West did, or prepared to do, all of the above simultaneously, I think Putin would back down or, more likely, come to the table to negotiate a face saving "compromise" which avoids the culture, economic and military crippling of Russia.

[jim mk2]

No. I'm Maurice James Christopher Cole.

Under either name he was seriously funny. And more a thinking Tory (i.e. conservative light, in American lingo).

Really? And exactly what prompts this conclusion?

Here's some evidence for the prosecution:

1. Georgia.

2. Crimea.

3. GRU agents infiltrating eastern Ukraine.

4. Troops massed on the Ukrainian border.

5. Russian war games against supposed "Baltic terrorists" as the enemy.

6. Putin's stated policy that Russia will resort to armed invasion whenever the interests of non-citizen Russian speakers in other nations so require- in the sole judgement of Vladimir Putin.

All in all, I think the similarities are very telling.

So the question is, do we stand up to him now, when it would be relatively easy to cage the Russian Bear, when he's still testing boundaries, or do we want until he grows utterly contemptuous of Western warnings and it will require blood to restore the status quo?

This is 2014 not 1950s McCarthyism and Reds under the beds. Calm down.

[Steve Moss]

This is 2014 not 1950s McCarthyism and Reds under the beds. Calm down.

And I listed 2014 problems; including dealing with a Russia which has engaged in two armed invasions in less than a decade.

What does your statement mean, other than a pithy sound-bite that signifies nothing?

[jim mk2]

It means you're living in the past and provoking fears over a Russia that no longer exists. My "pithy sound-bite" (que?) sums up your antiquated view of the world. Perhaps you've also forgotten the US has engaged in a few armed invasions of its own in the past decade or so. Forget about Russia - your greatest concern should be China and its economy overtaking yours within 20 or so years.

[thenodrog]

It means you're living in the past and provoking fears over a Russia that no longer exists. My "pithy sound-bite" (que?) sums up your antiquated view of the world. Perhaps you've also forgotten the US has engaged in a few armed invasions of its own in the past decade or so. Forget about Russia - your greatest concern should be China and its economy overtaking yours within 20 or so years.

Are you sure? Personally I adhere to the leopards and spots school of thought.

[Guest Norbert]

Putin likes being some sort of 'strongman Nationalist', so he acts like a mini Stalin at home and in foreign affairs. It is all about national prestige and power. I agree with Steve Moss essentially, and that a strong action is needed, though war is not a good idea, since Russia is a massive country that has nukes.

[ultrablue]

The focus now needs to be on Ukraine. Losing his lap dog in Kiev has Putin tearing his hair out.

The EU and US need to build on the groundwork of the February uprising to ensure that the elections in May give the new Ukraine government a clear mandate for closer ties with Europe. Heavy financial aid to Ukraine, that is how the West comes out on top of this.


Edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26680250

EU signs association deal.

A step further in the right direction.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

''We'd open fire only if: 1) He invades more of the Ukraine; 2) He engages in actions which give rise to a credible threat of action against a NATO member; or, 3) Any of the above provoke him to start shooting. And then we destroy him.

I don't want war. But push comes to shove, war is preferable to allowing Putin to gobble up Eastern Europe.''

You would risk a horrific military confrontation with Russia without doubt leading to M.A.D.?....utter M.A.D.ness indeed.

America now looking to turn the heat up with a major military exercise in Poland,just great you doodle dandies,just bloody great....go poke that Bear!

[jim mk2]

US loves a good war as long as it's not in the US so for a change ( and to give the rest of the world a rest) why don't they fight Russia somewhere closer to home.... like California or the midwest?. Russia could ship over say, 500,000 troops to slug it out with US army until the last last man is standing. US citizens could watch the action live on the internet and everyone would be very pleased.

[yoda]

US loves a good war as long as it's not in the US so for a change ( and to give the rest of the world a rest) why don't they fight Russia somewhere closer to home.... like California or the midwest?. Russia could ship over say, 500,000 troops to slug it out with US army until the last last man is standing. US citizens could watch the action live on the internet and everyone would be very pleased.

Alaska is the place to do it, after all it used to be Russia

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

The focus now needs to be on Ukraine. Losing his lap dog in Kiev has Putin tearing his hair out.

The EU and US need to build on the groundwork of the February uprising to ensure that the elections in May give the new Ukraine government a clear mandate for closer ties with Europe. Heavy financial aid to Ukraine, that is how the West comes out on top of this.

Edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26680250

EU signs association deal.

A step further in the right direction.

I don't want them getting a penny of my taxes in aid. It'll just vanish into some Swiss bank.

[Paul]

US loves a good war as long as it's not in the US so for a change ( and to give the rest of the world a rest) why don't they fight Russia somewhere closer to home.... like California or the midwest?. Russia could ship over say, 500,000 troops to slug it out with US army until the last last man is standing. US citizens could watch the action live on the internet and everyone would be very pleased.

Strange I almost posted the exact same thing this morning.

There was an interesting item on the BBC this morning discussing how water sources in parts of Northern France are still polluted by chemicals used in WW1 munitions.

That was crude technology. God knows how long another war would pollute the world for. No doubt it would be worth it though.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

US loves a good war as long as it's not in the US so for a change ( and to give the rest of the world a rest) why don't they fight Russia somewhere closer to home.... like California or the midwest?. Russia could ship over say, 500,000 troops to slug it out with US army until the last last man is standing. US citizens could watch the action live on the internet and everyone would be very pleased.

You seem to be obsessed with America. Russia are the ones who've invaded another country here, stated their desire to reform their empire and are in the process of killing Ukrainians daily.

The entire world that isn't a strong political ally motivated only by ugly, selfish reasons, is in complete agreement that Russia are being a bunch of militaristic, demented prats. And yet to you this all somehow translates to being America at fault and lets have another boring, predictable go at them.

I've no idea what motivates the obssessive anti-Americanism in this country. Possibly the weak-minded who've been easily swayed by the influence from the growing Muslim population who are staunchly anti-American, possibly something to do with American sitting on the right of the political spectrum. Whatever it is, its utterly ridiculous.

Putin is a complete and utter ****wit, hellbent on putting international stability at risk, but lets not bother to criticise him as long as America exists.

[yoda]

You seem to be obsessed with America. Russia are the ones who've invaded another country here, stated their desire to reform their empire and are in the process of killing Ukrainians daily.

The entire world that isn't a strong political ally motivated only by ugly, selfish reasons, is in complete agreement that Russia are being a bunch of militaristic, demented prats. And yet to you this all somehow translates to being America at fault and lets have another boring, predictable go at them.

I've no idea what motivates the obssessive anti-Americanism in this country. Possibly the weak-minded who've been easily swayed by the influence from the growing Muslim population who are staunchly anti-American, possibly something to do with American sitting on the right of the political spectrum. Whatever it is, its utterly ridiculous.

Putin is a complete and utter ****wit, hellbent on putting international stability at risk, but lets not bother to criticise him as long as America exists.

He will never destroy the stability at Ewood

[Steve Moss]

US loves a good war as long as it's not in the US so for a change ( and to give the rest of the world a rest) why don't they fight Russia somewhere closer to home.... like California or the midwest?. Russia could ship over say, 500,000 troops to slug it out with US army until the last last man is standing. US citizens could watch the action live on the internet and everyone would be very pleased.

Boring. It would last about 15 minutes and then there's be a half million dead Russians.

[jim mk2]

I agree...in the Hollywood version.

In reality, the US military would do its usual trick of turning up when it's nearly all over, its generals then make their customary cock-ups and then oversee 15 years of napalming the local populace before giving up and declaring a draw.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

You seem to be obsessed with America. Russia are the ones who've invaded another country here, stated their desire to reform their empire and are in the process of killing Ukrainians daily.

The entire world that isn't a strong political ally motivated only by ugly, selfish reasons, is in complete agreement that Russia are being a bunch of militaristic, demented prats. And yet to you this all somehow translates to being America at fault and lets have another boring, predictable go at them.

I've no idea what motivates the obssessive anti-Americanism in this country. Possibly the weak-minded who've been easily swayed by the influence from the growing Muslim population who are staunchly anti-American, possibly something to do with American sitting on the right of the political spectrum. Whatever it is, its utterly ridiculous.

Putin is a complete and utter ****wit, hellbent on putting international stability at risk, but lets not bother to criticise him as long as America exists.

My criticism of America ( and anywhere else for that matter ) is based on my fifty years of study of the history of the last hundred years. If you read enough you'll get to the truth eventually.

The U.S. has plenty to be embarrassed about in that time span.

[Steve Moss]

I agree...in the Hollywood version.

In reality, the US military would do its usual trick of turning up when it's nearly all over, its generals then make their customary cock-ups and then oversee 15 years of napalming the local populace before giving up and declaring a draw.

The supposed scenario was 500,000 Russians dropped into the USA. Leaving aside Hollywood, look at the math America has:

1. 1.43 million active duty military.

2. 850,000 active reserve personnel.

3. 118,000 in the individual ready reserve (inactive but subject to call up).

4. 120,000 armed federal law enforcement.

5. 765,000 armed full-time local and state law enforcement.

6. 44,000 armed part-time local law enforcement.

7. A population of roughly 316 million (including 21.2 million military veterans) with over 310 million firearms in private ownership spread across 40% of households.

All in all, the USA has a layered defense in spades, when looking at the quantity and source of armed resistance. Adding equipment quality and quantity (firepower multipliers of which we have far more than the Russians, or anyone else), it isn't close.

So two things would happen to the theoretical 500,000 Russians:

1. They would be wiped out in short order; or,

2. More likely they would promptly surrender and apply for permanent residency- which, if they had any sort of work ethic, I wouldn't mind at all.