What Happened in the Ukraine?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
*Expanded on my post. apologies. In any event, the question of Iran and the bomb is too off base for this thread. Start a Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence thread.[/quote]

‘The question of Iran and the bomb’ requires complete revision of every argument you’ve made vis-a-vis(with an umlaut) Russia and the US.[/quote]

It doesn’t necessarily. You’re making the same mistake that strategists did when they equated the Communist USSR with Communist China, although on a grander scale. You mean an accent grave.

362

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
*Expanded on my post. apologies. In any event, the question of Iran and the bomb is too off base for this thread. Start a Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence thread.[/quote]

‘The question of Iran and the bomb’ requires complete revision of every argument you’ve made vis-a-vis(with an umlaut) Russia and the US.[/quote]

It doesn’t necessarily. You’re making the same mistake that strategists did when they equated the Communist USSR with Communist China, although on a grander scale. You mean an accent grave.[/quote]

You mean the red Chinese mistook an accent grave for an umlaut too? Perhaps you could elucidate on the mistake I’m making and we’ll all know what you’re talking about.

363

My French May be a little rusty but there’s nothing wrong with my logical reasoning. There is no comparison to be made with the Cold War and Iran. Previously we were dealing with rational actors. Now we’re dealing with an apocalyptic Islamic fundamentalist regime that will soon possess nuclear weapons.

364

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Kaaleppi, what are your thoughts on the news reports that Finland is in the crosshairs of the the Russian bear along with the Baltic states?

What’s going on discussion-wise within your borders in this regard? Is the threat considered credible?[/quote]

Russia is what it is, you can’t change it. It is an autocratic state, as it has always been, therefore changes in politics can be abrupt. There has always been voices in Russia that want to reclaim Finland, but I don’t see any bigger threat at the moment or in the near future. For Finland the biggest threat is diminishing trade and the diminishing stream of shopping russian tourists. Finland is too expensive for the weakening ruble.

The baltic states are in a more precarious situation, but they are members of Nato, so I don’t see direct military action as a threat to them at the moment. Eastern Ukraine and Transnistria are the open questions, if you ask me. But I doubt Russias willingness to take eastern Ukraine if it can avoid it, it’s too expensive, so they’ll try to quarantee their strategic interests with diplomacy/bullying. Crimea alone is going to be painfully expensive.

But you never know with autocratic states. The demonstrations on Maidan were certainly seen as a threat also to the russian corporation, and that probably explains the propaganda and the attack on russian liberal media. And Russia do regard all surrounding countries to be part of it’s sphere.

The main point of discussion in Finland - on this subject - is security. Nato, should we apply membership or not. I think we should, but it should have happened already 10 years ago. Now is not a good time to be active on that front, but it’s good that there is discussion about it. It’s as kind of political message in itself. This time there has not been any warnings of consequences from Russias side, though. Normally when finns discuss Nato - a recurring theme - there has always been words of warning from some random russian general.

365

Bis, news to me Cuba’s not a communist country. May not be joined physically to the United States, but is in very close proximity, you can’t deny this. Ukraine’s not a Nato member, but they do have a security agreement with them.

You say there’s a division occupying the Crimean. Is that all the armed forces Russia has to defend their vast expanse? So, you’re telling me if Nato did launch an attack to drive the Russians out of the Crimean, they’d either have no more troops to send in, or if in fact they do, not send them to help? The Russians have 15,000 tanks and 3,000 portable rocket launching systems at their disposal.

MAD… I understand the concept, and I think the nuclear deterent is the reason Nato doesn’t want to risk tangling with Russia over the Crimean. Do you think Nato wants to risk nuclear annihilation over the Crimean?

That’s why Russia can do whatever they want. They may not be a “superpower” so to speak, but could win a land war in their continent or inflict heavy damage to their enemy. The idea of war with Russia intimidates their enemies before hostilities even start. A war with Russia would not be a walk in the park and I don’t care who you are.

366

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Kaaleppi, what are your thoughts on the news reports that Finland is in the crosshairs of the the Russian bear along with the Baltic states?

What’s going on discussion-wise within your borders in this regard? Is the threat considered credible?[/quote]

Russia is what it is, you can’t change it. It is an autocratic state, as it has always been, therefore changes in politics can be abrupt. There has always been voices in Russia that want to reclaim Finland, but I don’t see any bigger threat at the moment or in the near future. For Finland the biggest threat is diminishing trade and the diminishing stream of shopping russian tourists. Finland is too expensive for the weakening ruble.

The baltic states are in a more precarious situation, but they are members of Nato, so I don’t see direct military action as a threat to them at the moment. Eastern Ukraine and Transnistria are the open questions, if you ask me. But I doubt Russias willingness to take eastern Ukraine if it can avoid it, it’s too expensive, so they’ll try to quarantee their strategic interests with diplomacy/bullying. Crimea alone is going to be painfully expensive.

But you never know with autocratic states. The demonstrations on Maidan were certainly seen as a threat also to the russian corporation, and that probably explains the propaganda and the attack on russian liberal media. And Russia do regard all surrounding countries to be part of it’s sphere.

The main point of discussion in Finland - on this subject - is security. Nato, should we apply membership or not. I think we should, but it should have happened already 10 years ago. Now is not a good time to be active on that front, but it’s good that there is discussion about it. It’s as kind of political message in itself. This time there has not been any warnings of consequences from Russias side, though. Normally when finns discuss Nato - a recurring theme - there has always been words of warning from some random russian general.[/quote]

During the 1997 negotiations over an international land mine treaty, in Oslo, it was the Finnish prime minister who was the lone holdout. When criticized by the other Scandinavians, he responded that it was “very convenient” for them to eschew land mines; after all, it is Finland which serves as their land mine.

367

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

During the 1997 negotiations over an international land mine treaty, in Oslo, it was the Finnish prime minister who was the lone holdout. When criticized by the other Scandinavians, he responded that it was “very convenient” for them to eschew land mines; after all, it is Finland which serves as their land mine.[/quote]

Land mines is a subject that has been talked about in the press lately. The army representatives say they have still a good supply of tank-mines, apparently the treaty doesn’t ban them. They also say there is a readiness to to start manufacturing mines, if it is needed.

368

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

During the 1997 negotiations over an international land mine treaty, in Oslo, it was the Finnish prime minister who was the lone holdout. When criticized by the other Scandinavians, he responded that it was “very convenient” for them to eschew land mines; after all, it is Finland which serves as their land mine.[/quote]

Land mines is a subject that has been talked about in the press lately. The army representatives say they have still a good supply of tank-mines, apparently the treaty doesn’t ban them. They also say there is a readiness to to start manufacturing mines, if it is needed.[/quote]

I applaud hard, cold, Finnish realism. But wait:

"But the meeting, which was the eleventh of its kind since the treaty (“The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction”) was first signed in 1997, also brought some good news.

"Finland has decided to join the treaty, taking the total number of state parties to 159.

"A Finnish delegate told DCA that opposed to what was commonly believed, Finland does not have any landmines along its border with Russia, but it has some landmines in stock. These will now be destroyed.

However, referring to security concerns, Finland is not yet ready to join the Convention on Cluster Munition, agreed in Dublin in 2008."

http://www.danchurchaid.org/news/news/three-countries-use-landmines-in-2011-fight-for-landmine-free-world-not-over

Ready to become again the Grand Duchy? No? Well, maybe a little well-placed doubt also serves to protect the border.

369

978×550 71.6 KB

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…A Finnish delegate told DCA that opposed to what was commonly believed, Finland does not have any landmines along its border with Russia, but it has some landmines in stock. …
[/quote]

370

Here is a different take on the situation that has unraveled today. Well, if Nato enters Western Ukraine Putin will say he is forced to protect russians in eastern Ukraina. Seems Ukraina will be split, no matter what. Putin took to Aleksandr Dugin’s ideology to keep his power and he may find that he can’t get rid of it anymore. Maybe he has started to believe in it, who knows.

371

Oh puhlease, not one European politician is willing to send troops to Ukraine.
Russia may not be a super power anymore, but they’re playing in their back yard.
I think this is the worst crisis since the Cuba crisis: a nuclear stated believes it is threatened at its border.
This whole affair has been mishandled by Europe from the start. Remember when they were surprised when Ukraine didn’t sign a treaty with them but with Russia instead? How can you be so out of the loop?

372

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Oh puhlease, not one European politician is willing to send troops to Ukraine.
Russia may not be a super power anymore, but they’re playing in their back yard.
I think this is the worst crisis since the Cuba crisis: a nuclear stated believes it is threatened at its border.
This whole affair has been mishandled by Europe from the start. Remember when they were surprised when Ukraine didn’t sign a treaty with them but with Russia instead? How can you be so out of the loop?
[/quote]

The Baltic states (E: and Poland) are wanting Nato on their turf. Nobody wants EU, only it’s promise of money. That’s why the russians are sitting on the fence.

373

One more thing to blame on Germany:

374

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

The belief that limited nuclear war could be waged is not only morally dubious, but alarmingly naive. Nuclear weapons preeminently benefit deterrence. A good place to start is to study the concept of mutually assured destruction, or MAD. [/quote]

How does MAD workout when you’re dealing with people who really are mad? Mad as in, they believe we are living in the ‘end times’ and that a 12th century Imam in suspended animation will arrive and save them from ‘the great satan.’ The 12ers are so batshit Ayatollah Khomeini had them banned. Would you be willing to play nuclear chicken with a lunatic? [/quote]

Let’s not derail this thread. Perhaps you could start one concerning the strategic nature of nuclear weapons?
[/quote]

The Iranians are backed by Russia, have assets in Central America and are on the verge of going nuclear. It is entirely to Russian advantage to see Iran go nuclear and attack the United States. It’s not a derailment, it’s a pertinent question.[/quote]

You have a parsimonious understanding of Iran-Russia relations. The fact that Iran sometimes enjoys warm relations with Russia does not mean that the great power and the Islamic Republic are acting in tandem.

As a member of the P5+1, Russia supported the sanctions against Iran, designed to force Tehran to enter into negotiations to address concerns about its nuclear program. “It is entirely to Russian advantage” for Iran, a state geographically situated on Russia’s southern border, to not see Iran go nuclear.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100803-rianovosti02.htm

375

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

The belief that limited nuclear war could be waged is not only morally dubious, but alarmingly naive. Nuclear weapons preeminently benefit deterrence. A good place to start is to study the concept of mutually assured destruction, or MAD. [/quote]

How does MAD workout when you’re dealing with people who really are mad? Mad as in, they believe we are living in the ‘end times’ and that a 12th century Imam in suspended animation will arrive and save them from ‘the great satan.’ The 12ers are so batshit Ayatollah Khomeini had them banned. Would you be willing to play nuclear chicken with a lunatic? [/quote]

Let’s not derail this thread. Perhaps you could start one concerning the strategic nature of nuclear weapons?
[/quote]

The Iranians are backed by Russia, have assets in Central America and are on the verge of going nuclear. It is entirely to Russian advantage to see Iran go nuclear and attack the United States. It’s not a derailment, it’s a pertinent question.[/quote]

You have a parsimonious understanding of Iran-Russia relations. The fact that Iran sometimes enjoys warm relations with Russia does not mean that the great power and the Islamic Republic are acting in tandem.

As a member of the P5+1, Russia supported the sanctions against Iran, designed to force Tehran to enter into negotiations to address concerns about its nuclear program. “It is entirely to Russian advantage” for Iran, a state geographically situated on Russia’s southern border, to not see Iran go nuclear.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100803-rianovosti02.htm[/quote]

Uh huh…

http://en.cihan.com.tr/news/Russia-to-build-two-new-nuclear-plants-in-Iran_3008-CHMTQxMzAwOC80

376

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

The belief that limited nuclear war could be waged is not only morally dubious, but alarmingly naive. Nuclear weapons preeminently benefit deterrence. A good place to start is to study the concept of mutually assured destruction, or MAD. [/quote]

How does MAD workout when you’re dealing with people who really are mad? Mad as in, they believe we are living in the ‘end times’ and that a 12th century Imam in suspended animation will arrive and save them from ‘the great satan.’ The 12ers are so batshit Ayatollah Khomeini had them banned. Would you be willing to play nuclear chicken with a lunatic? [/quote]

Let’s not derail this thread. Perhaps you could start one concerning the strategic nature of nuclear weapons?
[/quote]

The Iranians are backed by Russia, have assets in Central America and are on the verge of going nuclear. It is entirely to Russian advantage to see Iran go nuclear and attack the United States. It’s not a derailment, it’s a pertinent question.[/quote]

You have a parsimonious understanding of Iran-Russia relations. The fact that Iran sometimes enjoys warm relations with Russia does not mean that the great power and the Islamic Republic are acting in tandem.

As a member of the P5+1, Russia supported the sanctions against Iran, designed to force Tehran to enter into negotiations to address concerns about its nuclear program. “It is entirely to Russian advantage” for Iran, a state geographically situated on Russia’s southern border, to not see Iran go nuclear.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100803-rianovosti02.htm[/quote]

Uh huh…

http://en.cihan.com.tr/news/Russia-to-build-two-new-nuclear-plants-in-Iran_3008-CHMTQxMzAwOC80[/quote]

So a link to a Turkish news website proves what exactly? regardless, you seem to be unfamiliar with the Iranian nuclear program and the recent Geneva interim nuclear agreement.

377

Iran is a staunch supporter of the non-proliferation regime. Nuclear powers don’t welcome peer competitors. It is untenable to argue that Russia is actively aiding Iran to get the bomb.

Three Reasons Why Russia Won’t Wreck the Iran Nuclear Negotiations

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/iran-at-saban/posts/2014/03/22-russia-us-tension-sabotage-iran-nuclear-deal

378

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Iran is a staunch supporter of the non-proliferation regime. Nuclear powers don’t welcome peer competitors. It is untenable to argue that Russia is actively aiding Iran to get the bomb.

Three Reasons Why Russia Won’t Wreck the Iran Nuclear Negotiations

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/iran-at-saban/posts/2014/03/22-russia-us-tension-sabotage-iran-nuclear-deal[/quote]

Far left Huffington Post:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4994670

379

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
My French May be a little rusty but there’s nothing wrong with my logical reasoning. There is no comparison to be made with the Cold War and Iran. Previously we were dealing with rational actors. Now we’re dealing with an apocalyptic Islamic fundamentalist regime that will soon possess nuclear weapons.[/quote]

Iran has maintained robust biological and chemical weapons programs for decades, and yet not a single CBRN weapon has found its way into the hands of Hezbollah or Hamas. Iran wants the bomb primarily for the security it provides. It surely noticed when the Bush Administration ceased its calls for regime change in the DPRK after the hermit kingdom tested a nuclear device.

380

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Iran is a staunch supporter of the non-proliferation regime. Nuclear powers don’t welcome peer competitors. It is untenable to argue that Russia is actively aiding Iran to get the bomb.

Three Reasons Why Russia Won’t Wreck the Iran Nuclear Negotiations

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/iran-at-saban/posts/2014/03/22-russia-us-tension-sabotage-iran-nuclear-deal[/quote]

Far left Huffington Post:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4994670[/quote]

Hmmm. Reputable subject matter expert analysis vs. a quip from an online newspaper decidedly not known for its foreign policy expertise. Regardless, the article in question does zero to evidence your claim that Russia is actively aiding Iran in its proliferation efforts. A plethora of credible sources demonstrate that the opposite is true.