Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Putin: "Hey, Moldova. That's a nice breakaway region you have there, it would be a shame if someone annexed it by force"   (telegraph.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Moldova, Transdniestria, Crimean, Moldovan, democracy  
•       •       •

8620 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Mar 2014 at 9:39 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



150 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-03-24 08:18:22 AM  
Moldova: "Hey Putin, no need to be rough. We want you to take us" *spreads legs*
 
2014-03-24 09:34:14 AM  
"I pray for the return of the Soviet Union," she says. "Putin gives us hope. He is reuniting the Soviet Union."

I am sure the LGTB community of Transdniester just can't wait to be part of Russia the Soviet Union.  They must miss all those beatings.
 
2014-03-24 09:42:11 AM  

SlothB77: "I pray for the return of the Soviet Union," she says. "Putin gives us hope. He is reuniting the Soviet Union."

I am sure the LGTB community of Transdniester just can't wait to be part of Russia the Soviet Union.  They must miss all those beatings.


I totally read that as Transgender. Damn, LGBT community, warping mah brain wit impure tauts!
 
2014-03-24 09:43:51 AM  
Color me surprised.
 
2014-03-24 09:44:44 AM  
Putin is taking over the world!  Des Moines, Iowa, you're next!

/poor soil there
 
2014-03-24 09:44:57 AM  
"After the collapse of the USSR, Transdniester, a strip of land sandwiched between Moldova and Ukraine, declared its independence from Moldova. A brief civil war followed in 1992, eventually ending in an awkward stalemate.
In its 23-year existence, Transdniester has not been recognised by any other nation on the planet. Even Russia, which has stationed about 1,000 soldiers there since the end of the civil war, has failed to recognise it."

So the nation that broke away from Moldova 23 years ago, and wants to be part of Russia, might become part of Russia?

img3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-03-24 09:46:01 AM  
All it needs is one highly-placed Russian official to decide: you know, a successful Valkyrie-type attempt early in Hitler's career would have saved a whole lot of Russian lives.
 
2014-03-24 09:47:03 AM  
That's unpossible. I've been assured by Fark's lefty brigade that the Crunea abbé action was a clear and total victory for the rest of the world, because that albatross would completely shut down the Russian economy and drag them down for years to come, while the oligarchs put the brakes on any further external ambitions Putin (who is absolutely worshiped by all Republicans) may have harbored.
 
2014-03-24 09:48:28 AM  
 
2014-03-24 09:48:40 AM  

croesius: "After the collapse of the USSR, Transdniester, a strip of land sandwiched between Moldova and Ukraine, declared its independence from Moldova. A brief civil war followed in 1992, eventually ending in an awkward stalemate.
In its 23-year existence, Transdniester has not been recognised by any other nation on the planet. Even Russia, which has stationed about 1,000 soldiers there since the end of the civil war, has failed to recognise it."

So the nation that broke away from Moldova 23 years ago, and wants to be part of Russia, might become part of Russia?

[img3.wikia.nocookie.net image 353x132]


Ever since the collapse of the USSR, Russia has ignored the fact that millions of their citizens were in other neighboring countries, wanting to come home again.  They actively worked to keep those Russian citizens in other countries because it's just politically useful to have a good reason to invade your neighbors.  Like protecting your own citizens that you put there and kept there.
 
2014-03-24 09:49:32 AM  

croesius: "After the collapse of the USSR, Transdniester, a strip of land sandwiched between Moldova and Ukraine, declared its independence from Moldova. A brief civil war followed in 1992, eventually ending in an awkward stalemate.
In its 23-year existence, Transdniester has not been recognised by any other nation on the planet. Even Russia, which has stationed about 1,000 soldiers there since the end of the civil war, has failed to recognise it."

So the nation that broke away from Moldova 23 years ago, and wants to be part of Russia, might become part of Russia?

[img3.wikia.nocookie.net image 353x132]


Except they have to go through what's left of Ukraine to get there.  You know who else wanted to reunite land that had been separated from them 23 years earlier?  Actually, kinda eerie that the timelines match up.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-24 09:57:47 AM  
Moldova is a total sh*thole- it's the poorest country in Europe and was ranked the unhappiest country in the world. Men have to move to other countries to find jobs, and many of the women are used for human trafficking. I'd rather be part of Russia too.
 
2014-03-24 09:58:15 AM  
The West probably gives even less a shiat about Transnistria and Moldova than it does Crimea and Ukraine. It may provoke more sanctions, but it's still not enough to get the tanks rolling, -unless- Russia stormed through Odessa to do it, but I doubt that would even be necessary.
 
2014-03-24 09:59:24 AM  
It's okay, we actually know how to find land wars in Europe.
 
2014-03-24 10:00:24 AM  
He really does have super villain fantasies, doesn't he.

/maniacal laugh
//maniacal laugh
 
2014-03-24 10:01:07 AM  

verbaltoxin: It's okay, we actually know how to find land wars in Europe.


FIGHT land wars. ffs.

/I should start drinking coffee.
 
2014-03-24 10:02:37 AM  

verbaltoxin: It's okay, we actually know how to find land wars in Europe.


www.zealoptics.com

Relieved to hear it.
 
2014-03-24 10:04:49 AM  

ciberido: verbaltoxin: It's okay, we actually know how to find land wars in Europe.

[www.zealoptics.com image 640x480]

Relieved to hear it.


I deserved that.
 
2014-03-24 10:05:43 AM  
Some asshole said I was a Neocon for opposing Putin's military expansion.


Am I still a Neocon for thinking Putin is a bad guy with expansionist aims?
 
2014-03-24 10:06:47 AM  

TheGregiss: Some asshole said I was a Neocon for opposing Putin's military expansion.


Am I still a Neocon for thinking Putin is a bad guy with expansionist aims?


No, you're a realist.

Though, at this point, it's far more prudent and effective to wage economic warfare rather than physical warfare.
 
2014-03-24 10:08:09 AM  
TheGregiss:   Am I still a Neocon for thinking Putin is a bad guy with expansionist aims?

img.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-24 10:11:56 AM  

Okieboy: Putin is taking over the world!  Des Moines, Iowa, you're next!

/poor soil there


You know what Stewart? I like you. You're not like the other people here, in the trailer park.
 
2014-03-24 10:12:03 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Moldova is a total sh*thole- it's the poorest country in Europe and was ranked the unhappiest country in the world. Men have to move to other countries to find jobs, and many of the women are used for human trafficking. I'd rather be part of Russia too.


Pretty much. Its like the worst part of africa asking to join the usa.
 
2014-03-24 10:13:02 AM  
The Russians need lebensraum.
 
2014-03-24 10:15:18 AM  

TheGregiss: The Russians need lebensraum.


They have that in abundance... this isn't Germany where 20 people have to live in the area of a sardine can.

Each Russian has 20 national parks in his back yard. Huge country...
 
2014-03-24 10:16:23 AM  
So, I should cross Moldova off my list of EU countries to visit?


/doesn't sound very touristy.
 
2014-03-24 10:17:33 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Men have to move to other countries to find jobs, and many of the women are used for human trafficking


i.imgur.com

"Moldova, Moldova, you very nice place"
 
2014-03-24 10:18:25 AM  

CleanAndPure: TheGregiss: The Russians need lebensraum.

They have that in abundance... this isn't Germany where 20 people have to live in the area of a sardine can.

Each Russian has 20 national parks in his back yard. Huge country...


Russia doesn't need breathing room, it needs a buffer zone.

Russians have some ingrained terror of being invaded.  Especially by Germany.  And to the Russian mind, the best way to keep themselves safe is to put as much room between themselves and their enemies.  That's why they had the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Bloc nations as a big buffer zone between them and NATO.

That's why they freak out when their neighbors want to get cozy and comfy with the West.  They see no buffer between them and enemy armies bearing down on Moscow.
 
2014-03-24 10:18:39 AM  

raerae1980: So, I should cross Moldova off my list of EU countries to visit?


/doesn't sound very touristy.


If Moldova is on your list of EU countries to visit (for fun), I would question your taste as well as the source of information you're using for EU countries.
 
2014-03-24 10:21:56 AM  
That old woman is by far not the only person in former Soviet states who prays for the return of communism and the USSR.  It is a sentiment widely held by, in some cases, majority populations of former member states.  Very few areas that were once part of the Union were suddenly improved by its absence, or the absence of communism.  A lot of people went from a predictable, livable "poverty" (as described by people who have an abundance of things they don't need) to a chaotic, miserable existence with no certainties, no help and not even an illusion of humanity from the people supposedly leading them.  Those with plenty in the West certainly don't give a damn, and the only time these former Soviet states come up in consideration is when they might be used as a tool by an old enemy to gain marginally more territory or power.

These people want to rejoin Russia, yet the article speaks of "fears" that they will be taken by the Russians.  What fears?  Fears that, as I said, Russia might gain some slight improvement in position on the chess board of the world.  The article is more horseshiat propaganda to make people fear and hate Russia.
 
2014-03-24 10:23:47 AM  
I wonder who else has a geographically isolated exclave with historic ties to other nations and ethnicities...

https://www*goog­l­e*com­/m­aps­/­pla­c­e/Kalining­rad+­Ob­last/[nospam-﹫-backwards]45*80­66454,21. 26 28561,8z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46e39c45442e0be3:0x1e2558c4d03a027b
 
2014-03-24 10:24:22 AM  
img.fark.net

Ukraine to the north, Moldova to the south. OK, you can join Russia. Just don't expect any supplies to come in.
 
2014-03-24 10:24:49 AM  
Does Moldova have oil?
 
2014-03-24 10:25:15 AM  
Putin will probably let things simmer down a bit and build up his most recent victory. I'm guessing Russia will try to take back more land sometime in the next 2 years. They need to do it while we have a president that thinks things like this shouldn't be happening in the world just because he's obama. They can't take a chance that old thunder calf hillary gets elected. I'm sure the "let's elect a v-jay jay this time" campaign will be strong from the dems. But Putin can't take the chance of America electing an actual leader with abilities and one that doesn't leave our friends hanging in the winds of world affairs. Way to support the Ukraine barry, they asked for help stopping an aggressive country splitting land grab and you sent dehydrated food.
 
2014-03-24 10:27:34 AM  

Pattuq: That old woman is by far not the only person in former Soviet states who prays for the return of communism and the USSR.  It is a sentiment widely held by, in some cases, majority populations of former member states.  Very few areas that were once part of the Union were suddenly improved by its absence, or the absence of communism.  A lot of people went from a predictable, livable "poverty" (as described by people who have an abundance of things they don't need) to a chaotic, miserable existence with no certainties, no help and not even an illusion of humanity from the people supposedly leading them.  Those with plenty in the West certainly don't give a damn, and the only time these former Soviet states come up in consideration is when they might be used as a tool by an old enemy to gain marginally more territory or power.

These people want to rejoin Russia, yet the article speaks of "fears" that they will be taken by the Russians.  What fears?  Fears that, as I said, Russia might gain some slight improvement in position on the chess board of the world.  The article is more horseshiat propaganda to make people fear and hate Russia.


Not uncommon in the former GDR
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictators hi p-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-63412 2.html

I have to say I was a bit surprised when I met some Germanys who agreed with that position, especially after West Germany almost bankrupted themselves trying to get the standard of living in those Staaten to that of the west.
 
2014-03-24 10:27:58 AM  

Launch Code: They can't take a chance that old thunder calf hillary gets elected. I'm sure the "let's elect a v-jay jay this time" campaign will be strong from the dems. But Putin can't take the chance of America electing an actual leader with abilities and one that doesn't leave our friends hanging in the winds of world affairs.


so not hillary, then?
 
2014-03-24 10:29:55 AM  

Pattuq: That old woman is by far not the only person in former Soviet states who prays for the return of communism and the USSR. It is a sentiment widely held by, in some cases, majority populations of former member states. Very few areas that were once part of the Union were suddenly improved by its absence, or the absence of communism. A lot of people went from a predictable, livable "poverty" (as described by people who have an abundance of things they don't need) to a chaotic, miserable existence with no certainties, no help and not even an illusion of humanity from the people supposedly leading them. Those with plenty in the West certainly don't give a damn, and the only time these former Soviet states come up in consideration is when they might be used as a tool by an old enemy to gain marginally more territory or power.


Fortunately, many of those countries west of Russia are still mainly populated by those who survived Stalin's purges and the rest who want to return to Russia are the carpetbaggers who replaced them.

These are people who loved Communism so much they embraced Hitler. Because Hitler at least promised to exterminate them tomorrow instead of today.
 
2014-03-24 10:31:05 AM  
I've been to Moldova, Its not as bad as you all are making it seem.
 
2014-03-24 10:36:04 AM  

croesius: So the nation that broke away from Moldova 23 years ago, and wants to be part of Russia, might become part of Russia?


Well "nation" is a bit wrong strong. And as for "wants to", do you mean everybody? Or a large majority? A small majority? How big a vote does it take to strip some land, plus all the investments that the rest of the country made in that strip, and give them to another country?

sweetmelissa31: Moldova is a total sh*thole- it's the poorest country in Europe and was ranked the unhappiest country in the world. Men have to move to other countries to find jobs, and many of the women are used for human trafficking. I'd rather be part of Russia too.


Yes, because becoming part of Russia will make that so much better.
 
2014-03-24 10:36:08 AM  
Once again, Putin The Global Chessmaster is on the move!  Soon, he'll be posing shirtless in front of the Eiffel Tower!   This is all on Obama.
 
2014-03-24 10:37:28 AM  

redmid17: raerae1980: So, I should cross Moldova off my list of EU countries to visit?


/doesn't sound very touristy.

If Moldova is on your list of EU countries to visit (for fun), I would question your taste as well as the source of information you're using for EU countries.


Fark should have a sarcasm button.
 
2014-03-24 10:38:10 AM  
Transnistria sounds like a perfect match for Putin, actually.
 
2014-03-24 10:38:46 AM  
I assume the people defending Putin's annexation of Russian-majority borderlands are equally supportive of the aspirations of other ethnic areas to break away from Russia, right? And they condemn Putin's use of brutal force to prevent such breakaways, right? Right? Hello?

/What's the Russian equivalent of "Volksdeutsch"?
 
2014-03-24 10:40:28 AM  

Infernalist: CleanAndPure: TheGregiss: The Russians need lebensraum.

They have that in abundance... this isn't Germany where 20 people have to live in the area of a sardine can.

Each Russian has 20 national parks in his back yard. Huge country...

Russia doesn't need breathing room, it needs a buffer zone.

Russians have some ingrained terror of being invaded.  Especially by Germany.  And to the Russian mind, the best way to keep themselves safe is to put as much room between themselves and their enemies.  That's why they had the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Bloc nations as a big buffer zone between them and NATO.

That's why they freak out when their neighbors want to get cozy and comfy with the West.  They see no buffer between them and enemy armies bearing down on Moscow.


And the EU and NATO (which according to them should have dissolved when the Soviet Union did) have been steadily expanding to the east for 20 years.

"They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here!"
 
2014-03-24 10:43:53 AM  

ArkPanda: Infernalist: CleanAndPure: TheGregiss: The Russians need lebensraum.

They have that in abundance... this isn't Germany where 20 people have to live in the area of a sardine can.

Each Russian has 20 national parks in his back yard. Huge country...

Russia doesn't need breathing room, it needs a buffer zone.

Russians have some ingrained terror of being invaded.  Especially by Germany.  And to the Russian mind, the best way to keep themselves safe is to put as much room between themselves and their enemies.  That's why they had the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Bloc nations as a big buffer zone between them and NATO.

That's why they freak out when their neighbors want to get cozy and comfy with the West.  They see no buffer between them and enemy armies bearing down on Moscow.

And the EU and NATO (which according to them should have dissolved when the Soviet Union did) have been steadily expanding to the east for 20 years.

"They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here!"


Oh, without a doubt, the West has been absolutely pushing into Eastern Europe, both economically and politically and perhaps even militarily.

And without a doubt, this has made the Russians freak the fark out.

And I also do not doubt that they know what this is doing to the Russian mindset.  The only question in my mind is whether or not it's a deliberate thing, or simply done out of indifference to how the Russians perceive it.
 
2014-03-24 10:43:59 AM  

Infernalist: CleanAndPure: TheGregiss: The Russians need lebensraum.

They have that in abundance... this isn't Germany where 20 people have to live in the area of a sardine can.

Each Russian has 20 national parks in his back yard. Huge country...

Russia doesn't need breathing room, it needs a buffer zone.

Russians have some ingrained terror of being invaded.  Especially by Germany.  And to the Russian mind, the best way to keep themselves safe is to put as much room between themselves and their enemies.  That's why they had the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Bloc nations as a big buffer zone between them and NATO.

That's why they freak out when their neighbors want to get cozy and comfy with the West.  They see no buffer between them and enemy armies bearing down on Moscow.


True...Russia has quite the history of being invaded from the west AND the east.

/of course, it's been centuries since the Golden Horde...
///FOR THE HORDE
 
2014-03-24 10:48:25 AM  
Well according to Putin, these countries are fighting over one-another to join the Russian Empire.  Who's knows what countries "Self-Defense" forces will rise up to defend voters who want to join Russia.

So in essence we could pull a Putin and send U.S. troops there...but deny it and call them pro-Ukrainian Self-defense forces.  That way we get the political cover of not really being there right?  I say call his bluff.
 
2014-03-24 10:49:22 AM  

ArkPanda: Infernalist: CleanAndPure: TheGregiss: The Russians need lebensraum.

They have that in abundance... this isn't Germany where 20 people have to live in the area of a sardine can.

Each Russian has 20 national parks in his back yard. Huge country...

Russia doesn't need breathing room, it needs a buffer zone.

Russians have some ingrained terror of being invaded.  Especially by Germany.  And to the Russian mind, the best way to keep themselves safe is to put as much room between themselves and their enemies.  That's why they had the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Bloc nations as a big buffer zone between them and NATO.

That's why they freak out when their neighbors want to get cozy and comfy with the West.  They see no buffer between them and enemy armies bearing down on Moscow.

And the EU and NATO (which according to them should have dissolved when the Soviet Union did) have been steadily expanding to the east for 20 years.

"They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here!"


The USSR requested to join NATO once, and received the 1950s version of "LOL" as a response.
 
2014-03-24 10:51:13 AM  

Aegius: Well according to Putin, these countries are fighting over one-another to join the Russian Empire.  Who's knows what countries "Self-Defense" forces will rise up to defend voters who want to join Russia.

So in essence we could pull a Putin and send U.S. troops there...but deny it and call them pro-Ukrainian Self-defense forces.  That way we get the political cover of not really being there right?  I say call his bluff.


We're already winning with the current collection of economic and legal tricks, why bother putting any soldiers in harm's way?
 
2014-03-24 10:51:30 AM  

raerae1980: redmid17: raerae1980: So, I should cross Moldova off my list of EU countries to visit?


/doesn't sound very touristy.

If Moldova is on your list of EU countries to visit (for fun), I would question your taste as well as the source of information you're using for EU countries.

Fark should have a sarcasm button.


I got the sarcasm button, but Moldova is not a member of the EU.
 
2014-03-24 10:55:32 AM  

Infernalist: That's why they freak out when their neighbors want to get cozy and comfy with the West. They see no buffer between them and enemy armies bearing down on Moscow.


So?  Tough shiat, Russians -- that's a crap excuse to invade your neighbors.

/I don't need to "understand their concerns"
//Any more than they worry about mine
 
2014-03-24 10:59:26 AM  

Infernalist: TheGregiss: Some asshole said I was a Neocon for opposing Putin's military expansion.


Am I still a Neocon for thinking Putin is a bad guy with expansionist aims?

No, you're a realist.

Though, at this point, it's far more prudent and effective to wage economic warfare rather than physical warfare.


Pretty sure that sentiment is also a repeat of 1938.  Were they correct?
 
2014-03-24 11:03:43 AM  

Infernalist: Aegius: Well according to Putin, these countries are fighting over one-another to join the Russian Empire.  Who's knows what countries "Self-Defense" forces will rise up to defend voters who want to join Russia.

So in essence we could pull a Putin and send U.S. troops there...but deny it and call them pro-Ukrainian Self-defense forces.  That way we get the political cover of not really being there right?  I say call his bluff.

We're already winning with the current collection of economic and legal tricks, why bother putting any soldiers in harm's way?


I hope you are joking.
 
2014-03-24 11:07:39 AM  

redmid17: raerae1980: redmid17: raerae1980: So, I should cross Moldova off my list of EU countries to visit?


/doesn't sound very touristy.

If Moldova is on your list of EU countries to visit (for fun), I would question your taste as well as the source of information you're using for EU countries.

Fark should have a sarcasm button.

I got the sarcasm button, but Moldova is not a member of the EU.


Yeah, I know that. Should have typed Europe instead. But still...sarcasm.
 
2014-03-24 11:11:45 AM  

ArkPanda: And the EU and NATO (which according to them should have dissolved when the Soviet Union did) have been steadily expanding to the east for 20 years.

"They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here!"


You broke one of your little ships.
 
2014-03-24 11:13:54 AM  
After reading all 503 'Ukraine' threads, I've come to the conclusion that this whole clusterfark is ultimately a fantastic advertisement for the perks of joining NATO.

"I understand that you're having some technical difficulties with your system this morning, Moldova. We'd be happy to send a Tech out to your house to take care of that for you. Are you a Gold Member with our program? Oh... you're not? Please hold, I'll be transferring you to our service center in Bangalore where one of our Valued Team Members will talk you through the process of repelling an invasion. Have a nice afternoon, and thank you for your interest in NATO!"
 
2014-03-24 11:16:55 AM  

Prince George: Infernalist: TheGregiss: Some asshole said I was a Neocon for opposing Putin's military expansion.


Am I still a Neocon for thinking Putin is a bad guy with expansionist aims?

No, you're a realist.

Though, at this point, it's far more prudent and effective to wage economic warfare rather than physical warfare.

Pretty sure that sentiment is also a repeat of 1938.  Were they correct?


It isn't 1938 and Russia isn't Nazi Germany of that era, either.

And no, I'm not joking about economic efforts.  Take a few minutes to look over the business sites and their reports on how sanctions and fear of sanctions and seizures is effecting Russia's economy and oligarchs.  Then, bear in mind that these are the weakest sanctions that we've put in place and the next round will be even harsher.  And the round after that will be harsher still.
 
2014-03-24 11:18:27 AM  

Infernalist: ArkPanda: Infernalist: CleanAndPure: TheGregiss: The Russians need lebensraum.

They have that in abundance... this isn't Germany where 20 people have to live in the area of a sardine can.

Each Russian has 20 national parks in his back yard. Huge country...

Russia doesn't need breathing room, it needs a buffer zone.

Russians have some ingrained terror of being invaded.  Especially by Germany.  And to the Russian mind, the best way to keep themselves safe is to put as much room between themselves and their enemies.  That's why they had the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Bloc nations as a big buffer zone between them and NATO.

That's why they freak out when their neighbors want to get cozy and comfy with the West.  They see no buffer between them and enemy armies bearing down on Moscow.

And the EU and NATO (which according to them should have dissolved when the Soviet Union did) have been steadily expanding to the east for 20 years.

"They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here!"

Oh, without a doubt, the West has been absolutely pushing into Eastern Europe, both economically and politically and perhaps even militarily.

And without a doubt, this has made the Russians freak the fark out.

And I also do not doubt that they know what this is doing to the Russian mindset.  The only question in my mind is whether or not it's a deliberate thing, or simply done out of indifference to how the Russians perceive it.


And then there's the West, where kids are told about how scary Russia is, see this happening, and continue to freak the fark out about Russia.

It's like some sort of unholy cycle of fear that can't be stopped, because now it's so ingrained in both sides that time just makes the problem worse since the kids learn to fear the other from their parents.
 
2014-03-24 11:23:49 AM  

Infernalist: It isn't 1938 and Russia isn't Nazi Germany of that era, either.


And in 1938, the Nazis weren't the Kaiser of 1914, either.
 
2014-03-24 11:29:45 AM  
Eerily similar to the Soviet march that started in the late 40s...  Of course, Putin will probably just stop with 2, just like Stalin did.
 
2014-03-24 11:33:35 AM  

xanadian: True...Russia has quite the history of being invaded from the west AND the east.

/of course, it's been centuries since the Golden Horde...
///FOR THE HORDE


So Putin is Garrosh Hellscream?
 
2014-03-24 11:34:46 AM  

czetie: Yes, because becoming part of Russia will make that so much better.


It might be if Russia actually wanted them. But it's expensive to annex a country, so they'd have to be willing to bring infrastructure to the area. Crimea might be worth it, but I don't really see what Russia would gain by annexing a little piece of Moldova.
 
2014-03-24 11:36:32 AM  
idlewords.com
For now, I'd be happy with the Moldovans getting everything on the right bank of the Dniester (facing downstream, in this case south) and the Transnistrians getting everything on the left. Bender should be in Moldova, not occupied by the Transnistrians...

/possibly biased because my family comes from the former Bessarabia
//great-grandfather born in Bender (aka Tighina), fled pogroms in Kishinev (now Chisinau) instigated by Russians who now dominate Transnistria
///he wound up in Ohio. Hadn't he suffered enough?
 
2014-03-24 11:41:10 AM  

ciberido: xanadian: True...Russia has quite the history of being invaded from the west AND the east.

/of course, it's been centuries since the Golden Horde...
///FOR THE HORDE

So Putin is Garrosh Hellscream?


Then who is Vol'jin?
 
2014-03-24 11:51:20 AM  

amindtat: ciberido: xanadian: True...Russia has quite the history of being invaded from the west AND the east.

/of course, it's been centuries since the Golden Horde...
///FOR THE HORDE

So Putin is Garrosh Hellscream?

Then who is Vol'jin?


Not sure, but Obama is probably a Pandaren.
 
2014-03-24 11:52:52 AM  

Paris1127: Bender should be in Moldova, not occupied by the Transnistrians...


I wonder what it would be like to go on a bender in Bender...
 
2014-03-24 12:01:51 PM  

ciberido: amindtat: ciberido: xanadian: True...Russia has quite the history of being invaded from the west AND the east.

/of course, it's been centuries since the Golden Horde...
///FOR THE HORDE

So Putin is Garrosh Hellscream?

Then who is Vol'jin?

Not sure, but Obama is probably a Pandaren.


He does like to drink beer....
 
2014-03-24 12:02:58 PM  
croesius:
So the nation that broke away from Moldova 23 years ago, and wants to be part of Russia, might become part of Russia?

We have to force Russia to stop ignoring them, or else we'll never have a proper war over it!

/btw. funny how the news about millitary drills come from Moldova. No Moldova, the EU will not fall for that trick.

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1996/Moldovan-Justice-Minister-Comes-to -A ustria-in-Stolen-Car/id-5c33ec2f31e03cdc7e4ac03d48c25f0a

Albania and Belarussia would join the EU before Moldova.
 
2014-03-24 12:05:18 PM  
Perhaps all these places with Russian minorities should round up all the Russians and put them on one-way trains back to the homeland? Especially if keeping them around means Russia is going to annex you by force.
 
2014-03-24 12:10:29 PM  

Infernalist: croesius: "After the collapse of the USSR, Transdniester, a strip of land sandwiched between Moldova and Ukraine, declared its independence from Moldova. A brief civil war followed in 1992, eventually ending in an awkward stalemate.
In its 23-year existence, Transdniester has not been recognised by any other nation on the planet. Even Russia, which has stationed about 1,000 soldiers there since the end of the civil war, has failed to recognise it."

So the nation that broke away from Moldova 23 years ago, and wants to be part of Russia, might become part of Russia?

[img3.wikia.nocookie.net image 353x132]

Ever since the collapse of the USSR, Russia has ignored the fact that millions of their citizens were in other neighboring countries, wanting to come home again.  They actively worked to keep those Russian citizens in other countries because it's just politically useful to have a good reason to invade your neighbors.  Like protecting your own citizens that you put there and kept there.


Please link a source to how Russia has prevented Russians in Moldova from leaving.

Such a link would be interesting, because that's contrary to what I believe is the case. Of course if you can't, then I guess you're making it up.
 
2014-03-24 12:12:21 PM  

germ78: Perhaps all these places with Russian minorities should round up all the Russians and put them on one-way trains back to the homeland? Especially if keeping them around means Russia is going to annex you by force.


That would be handing a convenient pretext for war/annexation on a silver platter. Why make it any easier for the Russians? At least now they're having to manufacture crappy pretexts on their own.
 
2014-03-24 12:13:14 PM  

raerae1980: So, I should cross Moldova off my list of EU countries to visit?


Moldova isn't in the EU, and won't ever be.

I'd like to visit it though, but only because I find shiatholes fascinating. Kinda like Bratislava in Eurotrip.
 
2014-03-24 12:17:50 PM  

czetie: croesius: So the nation that broke away from Moldova 23 years ago, and wants to be part of Russia, might become part of Russia?

Well "nation" is a bit wrong strong. And as for "wants to", do you mean everybody? Or a large majority? A small majority? How big a vote does it take to strip some land, plus all the investments that the rest of the country made in that strip, and give them to another country?


97% wanted to be a part of Russia. And Moldova hasn't ever invested shiat in that piece of land, seeing as it parted ways with Moldova at the formation of it.
 
2014-03-24 12:21:13 PM  
this is why you ethnically cleanse your lands after you take them over.  Worked against the American Indians quite well.
 
2014-03-24 12:21:44 PM  

BigNumber12: After reading all 503 'Ukraine' threads, I've come to the conclusion that this whole clusterfark is ultimately a fantastic advertisement for the perks of joining NATO.

"I understand that you're having some technical difficulties with your system this morning, Moldova. We'd be happy to send a Tech out to your house to take care of that for you. Are you a Gold Member with our program? Oh... you're not? Please hold, I'll be transferring you to our service center in Bangalore where one of our Valued Team Members will talk you through the process of repelling an invasion. Have a nice afternoon, and thank you for your interest in NATO!"


That is what I've been saying in these threads.

Some people seem so concerned that Putin is the world's next Hitler..... They don't seem to realize that Russia is not even close to being a military threat to the West. His land grabs in nations that aren't allied with NATO may (or arguably may not) be helping strengthen Russia.

But, even if Russia is benefitting from their aggression..... the West STILL has nothing to fear from Russia. They command 9.5% of the World's military strength (a number that is pumped up by using conscripted soldiers in their military)..... NATO commands 70% of the World's military strength.

Russia will not be attacking the West.

Meanwhile, his antics are worrying much of the world. His actions are sending business and political influence westward....

Putin does not have to lose for us to win. His actions might be helping Russia, but, they're helping out the West much more.
 
2014-03-24 12:22:59 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: germ78: Perhaps all these places with Russian minorities should round up all the Russians and put them on one-way trains back to the homeland? Especially if keeping them around means Russia is going to annex you by force.

That would be handing a convenient pretext for war/annexation on a silver platter. Why make it any easier for the Russians? At least now they're having to manufacture crappy pretexts on their own.


Ultimately, you're right. Though nothing good will come out of giving Russia these little slivers of former Soviet Oblasts.
 
2014-03-24 12:23:04 PM  
This guy is just ASKING for sanctions.
 
2014-03-24 12:26:21 PM  

Sammichless: BigNumber12: After reading all 503 'Ukraine' threads, I've come to the conclusion that this whole clusterfark is ultimately a fantastic advertisement for the perks of joining NATO.

"I understand that you're having some technical difficulties with your system this morning, Moldova. We'd be happy to send a Tech out to your house to take care of that for you. Are you a Gold Member with our program? Oh... you're not? Please hold, I'll be transferring you to our service center in Bangalore where one of our Valued Team Members will talk you through the process of repelling an invasion. Have a nice afternoon, and thank you for your interest in NATO!"

That is what I've been saying in these threads.

Some people seem so concerned that Putin is the world's next Hitler..... They don't seem to realize that Russia is not even close to being a military threat to the West. His land grabs in nations that aren't allied with NATO may (or arguably may not) be helping strengthen Russia.

But, even if Russia is benefitting from their aggression..... the West STILL has nothing to fear from Russia. They command 9.5% of the World's military strength (a number that is pumped up by using conscripted soldiers in their military)..... NATO commands 70% of the World's military strength.

Russia will not be attacking the West.

Meanwhile, his antics are worrying much of the world. His actions are sending business and political influence westward....

Putin does not have to lose for us to win. His actions might be helping Russia, but, they're helping out the West much more.


It also assumes all NATO members would actually do something if pushed too far.
 
2014-03-24 12:29:25 PM  

germ78: UrukHaiGuyz: germ78: Perhaps all these places with Russian minorities should round up all the Russians and put them on one-way trains back to the homeland? Especially if keeping them around means Russia is going to annex you by force.

That would be handing a convenient pretext for war/annexation on a silver platter. Why make it any easier for the Russians? At least now they're having to manufacture crappy pretexts on their own.

Ultimately, you're right. Though nothing good will come out of giving Russia these little slivers of former Soviet Oblasts.


True. It looks like we're ramping up for a trade/cyber war between NATO and Russia, and a military detente. It's hard to see where Russia goes from here- depends on how much sanctions affect Putin's support at home, and how far he is willing to test NATO's military resolve.
 
2014-03-24 12:33:38 PM  

redmid17: Sammichless: BigNumber12: After reading all 503 'Ukraine' threads, I've come to the conclusion that this whole clusterfark is ultimately a fantastic advertisement for the perks of joining NATO.

"I understand that you're having some technical difficulties with your system this morning, Moldova. We'd be happy to send a Tech out to your house to take care of that for you. Are you a Gold Member with our program? Oh... you're not? Please hold, I'll be transferring you to our service center in Bangalore where one of our Valued Team Members will talk you through the process of repelling an invasion. Have a nice afternoon, and thank you for your interest in NATO!"

That is what I've been saying in these threads.

Some people seem so concerned that Putin is the world's next Hitler..... They don't seem to realize that Russia is not even close to being a military threat to the West. His land grabs in nations that aren't allied with NATO may (or arguably may not) be helping strengthen Russia.

But, even if Russia is benefitting from their aggression..... the West STILL has nothing to fear from Russia. They command 9.5% of the World's military strength (a number that is pumped up by using conscripted soldiers in their military)..... NATO commands 70% of the World's military strength.

Russia will not be attacking the West.

Meanwhile, his antics are worrying much of the world. His actions are sending business and political influence westward....

Putin does not have to lose for us to win. His actions might be helping Russia, but, they're helping out the West much more.

It also assumes all NATO members would actually do something if pushed too far.


I am pretty certain that for every conscripted soldier (basically untrained militia member) that Russia sent in to invade a NATO member country..... We would be sending 5 actual soldiers to defend.

NATO is not meant to be a aggressive World police organization..... It exists for defense. Your insinuation is that NATO spends 70% of the entire World's budget on military, but wouldn't defend itself?
 
2014-03-24 12:39:16 PM  

Sammichless: redmid17: Sammichless: BigNumber12: After reading all 503 'Ukraine' threads, I've come to the conclusion that this whole clusterfark is ultimately a fantastic advertisement for the perks of joining NATO.

"I understand that you're having some technical difficulties with your system this morning, Moldova. We'd be happy to send a Tech out to your house to take care of that for you. Are you a Gold Member with our program? Oh... you're not? Please hold, I'll be transferring you to our service center in Bangalore where one of our Valued Team Members will talk you through the process of repelling an invasion. Have a nice afternoon, and thank you for your interest in NATO!"

That is what I've been saying in these threads.

Some people seem so concerned that Putin is the world's next Hitler..... They don't seem to realize that Russia is not even close to being a military threat to the West. His land grabs in nations that aren't allied with NATO may (or arguably may not) be helping strengthen Russia.

But, even if Russia is benefitting from their aggression..... the West STILL has nothing to fear from Russia. They command 9.5% of the World's military strength (a number that is pumped up by using conscripted soldiers in their military)..... NATO commands 70% of the World's military strength.

Russia will not be attacking the West.

Meanwhile, his antics are worrying much of the world. His actions are sending business and political influence westward....

Putin does not have to lose for us to win. His actions might be helping Russia, but, they're helping out the West much more.

It also assumes all NATO members would actually do something if pushed too far.

I am pretty certain that for every conscripted soldier (basically untrained militia member) that Russia sent in to invade a NATO member country..... We would be sending 5 actual soldiers to defend.

NATO is not meant to be a aggressive World police organization..... It exists for defense. Your insinuation is that NATO spen ...


I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.
 
2014-03-24 12:46:37 PM  
redmid17: I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.

Theoretically
NATO member nations don't have a choice in this. You are also giving the Russian military a lot more credit than I think it deserves. Even a shooting war against Ukraine (a poor nation without NATO support) would be expected to be a hard victory for Russia to pull off.
 
2014-03-24 12:54:50 PM  
I blame Bill Clinton

/research Kosovo
 
2014-03-24 12:58:36 PM  

Sammichless: redmid17: I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.

Theoretically NATO member nations don't have a choice in this. You are also giving the Russian military a lot more credit than I think it deserves. Even a shooting war against Ukraine (a poor nation without NATO support) would be expected to be a hard victory for Russia to pull off.


A military victory? No I think Russia would handily take Ukraine in that engagement. The occupation would be what trips them up. Even setting aside what looks like inflated Russian troop numbers, they have at least 4:1 advantage  with respects to tanks, airplanes, helicopters, troop transports, and the like. They can Ukraine without much issue. The Russian military also has recent experience in fighting wars (or occupations). Ukraine hasn't been in a conflict since they (maybe) sent some troops to Afghanistan 30 years ago.

Then again, this is all in a solely Russia vs Ukraine conflict. Theoretically the all members of NATO have to join in, but the EU relies heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil and the eastern members of NATO could be taken fairly quickly with a small fraction of Russian resources. They'd have a free hand for a while, maybe a month or more? It takes time to mobilize troops and/or relocate them from foreign bases and US soil. Russia would would retain land superiority for any shorter conflict, the naval one would tip to NATO fairly quick (6th fleet > Black sea fleet), and the air superiority would be dicey since Russia has a ton of planes, more than the US could realistically get to Europe and maintain for any extended period of time.
 
2014-03-24 12:59:51 PM  

TheGregiss: Some asshole said I was a Neocon for opposing Putin's military expansion.

Am I still a Neocon for thinking Putin is a bad guy with expansionist aims?


Yes, but the liberals are getting desperate enough for someone (who isn't liberal and therefore actually willing to fight and die in their place) to deal with Bad Ass Vlad that they're not throwing that label around any more.

/eventually they'll get scared enough to actually listen to our advice
//probably won't be till after the first nuclear exchange
///at which point the only advice we'll be able to offer is, "Pull your head out of your anus just long enough to kiss your ass goodbye. Oh, and WE TOLD YOU SO."
 
2014-03-24 01:00:37 PM  

redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.

Theoretically NATO member nations don't have a choice in this. You are also giving the Russian military a lot more credit than I think it deserves. Even a shooting war against Ukraine (a poor nation without NATO support) would be expected to be a hard victory for Russia to pull off.

A military victory? No I think Russia would handily take Ukraine in that engagement. The occupation would be what trips them up. Even setting aside what looks like inflated Russian troop numbers, they have at least 4:1 advantage  with respects to tanks, airplanes, helicopters, troop transports, and the like. They can Ukraine without much issue. The Russian military also has recent experience in fighting wars (or occupations). Ukraine hasn't been in a conflict since they (maybe) sent some troops to Afghanistan 30 years ago.

Then again, this is all in a solely Russia vs Ukraine conflict. Theoretically the all members of NATO have to join in, but the EU relies heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil and the eastern members of NATO could be taken fairly quickly with a small fraction of Russian resources. They'd have a free hand for a while, maybe a month or more? It takes time to mobilize troops and/or relocate them from foreign bases and US soil. Russia would would retain land superiority for any shorter conflict, the naval one would tip to NATO fairly quick (6th fleet > Black sea fleet), and the air superiority would be dicey since Russia has a ton of planes, more than the US could realistically get to Europe and maintain for any extended period of time.


No they don't- Ukraine is not a NATO member and is not subject to any mutual defense treaties with the U.S., NATO, or the E.U.
 
2014-03-24 01:01:00 PM  

Infernalist: TheGregiss: Some asshole said I was a Neocon for opposing Putin's military expansion.


Am I still a Neocon for thinking Putin is a bad guy with expansionist aims?

No, you're a realist.

Though, at this point, it's far more prudent and effective to wage economic warfare rather than physical warfare.


Yeah, the asshole hawks in this situation aren't the ones who acknowledge that Putin's an ass; it's the people who want to start world war 3 over it. Putin is an asshole, but there's nothing we can do about it militarily without enormous consequences for all involved.Time to see if this financial and diplomatic system we've been working on the last 60 years is actually a bright new future, or if we are still the same animals we were a hundred years ago, unable to solve any large problems without larger death tolls.
 
2014-03-24 01:02:05 PM  

xanadian: Paris1127: Bender should be in Moldova, not occupied by the Transnistrians...

I wonder what it would be like to go on a bender in Bender...


Probably like this:
media.giphy.com
 
2014-03-24 01:02:54 PM  

Tatterdemalian: TheGregiss: Some asshole said I was a Neocon for opposing Putin's military expansion.

Am I still a Neocon for thinking Putin is a bad guy with expansionist aims?

Yes, but the liberals are getting desperate enough for someone (who isn't liberal and therefore actually willing to fight and die in their place) to deal with Bad Ass Vlad that they're not throwing that label around any more.

/eventually they'll get scared enough to actually listen to our advice
//probably won't be till after the first nuclear exchange
///at which point the only advice we'll be able to offer is, "Pull your head out of your anus just long enough to kiss your ass goodbye. Oh, and WE TOLD YOU SO."


So your brilliant plan to avoid nuclear war is....to instigate a war that would likely go nuclear? If there is a shooting war, I think it much more likely that it gets fought by proxy, non-nuclear states just like Cold War era conflicts, because nobody wants M.A.D.
 
2014-03-24 01:03:58 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: I blame Bill Clinton

/research Kosovo


I see Putin's shenanigans as turning out poorly for some of Russia's neighbors, turning out pretty good in the end for Russia, and turning out great for Western powers.

Would that make Clinton the new "Chess master"?
 
2014-03-24 01:09:08 PM  
The Transnistrian uniforms are pretty exciting! I really like the icing along the seems!

4 Stars! ****

i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2014-03-24 01:14:49 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.

Theoretically NATO member nations don't have a choice in this. You are also giving the Russian military a lot more credit than I think it deserves. Even a shooting war against Ukraine (a poor nation without NATO support) would be expected to be a hard victory for Russia to pull off.

A military victory? No I think Russia would handily take Ukraine in that engagement. The occupation would be what trips them up. Even setting aside what looks like inflated Russian troop numbers, they have at least 4:1 advantage  with respects to tanks, airplanes, helicopters, troop transports, and the like. They can Ukraine without much issue. The Russian military also has recent experience in fighting wars (or occupations). Ukraine hasn't been in a conflict since they (maybe) sent some troops to Afghanistan 30 years ago.

Then again, this is all in a solely Russia vs Ukraine conflict. Theoretically the all members of NATO have to join in, but the EU relies heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil and the eastern members of NATO could be taken fairly quickly with a small fraction of Russian resources. They'd have a free hand for a while, maybe a month or more? It takes time to mobilize troops and/or relocate them from foreign bases and US soil. Russia would would retain land superiority for any shorter conflict, the naval one would tip to NATO fairly quick (6th fleet > Black sea fleet), and the air superiority would be dicey since Russia has a ton of planes, more than the US could realistically get to Europe and maintain for any extended period of time.

No they don't- Ukraine is not a NATO member and is not subject to any mutual defense treaties with the U.S., NATO, or the E.U.


Sorry if I didn't make it clear. That bolded part was in reference to his statement that "theoretically all NATO countries must assist in mutual defense." I hold the opinion that some, at the very least, would drag their feet or abstain based on the aforementioned reason. I know Ukraine isn't part of NATO, though the Budapest Memorandum might obligate the US and UK to help them out. That part is murky from what I read.
 
2014-03-24 01:14:53 PM  

redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.

Theoretically NATO member nations don't have a choice in this. You are also giving the Russian military a lot more credit than I think it deserves. Even a shooting war against Ukraine (a poor nation without NATO support) would be expected to be a hard victory for Russia to pull off.

A military victory? No I think Russia would handily take Ukraine in that engagement. The occupation would be what trips them up. Even setting aside what looks like inflated Russian troop numbers, they have at least 4:1 advantage  with respects to tanks, airplanes, helicopters, troop transports, and the like. They can Ukraine without much issue. The Russian military also has recent experience in fighting wars (or occupations). Ukraine hasn't been in a conflict since they (maybe) sent some troops to Afghanistan 30 years ago.

Then again, this is all in a solely Russia vs Ukraine conflict. Theoretically the all members of NATO have to join in, but the EU relies heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil and the eastern members of NATO could be taken fairly quickly with a small fraction of Russian resources. They'd have a free hand for a while, maybe a month or more? It takes time to mobilize troops and/or relocate them from foreign bases and US soil. Russia would would retain land superiority for any shorter conflict, the naval one would tip to NATO fairly quick (6th fleet > Black sea fleet), and the air superiority would be dicey since Russia has a ton of planes, more than the US could realistically get to Europe and maintain for any extended period of time.


Someone already pointed out that Ukraine is not a Western ally. And that NATO will not be sending in troops. The West would likely aid Ukraine financially and offer material support..... But, boots on the ground should require NATO membership (which is only gained by full support of Western goals.)

As far as Russia's easy victory in Ukraine..... Russia's military is about 4 times the size of Ukraine's. BUT.....

Russia cannot send their entire military to Ukraine.

Russia's troops are less trained.

And NEVER underestimate the power of "Home team advantage"
img.fark.net

This is what "Home team advantage" might look like.
 
2014-03-24 01:18:49 PM  

Sammichless: redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.

Theoretically NATO member nations don't have a choice in this. You are also giving the Russian military a lot more credit than I think it deserves. Even a shooting war against Ukraine (a poor nation without NATO support) would be expected to be a hard victory for Russia to pull off.

A military victory? No I think Russia would handily take Ukraine in that engagement. The occupation would be what trips them up. Even setting aside what looks like inflated Russian troop numbers, they have at least 4:1 advantage  with respects to tanks, airplanes, helicopters, troop transports, and the like. They can Ukraine without much issue. The Russian military also has recent experience in fighting wars (or occupations). Ukraine hasn't been in a conflict since they (maybe) sent some troops to Afghanistan 30 years ago.

Then again, this is all in a solely Russia vs Ukraine conflict. Theoretically the all members of NATO have to join in, but the EU relies heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil and the eastern members of NATO could be taken fairly quickly with a small fraction of Russian resources. They'd have a free hand for a while, maybe a month or more? It takes time to mobilize troops and/or relocate them from foreign bases and US soil. Russia would would retain land superiority for any shorter conflict, the naval one would tip to NATO fairly quick (6th fleet > Black sea fleet), and the air superiority would be dicey since Russia has a ton of planes, more than the US could realistically get to Europe and maintain for any extended period of time.

Someone already pointed out that Ukraine is not a Western ally. And that NATO will not be sending in troops. The West would likely aid Ukraine financially and offer material supp ...


Comparing Finland in the dead of winter in the mid 1940s with an ill-equipped Russian military to the current situation in Ukraine is a folly. Russia doesn't have to send their entire military. If they send half they still dwarf Ukraine's forces and have total air superiority. Also I'm not buying Russia's army as less trained than Ukraine's army. They haven't seen any combat and their budget is a fraction of Russia's (even with the equipment and number disparity).
 
2014-03-24 01:25:33 PM  

redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.

Theoretically NATO member nations don't have a choice in this. You are also giving the Russian military a lot more credit than I think it deserves. Even a shooting war against Ukraine (a poor nation without NATO support) would be expected to be a hard victory for Russia to pull off.

A military victory? No I think Russia would handily take Ukraine in that engagement. The occupation would be what trips them up. Even setting aside what looks like inflated Russian troop numbers, they have at least 4:1 advantage  with respects to tanks, airplanes, helicopters, troop transports, and the like. They can Ukraine without much issue. The Russian military also has recent experience in fighting wars (or occupations). Ukraine hasn't been in a conflict since they (maybe) sent some troops to Afghanistan 30 years ago.

Then again, this is all in a solely Russia vs Ukraine conflict. Theoretically the all members of NATO have to join in, but the EU relies heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil and the eastern members of NATO could be taken fairly quickly with a small fraction of Russian resources. They'd have a free hand for a while, maybe a month or more? It takes time to mobilize troops and/or relocate them from foreign bases and US soil. Russia would would retain land superiority for any shorter conflict, the naval one would tip to NATO fairly quick (6th fleet > Black sea fleet), and the air superiority would be dicey since Russia has a ton of planes, more than the US could realistically get to Europe and maintain for any extended period of time.

Someone already pointed out that Ukraine is not a Western ally. And that NATO will not be sending in troops. The West would likely aid Ukraine financially and offer ...


Another thing that might play into it, how many of those Ukranian soldiers are ethnic Russians, and how many of those would fight Russia?
 
2014-03-24 01:32:19 PM  

redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.

Theoretically NATO member nations don't have a choice in this. You are also giving the Russian military a lot more credit than I think it deserves. Even a shooting war against Ukraine (a poor nation without NATO support) would be expected to be a hard victory for Russia to pull off.

A military victory? No I think Russia would handily take Ukraine in that engagement. The occupation would be what trips them up. Even setting aside what looks like inflated Russian troop numbers, they have at least 4:1 advantage  with respects to tanks, airplanes, helicopters, troop transports, and the like. They can Ukraine without much issue. The Russian military also has recent experience in fighting wars (or occupations). Ukraine hasn't been in a conflict since they (maybe) sent some troops to Afghanistan 30 years ago.

Then again, this is all in a solely Russia vs Ukraine conflict. Theoretically the all members of NATO have to join in, but the EU relies heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil and the eastern members of NATO could be taken fairly quickly with a small fraction of Russian resources. They'd have a free hand for a while, maybe a month or more? It takes time to mobilize troops and/or relocate them from foreign bases and US soil. Russia would would retain land superiority for any shorter conflict, the naval one would tip to NATO fairly quick (6th fleet > Black sea fleet), and the air superiority would be dicey since Russia has a ton of planes, more than the US could realistically get to Europe and maintain for any extended period of time.

Someone already pointed out that Ukraine is not a Western ally. And that NATO will not be sending in troops. The West would likely aid Ukraine financially and offer ...


This is putting our debate off-track anyhow. The point I was meaning to make is just that Russia could not "steamroll" over a NATO allied nation while we organize a defense. I was attempting to argue that it is unlikely that they could even "steamroll" over a poor farming nation like Ukraine, who has no military allies.

Russia is just not as scary this century as they were in the past. I really don't think that they pose any threat to Western powers. Their recent aggression is not going to greatly change this either. Putin has much too weak of a hand to challenge us. Also, his actions will serve to strengthen our hand.....
 
2014-03-24 01:40:05 PM  

Sammichless: redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.

Theoretically NATO member nations don't have a choice in this. You are also giving the Russian military a lot more credit than I think it deserves. Even a shooting war against Ukraine (a poor nation without NATO support) would be expected to be a hard victory for Russia to pull off.

A military victory? No I think Russia would handily take Ukraine in that engagement. The occupation would be what trips them up. Even setting aside what looks like inflated Russian troop numbers, they have at least 4:1 advantage  with respects to tanks, airplanes, helicopters, troop transports, and the like. They can Ukraine without much issue. The Russian military also has recent experience in fighting wars (or occupations). Ukraine hasn't been in a conflict since they (maybe) sent some troops to Afghanistan 30 years ago.

Then again, this is all in a solely Russia vs Ukraine conflict. Theoretically the all members of NATO have to join in, but the EU relies heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil and the eastern members of NATO could be taken fairly quickly with a small fraction of Russian resources. They'd have a free hand for a while, maybe a month or more? It takes time to mobilize troops and/or relocate them from foreign bases and US soil. Russia would would retain land superiority for any shorter conflict, the naval one would tip to NATO fairly quick (6th fleet > Black sea fleet), and the air superiority would be dicey since Russia has a ton of planes, more than the US could realistically get to Europe and maintain for any extended period of time.

Someone already pointed out that Ukraine is not a Western ally. And that NATO will not be sending in troops. The West would likely aid Ukraine financially and offer material supp ...


To be fair, most of the Soviet casualties were caused by a single Finnish sniper...

/he's still out there, they say.  waiting for the day the reds come creeping back across the snow...
 
2014-03-24 01:40:56 PM  
Europe's been overdue for this kind of thing, historically speaking.
 
2014-03-24 01:40:56 PM  
img.fark.net

"MOLDOVA SUCKS!"
- Frank Moses
 
2014-03-24 01:43:44 PM  

Sammichless: redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.

Theoretically NATO member nations don't have a choice in this. You are also giving the Russian military a lot more credit than I think it deserves. Even a shooting war against Ukraine (a poor nation without NATO support) would be expected to be a hard victory for Russia to pull off.

A military victory? No I think Russia would handily take Ukraine in that engagement. The occupation would be what trips them up. Even setting aside what looks like inflated Russian troop numbers, they have at least 4:1 advantage  with respects to tanks, airplanes, helicopters, troop transports, and the like. They can Ukraine without much issue. The Russian military also has recent experience in fighting wars (or occupations). Ukraine hasn't been in a conflict since they (maybe) sent some troops to Afghanistan 30 years ago.

Then again, this is all in a solely Russia vs Ukraine conflict. Theoretically the all members of NATO have to join in, but the EU relies heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil and the eastern members of NATO could be taken fairly quickly with a small fraction of Russian resources. They'd have a free hand for a while, maybe a month or more? It takes time to mobilize troops and/or relocate them from foreign bases and US soil. Russia would would retain land superiority for any shorter conflict, the naval one would tip to NATO fairly quick (6th fleet > Black sea fleet), and the air superiority would be dicey since Russia has a ton of planes, more than the US could realistically get to Europe and maintain for any extended period of time.

Someone already pointed out that Ukraine is not a Western ally. And that NATO will not be sending in troops. The West would likely aid Ukraine financially ...


Russia could easily storm over a NATO allied country. How much of a fight do you think the Baltic states could put up? Russia could knock them over like dominoes. They wouldn't even have to go through a country like Belarus or Ukraine to do it. Now whether or not Russia is willing to do that is another question. I tend to think they wouldn't.
 
2014-03-24 01:50:35 PM  
AngryDragon:

Except they have to go through what's left of Ukraine to get there.  You know who else wanted to reunite land that had been separated from them 23 years earlier?  Actually, kinda eerie that the timelines match up.

[i.imgur.com image 850x549]


Interesting, if some map makers had been smart, and cutoff Poland's upraised finger of land & give to the Germans... a world war might have been averted.
Poland should have done the needful, and moved aside.... by voting.

Russia is getting the needful done, by -Voting-

With Voters like these, who needs an army?
"I'm ready to live in a tent, but I'm not ready to submit to the West, to dance to their tune," said Viktor Rudko, a 43-year-old miner.
Voters.
 
2014-03-24 01:54:20 PM  

redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.

Theoretically NATO member nations don't have a choice in this. You are also giving the Russian military a lot more credit than I think it deserves. Even a shooting war against Ukraine (a poor nation without NATO support) would be expected to be a hard victory for Russia to pull off.

A military victory? No I think Russia would handily take Ukraine in that engagement. The occupation would be what trips them up. Even setting aside what looks like inflated Russian troop numbers, they have at least 4:1 advantage  with respects to tanks, airplanes, helicopters, troop transports, and the like. They can Ukraine without much issue. The Russian military also has recent experience in fighting wars (or occupations). Ukraine hasn't been in a conflict since they (maybe) sent some troops to Afghanistan 30 years ago.

Then again, this is all in a solely Russia vs Ukraine conflict. Theoretically the all members of NATO have to join in, but the EU relies heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil and the eastern members of NATO could be taken fairly quickly with a small fraction of Russian resources. They'd have a free hand for a while, maybe a month or more? It takes time to mobilize troops and/or relocate them from foreign bases and US soil. Russia would would retain land superiority for any shorter conflict, the naval one would tip to NATO fairly quick (6th fleet > Black sea fleet), and the air superiority would be dicey since Russia has a ton of planes, more than the US could realistically get to Europe and maintain for any extended period of time.

Someone already pointed out that Ukraine is not a Western ally. And that NATO will not be sending in troops. The West would likely aid Ukraine financially and offer material supp ...

Comparing Finland in the dead of winter in the mid 1940s with an ill-equipped Russian military to the current situation in Ukraine is a folly. Russia doesn't have to send their entire military. If they send half they still dwarf Ukraine's forces and have total air superiority. Also I'm not buying Russia's army as less trained than Ukraine's army. They haven't seen any combat and their budget is a fraction of Russia's (even with the equipment and number disparity).


The Russian army is an ill equiped joke today and already has to use a considerable part of its man power against Chechen rebels.
 
2014-03-24 01:57:43 PM  

ShadowKamui: redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.

Theoretically NATO member nations don't have a choice in this. You are also giving the Russian military a lot more credit than I think it deserves. Even a shooting war against Ukraine (a poor nation without NATO support) would be expected to be a hard victory for Russia to pull off.

A military victory? No I think Russia would handily take Ukraine in that engagement. The occupation would be what trips them up. Even setting aside what looks like inflated Russian troop numbers, they have at least 4:1 advantage  with respects to tanks, airplanes, helicopters, troop transports, and the like. They can Ukraine without much issue. The Russian military also has recent experience in fighting wars (or occupations). Ukraine hasn't been in a conflict since they (maybe) sent some troops to Afghanistan 30 years ago.

Then again, this is all in a solely Russia vs Ukraine conflict. Theoretically the all members of NATO have to join in, but the EU relies heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil and the eastern members of NATO could be taken fairly quickly with a small fraction of Russian resources. They'd have a free hand for a while, maybe a month or more? It takes time to mobilize troops and/or relocate them from foreign bases and US soil. Russia would would retain land superiority for any shorter conflict, the naval one would tip to NATO fairly quick (6th fleet > Black sea fleet), and the air superiority would be dicey since Russia has a ton of planes, more than the US could realistically get to Europe and maintain for any extended period of time.

Someone already pointed out that Ukraine is not a Western ally. And that NATO will not be sending in troops. The West would likely aid Ukraine financially ...


Are the Ukranians somehow better equipped? And the Chechnyan problem is the same one they ran into in Afghanistan and the same one the US is seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's hard to pin down asymmetric warfare. A fight against Ukraine would not be asymmetric warfare unless Russia wanted to occupy all of Ukraine. Russia would not do that. They'd just take the parts with a Russian majority.
 
2014-03-24 02:12:49 PM  

redmid17: Are the Ukranians somehow better equipped? And the Chechnyan problem is the same one they ran into in Afghanistan and the same one the US is seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's hard to pin down asymmetric warfare. A fight against Ukraine would not be asymmetric warfare unless Russia wanted to occupy all of Ukraine. Russia would not do that. They'd just take the parts with a Russian majority.


I really do wonder if that is their plan..... Russia could certainly use the farmland.

I think that they assumed that their actions would have started a shooting war.... and they could pretend that Ukraine started it. If that's true, then I imagine that they are still working on a way to justify taking the rest of Eastern Ukraine.

Meanwhile, I still don't think that the West should be terribly worried about Putin trying anything against us or our direct allies.
 
2014-03-24 02:15:00 PM  
Sammichless:

Putin does not have to lose for us to win. His actions might be helping Russia, but, they're helping out the West much more.

I'm sure Ukraine finds solace in that their suffering is for a greater good. :P
 
2014-03-24 02:21:56 PM  

spawn73: Sammichless:

Putin does not have to lose for us to win. His actions might be helping Russia, but, they're helping out the West much more.

I'm sure Ukraine finds solace in that their suffering is for a greater good. :P


Probably not. It is what it is.

I have a question for anyone who may know......

Does our nuclear deterrent protect NATO members from invasion? Do we have an obligation to nuke somebody to protect an ally?
 
2014-03-24 02:24:44 PM  

Infernalist: CleanAndPure: TheGregiss: The Russians need lebensraum.

They have that in abundance... this isn't Germany where 20 people have to live in the area of a sardine can.

Each Russian has 20 national parks in his back yard. Huge country...

Russia doesn't need breathing room, it needs a buffer zone.

Russians have some ingrained terror of being invaded.  Especially by Germany.  And to the Russian mind, the best way to keep themselves safe is to put as much room between themselves and their enemies.  That's why they had the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Bloc nations as a big buffer zone between them and NATO.

That's why they freak out when their neighbors want to get cozy and comfy with the West.  They see no buffer between them and enemy armies bearing down on Moscow.


Sad but true they cannot move away from the fears of the past and see that no one wants to invade them, for now t least but if Putin keeps his shiat up that could very well change.

There best bet is to toss Putin and his cronies out of office and put in a government who is willing to embrace the present and not the past.
 
2014-03-24 02:39:36 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Tatterdemalian: Yes, but the liberals are getting desperate enough for someone (who isn't liberal and therefore actually willing to fight and die in their place) to deal with Bad Ass Vlad that they're not throwing that label around any more.

/eventually they'll get scared enough to actually listen to our advice
//probably won't be till after the first nuclear exchange
///at which point the only advice we'll be able to offer is, "Pull your head out of your anus just long enough to kiss your ass goodbye. Oh, and WE TOLD YOU SO."

So your brilliant plan to avoid nuclear war is....to instigate a war that would likely go nuclear? If there is a shooting war, I think it much more likely that it gets fought by proxy, non-nuclear states just like Cold War era conflicts, because nobody wants M.A.D.


Sure it is, but mostly because any plan that would get Putin to back down before he starts deploying WMDs is one you would label "instigating a war that would likely go nuclear." It's like how that ignorant warmonger Ronnie Ray-Gun was going to start World War 3, by accident if not by offending Brezhnev with his "Godless Evil Empire" speeches, and we had the consensus of diplomatic experts ranging from Jimmy Carter to Berkeley Breathed declaring this to be true.

Yet, somehow, WW3 never started, and the Berlin Wall fell instead. Must have been accident, or maybe even invisible sky wizards, because it could never have been the neocons having a better understanding of Russia than the Lenin-worshipping liberal intellectuals.

/even the chick that can see Russia from her house had a better understanding of Russia than this administration's State Department
//and that is what should really scare you
///what scares me is the lengths the State Department will go to, to rewrite history to pretend they never trusted Putin or offered him a "reset button"
 
2014-03-24 02:42:30 PM  

Pattuq: ArkPanda: Infernalist: CleanAndPure: TheGregiss: 

The USSR requested to join NATO once, and received the 1950s version of "LOL" as a response.


Yes and no. They wanted to join NATO so they could essentially neuter it. But yes:  http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/molotovs-proposal-the-ussr-jo i n-nato-march-1954
 
2014-03-24 02:43:32 PM  

Sammichless: That is what I've been saying in these threads.

Some people seem so concerned that Putin is the world's next Hitler..... They don't seem to realize that Russia is not even close to being a military threat to the West. His land grabs in nations that aren't allied with NATO may (or arguably may not) be helping strengthen Russia.

But, even if Russia is benefitting from their aggression..... the West STILL has nothing to fear from Russia. They command 9.5% of the World's military strength (a number that is pumped up by using conscripted soldiers in their military)..... NATO commands 70% of the World's military strength.


On paper, 1938 Germany couldn't take 1938 France, let alone Belgium, France, Austria, Poland, and the UK.

Unfortunately, wars aren't fought on paper.
 
2014-03-24 02:46:35 PM  

Tatterdemalian: UrukHaiGuyz: Tatterdemalian: Yes, but the liberals are getting desperate enough for someone (who isn't liberal and therefore actually willing to fight and die in their place) to deal with Bad Ass Vlad that they're not throwing that label around any more.

/eventually they'll get scared enough to actually listen to our advice
//probably won't be till after the first nuclear exchange
///at which point the only advice we'll be able to offer is, "Pull your head out of your anus just long enough to kiss your ass goodbye. Oh, and WE TOLD YOU SO."

So your brilliant plan to avoid nuclear war is....to instigate a war that would likely go nuclear? If there is a shooting war, I think it much more likely that it gets fought by proxy, non-nuclear states just like Cold War era conflicts, because nobody wants M.A.D.

Sure it is, but mostly because any plan that would get Putin to back down before he starts deploying WMDs is one you would label "instigating a war that would likely go nuclear." It's like how that ignorant warmonger Ronnie Ray-Gun was going to start World War 3, by accident if not by offending Brezhnev with his "Godless Evil Empire" speeches, and we had the consensus of diplomatic experts ranging from Jimmy Carter to Berkeley Breathed declaring this to be true.

Yet, somehow, WW3 never started, and the Berlin Wall fell instead. Must have been accident, or maybe even invisible sky wizards, because it could never have been the neocons having a better understanding of Russia than the Lenin-worshipping liberal intellectuals.

/even the chick that can see Russia from her house had a better understanding of Russia than this administration's State Department
//and that is what should really scare you
///what scares me is the lengths the State Department will go to, to rewrite history to pretend they never trusted Putin or offered him a "reset button"


So you're upset that there aren't enough angry speeches decrying the evils of Russia? Reagan didn't make those for the sake of any diplomatic goal. The only possible impact that could have is to shore up domestic support for an adversarial stance- one more likely to lead to war or stalemate. Feel-good demonizing of the Russians does nothing to stabilize the situation.

The fact is that we won't go to war over a non-NATO country, especially with a large nuclear power. If and when Russia violates the territorial sanctity of a NATO member state, all bets are off. That hasn't happened yet, and I hope it doesn't. A lot of people would die.
 
2014-03-24 02:46:44 PM  

Sammichless: I really do wonder if that is their plan..... Russia could certainly use the farmland.


I wonder if Ukraine would let them do that, considering they maintain an active pile of old Russian plutonium which could be quickly sown into that farmland, ensuring nothing edible grows there for another millennia.
 
2014-03-24 02:55:05 PM  
redmid17: Sammichless: Comparing Finland in the dead of winter in the mid 1940s with an ill-equipped Russian military to the current situation in Ukraine is a folly. Russia doesn't have to send their entire military. If they send half they still dwarf Ukraine's forces and have total air superiority. Also I'm not buying Russia's army as less trained than Ukraine's army. They haven't seen any combat and their budget is a fraction of Russia's (even with the equipment and number disparity).

Actually, no. In spring, the Ukraine is one giant bog. Tanks and infantry moving across a bog will get stuck. Keep to the roads, they'll be picked off by air cover. And which side would come out on top with respect to air superiority is anyone's guess. Even operating from forward airbases, the Ukrainians will see the Russian's coming. The two sides are fighting with essentially the same equipment. And neither side has had a recent record of air combat to base a decision on.

If Russia thought they had a decided advantage, odds are they would have pressed it.
 
2014-03-24 03:00:02 PM  

This text is now purple: Sammichless: I really do wonder if that is their plan..... Russia could certainly use the farmland.

I wonder if Ukraine would let them do that, considering they maintain an active pile of old Russian plutonium which could be quickly sown into that farmland, ensuring nothing edible grows there for another millennia.


Plutonium isn't really all that bad. It's about as poisonous as caffeine... in solid form. It has a pretty long half life, so while you will get a neutron count, it's comparable to background.

Now, plutonium in vapor form is a whole different matter.

What makes radioactive fallout so nasty isn't the leftover nuclear material in the bomb itself. Its the radioactive byproduct they create that mimic other metals. Their chemical similarity to calcium and iodine allow them to be absorbed readily into the body. Their short half-lives mean that once they get in there, they decay quickly into all sorts of nasty things you don't want near live tissue.
 
2014-03-24 03:00:14 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Sammichless: Comparing Finland in the dead of winter in the mid 1940s with an ill-equipped Russian military to the current situation in Ukraine is a folly. Russia doesn't have to send their entire military. If they send half they still dwarf Ukraine's forces and have total air superiority. Also I'm not buying Russia's army as less trained than Ukraine's army. They haven't seen any combat and their budget is a fraction of Russia's (even with the equipment and number disparity).

Actually, no. In spring, the Ukraine is one giant bog. Tanks and infantry moving across a bog will get stuck. Keep to the roads, they'll be picked off by air cover. And which side would come out on top with respect to air superiority is anyone's guess. Even operating from forward airbases, the Ukrainians will see the Russian's coming. The two sides are fighting with essentially the same equipment. And neither side has had a recent record of air combat to base a decision on.

If Russia thought they had a decided advantage, odds are they would have pressed it.


Russia has a huge advantage in planes and helicopters, and they can stand ground force losses more than Ukraine can.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-24 03:12:34 PM  

redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Sammichless: 
Russia has a huge advantage in planes and helicopters, and they can stand ground force losses more than Ukraine can.

[i.imgur.com image 850x595]


"Total" strength is not the same as the strength they can bring to bare in one particular theater against one particular enemy. Troops that are occupied occupying other regions cannot be called on. Tanks do not matter if you do not control the sky. Helicopters would be cut to pieces by fixes wing aircraft. And the Vietnamese more or less proved that with the home field advantage, you make life hell for an incoming air force with SAMs and FLAC. The fact that the Ukrainians have a few hundred strike aircraft is icing on the cake.

And besides, invading is the easy part. Occupation... that's where you have to look and say "NO farkING WAY."
 
2014-03-24 03:13:28 PM  

TheGregiss: Some asshole said I was a Neocon for opposing Putin's military expansion.


Am I still a Neocon for thinking Putin is a bad guy with expansionist aims?


I believe NATO is talking about putting anti-missile batteries in the Ukraine.
 
2014-03-24 03:14:38 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Sammichless: 
Russia has a huge advantage in planes and helicopters, and they can stand ground force losses more than Ukraine can.

[i.imgur.com image 850x595]

"Total" strength is not the same as the strength they can bring to bare in one particular theater against one particular enemy. Troops that are occupied occupying other regions cannot be called on. Tanks do not matter if you do not control the sky. Helicopters would be cut to pieces by fixes wing aircraft. And the Vietnamese more or less proved that with the home field advantage, you make life hell for an incoming air force with SAMs and FLAC. The fact that the Ukrainians have a few hundred strike aircraft is icing on the cake.

And besides, invading is the easy part. Occupation... that's where you have to look and say "NO farkING WAY."


Yeah Russia could bring a 1/3 of their air force and still outnumber the Ukranian air force by 3:1. Invading and winning would be simple. Russia wouldn't bother with the parts of Ukraine that didn't have a sharp ethnic Russian majority.
 
2014-03-24 03:14:41 PM  

JSTACAT: AngryDragon:

Except they have to go through what's left of Ukraine to get there.  You know who else wanted to reunite land that had been separated from them 23 years earlier?  Actually, kinda eerie that the timelines match up.

[i.imgur.com image 850x549]

Interesting, if some map makers had been smart, and cutoff Poland's upraised finger of land & give to the Germans... a world war might have been averted.
Poland should have done the needful, and moved aside.... by voting.

Russia is getting the needful done, by -Voting-

With Voters like these, who needs an army?
"I'm ready to live in a tent, but I'm not ready to submit to the West, to dance to their tune," said Viktor Rudko, a 43-year-old miner.
Voters.


Um...yeah.  Those weren't poll workers infiltrating the Crimea leading up to that "fair and democratic referendum"

Once you have infantry, armor, naval, and air power in the bases of a country and enforcing a de facto occupation, you lose the ability to say that it was the choice of the people.  This was an invasion and annexation at a stunning speed.

What is Russian for blitzkreig anyway?
 
2014-03-24 03:15:28 PM  

SlothB77: Does Moldova have oil?


No and by itself is not even worth one army a turn.
 
2014-03-24 03:18:21 PM  

Paris1127: [idlewords.com image 850x637]
For now, I'd be happy with the Moldovans getting everything on the right bank of the Dniester (facing downstream, in this case south) and the Transnistrians getting everything on the left. Bender should be in Moldova, not occupied by the Transnistrians...

/possibly biased because my family comes from the former Bessarabia
//great-grandfather born in Bender (aka Tighina), fled pogroms in Kishinev (now Chisinau) instigated by Russians who now dominate Transnistria
///he wound up in Ohio. Hadn't he suffered enough?


www.mrwallpaper.com
 
2014-03-24 03:32:29 PM  

redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Sammichless: 
Russia has a huge advantage in planes and helicopters, and they can stand ground force losses more than Ukraine can.

[i.imgur.com image 850x595]

"Total" strength is not the same as the strength they can bring to bare in one particular theater against one particular enemy. Troops that are occupied occupying other regions cannot be called on. Tanks do not matter if you do not control the sky. Helicopters would be cut to pieces by fixes wing aircraft. And the Vietnamese more or less proved that with the home field advantage, you make life hell for an incoming air force with SAMs and FLAC. The fact that the Ukrainians have a few hundred strike aircraft is icing on the cake.

And besides, invading is the easy part. Occupation... that's where you have to look and say "NO farkING WAY."

Yeah Russia could bring a 1/3 of their air force and still outnumber the Ukranian air force by 3:1. Invading and winning would be simple. Russia wouldn't bother with the parts of Ukraine that didn't have a sharp ethnic Russian majority.


You can't just decide one morning to call up 1/3 of your air power and concentrate it on one sector of air space. You need fuel. You need air traffic control. You need runways. And P.S. there are a finite number of sorties that can be flown from said runways.

The US had an advantage in the first Iraq war: it had stealth, and the Iraqis had no counter for it.

Russia attacking the Ukraine would by more like the Germans in the Battle of Britain. Numerically superior, but always being countered by the British early warning radars, and the home field advantage. And unlike the battle of Britain, ground based anti-aircraft weapons have been refined to a high art.
 
2014-03-24 03:41:24 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Sammichless: 
Russia has a huge advantage in planes and helicopters, and they can stand ground force losses more than Ukraine can.

[i.imgur.com image 850x595]

"Total" strength is not the same as the strength they can bring to bare in one particular theater against one particular enemy. Troops that are occupied occupying other regions cannot be called on. Tanks do not matter if you do not control the sky. Helicopters would be cut to pieces by fixes wing aircraft. And the Vietnamese more or less proved that with the home field advantage, you make life hell for an incoming air force with SAMs and FLAC. The fact that the Ukrainians have a few hundred strike aircraft is icing on the cake.

And besides, invading is the easy part. Occupation... that's where you have to look and say "NO farkING WAY."

Yeah Russia could bring a 1/3 of their air force and still outnumber the Ukranian air force by 3:1. Invading and winning would be simple. Russia wouldn't bother with the parts of Ukraine that didn't have a sharp ethnic Russian majority.

You can't just decide one morning to call up 1/3 of your air power and concentrate it on one sector of air space. You need fuel. You need air traffic control. You need runways. And P.S. there are a finite number of sorties that can be flown from said runways.

The US had an advantage in the first Iraq war: it had stealth, and the Iraqis had no counter for it.

Russia attacking the Ukraine would by more like the Germans in the Battle of Britain. Numerically superior, but always being countered by the British early warning radars, and the home field advantage. And unlike the battle of Britain, ground based anti-aircraft weapons have been refined to a high art.


Russia has managed to muster 250K soldiers on the Ukraine border. They have huge oil resources in hand. They control all the military bases in the Crimean peninsula and 50% of those Ukranian armed forces have joined the Russians. There goes a solid chunk of the possible defense force. They have the Ukranian air force commander in custody.

Between the huge ground push and the numerical superiority in the air, the Ukranians would be overwhelmed quickly.
 
2014-03-24 03:47:41 PM  

redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: 

Russia has managed to muster 250K soldiers on the Ukraine border. They have huge oil resources in hand. They control all the military bases in the Crimean peninsula and 50% of those Ukranian armed forces ...


So in other words, you haven't read on word I posted about the hazards of terrain on the ground war nor the uncertain outcome of an air war, and how even a numerical advantage can become a disadvantage in short order.

Here's a gold star for effort.
 
2014-03-24 03:53:29 PM  
Evil Twin Skippy:
Actually, no. In spring, the Ukraine is one giant bog. Tanks and infantry moving across a bog will get stuck. Keep to the roads, they'll be picked off by air cover. And which side would come out on top with respect to air superiority is anyone's guess. Even operating from forward airbases, the Ukrainians will see the Russian's coming. The two sides are fighting with essentially the same equipment. And neither side has had a recent record of air combat to base a decision on.

If Russia thought they had a decided advantage, odds are they would have pressed it.


yes, because your stupid make believe internet hypothetical war is based on reality.
 
2014-03-24 03:56:51 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: 

Russia has managed to muster 250K soldiers on the Ukraine border. They have huge oil resources in hand. They control all the military bases in the Crimean peninsula and 50% of those Ukranian armed forces ...

So in other words, you haven't read on word I posted about the hazards of terrain on the ground war nor the uncertain outcome of an air war, and how even a numerical advantage can become a disadvantage in short order.

Here's a gold star for effort.


No I read it. I just think you're wrong, and I think it's pretty obvious.
 
2014-03-24 04:00:44 PM  

redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: 

Russia has managed to muster 250K soldiers on the Ukraine border. They have huge oil resources in hand. They control all the military bases in the Crimean peninsula and 50% of those Ukranian armed forces ...

So in other words, you haven't read on word I posted about the hazards of terrain on the ground war nor the uncertain outcome of an air war, and how even a numerical advantage can become a disadvantage in short order.

Here's a gold star for effort.

No I read it. I just think you're wrong, and I think it's pretty obvious.


Wars are not won and lost by considering the obvious. They are won and lost by the thousands of non-intuitive outcomes that benefit the victor and hinder the loser.
 
2014-03-24 04:05:17 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: 

Russia has managed to muster 250K soldiers on the Ukraine border. They have huge oil resources in hand. They control all the military bases in the Crimean peninsula and 50% of those Ukranian armed forces ...

So in other words, you haven't read on word I posted about the hazards of terrain on the ground war nor the uncertain outcome of an air war, and how even a numerical advantage can become a disadvantage in short order.

Here's a gold star for effort.

No I read it. I just think you're wrong, and I think it's pretty obvious.

Wars are not won and lost by considering the obvious. They are won and lost by the thousands of non-intuitive outcomes that benefit the victor and hinder the loser.


Yes and Russia would be fighting a low-morale, rapidly imploding Ukraine with just about every advantage I can think of outside of terrain. If they wait two months, then that won't really be an issue either.
 
2014-03-24 04:06:10 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: This text is now purple: Sammichless: I really do wonder if that is their plan..... Russia could certainly use the farmland.

I wonder if Ukraine would let them do that, considering they maintain an active pile of old Russian plutonium which could be quickly sown into that farmland, ensuring nothing edible grows there for another millennia.

Plutonium isn't really all that bad. It's about as poisonous as caffeine... in solid form. It has a pretty long half life, so while you will get a neutron count, it's comparable to background.

Now, plutonium in vapor form is a whole different matter.

What makes radioactive fallout so nasty isn't the leftover nuclear material in the bomb itself. Its the radioactive byproduct they create that mimic other metals. Their chemical similarity to calcium and iodine allow them to be absorbed readily into the body. Their short half-lives mean that once they get in there, they decay quickly into all sorts of nasty things you don't want near live tissue.


Not that.

This.
www.subbrit.org.uk

Russia's other little gift to Ukraine. Maybe it's time to give it back.
 
2014-03-24 04:09:22 PM  

spawn73: If Russia thought they had a decided advantage, odds are they would have pressed it.

yes, because your stupid make believe internet hypothetical war is based on reality.


When in their history hasn't Russia attacked when they thought they could win?
 
2014-03-24 04:19:52 PM  

Pattuq: The USSR requested to join NATO once, and received the 1950s version of "LOL" as a response.


Awesome, I'd never heard that before.
 
2014-03-24 04:23:19 PM  
In these threads, people often mistakenly believe Putin's decisions are based on what's best for Russia, instead of what's best for him personally.
 
2014-03-24 04:26:47 PM  

spawn73: Kinda like Bratislava in Eurotrip.


Ugh, we've done two two-week trips based around Vienna, and came SO CLOSE to doing a day-trip to Bratislava, just for kicks. Would have been interesting at the very least.
 
2014-03-24 04:34:51 PM  

BigNumber12: spawn73: Kinda like Bratislava in Eurotrip.

Ugh, we've done two two-week trips based around Vienna, and came SO CLOSE to doing a day-trip to Bratislava, just for kicks. Would have been interesting at the very least.


My dad was in Dublin for business and took a quick roundtrip flight to Bratislava for 40-50 bucks on Ryanair after bumping back his normal return flight. He only spent a few hours there. He just wanted to say he did it. Crazy part is he had to pretty much leave Dublin right after he got back from Bratislava.
 
2014-03-24 04:34:55 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: So your brilliant plan to avoid nuclear war is....to instigate a war that would likely go nuclear?


No, no it wouldn't. Russia isn't going to initiate MAD over farking Ukraine. Its leaders are quite happy with the personal riches they've amassed with their little criminal empire - they aren't going to burn that all to the ground over wounded pride. They'll lick those wounds and plan their next excursion in a few years.
 
2014-03-24 04:44:39 PM  

BigNumber12: UrukHaiGuyz: So your brilliant plan to avoid nuclear war is....to instigate a war that would likely go nuclear?

No, no it wouldn't. Russia isn't going to initiate MAD over farking Ukraine. Its leaders are quite happy with the personal riches they've amassed with their little criminal empire - they aren't going to burn that all to the ground over wounded pride. They'll lick those wounds and plan their next excursion in a few years.


I don't think they would either unless provoked. The post I was responding to was of the blustery type that implied a shooting war between the West and Russia is in order. I maintain it's a terrible idea- if we must go to war, let it be because Putin actually violates the territory of a NATO member.
 
2014-03-24 05:02:10 PM  
/even the chick that can see Russia from her house Tina Fey had a better understanding of Russia than hork blaahh durpity doooo

i.imgur.com

/gods, look how stupid you are
 
2014-03-24 05:04:39 PM  

This text is now purple: spawn73: If Russia thought they had a decided advantage, odds are they would have pressed it.

yes, because your stupid make believe internet hypothetical war is based on reality.

When in their history hasn't Russia attacked when they thought they could win?


Just the last week they didn't attack Belarussia 7 times.

/you're probably trolling.
 
2014-03-24 05:51:08 PM  
Let you kiddies forget what some of us lived through.

There's a reason why this is fairly terrifying to the veterans.
 
2014-03-24 06:14:16 PM  

redmid17: BigNumber12: spawn73: Kinda like Bratislava in Eurotrip.

Ugh, we've done two two-week trips based around Vienna, and came SO CLOSE to doing a day-trip to Bratislava, just for kicks. Would have been interesting at the very least.

My dad was in Dublin for business and took a quick roundtrip flight to Bratislava for 40-50 bucks on Ryanair after bumping back his normal return flight. He only spent a few hours there. He just wanted to say he did it. Crazy part is he had to pretty much leave Dublin right after he got back from Bratislava.


Hah, I'd say that the whole thing is "the crazy part."
 
2014-03-24 06:27:01 PM  

BigNumber12: redmid17: BigNumber12: spawn73: Kinda like Bratislava in Eurotrip.

Ugh, we've done two two-week trips based around Vienna, and came SO CLOSE to doing a day-trip to Bratislava, just for kicks. Would have been interesting at the very least.

My dad was in Dublin for business and took a quick roundtrip flight to Bratislava for 40-50 bucks on Ryanair after bumping back his normal return flight. He only spent a few hours there. He just wanted to say he did it. Crazy part is he had to pretty much leave Dublin right after he got back from Bratislava.

Hah, I'd say that the whole thing is "the crazy part."


Can't disagree there. My dad could also be classified as the crazy part.
 
2014-03-24 07:02:43 PM  

namegoeshere: He really does have super villain fantasies, doesn't he.

/maniacal laugh
//maniacal laugh


Maybe he's gone insane or has a brain tumour or something.
 
2014-03-24 08:34:39 PM  

germ78: Perhaps all these places with Russian minorities should round up all the Russians and put them on one-way trains back to the homeland? Especially if keeping them around means Russia is going to annex you by force.


THIS.
 
2014-03-24 10:12:33 PM  
i36.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-25 01:01:43 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Moldova is a total sh*thole- it's the poorest country in Europe and was ranked the unhappiest country in the world. Men have to move to other countries to find jobs, and many of the women are used for human trafficking. I'd rather be part of Russia too.


Sounds like Mexico.
 
2014-03-25 02:35:39 AM  

Tatterdemalian: Yes, but the liberals are getting desperate enough for someone (who isn't liberal and therefore actually willing to fight and die in their place) to deal with Bad Ass Vlad that they're not throwing that label around any more.


Have you ever noticed that the people who scream the loudest for International Manly Man Action are all old, pudgy, soft-handed, white elitists who have never done an honest day's work in their lives, much less served?
 
2014-03-25 07:18:23 AM  

TheGregiss: germ78: Perhaps all these places with Russian minorities should round up all the Russians and put them on one-way trains back to the homeland? Especially if keeping them around means Russia is going to annex you by force.

THIS.


Also, "how to get kicked out of the EU".

Be nice to your minorities, or you'll revert back to asshole of Europe status like Moldova and Albania.
 
2014-03-25 10:41:49 AM  

Sammichless: spawn73: Sammichless:

Putin does not have to lose for us to win. His actions might be helping Russia, but, they're helping out the West much more.

I'm sure Ukraine finds solace in that their suffering is for a greater good. :P

Probably not. It is what it is.

I have a question for anyone who may know......

Does our nuclear deterrent protect NATO members from invasion? Do we have an obligation to nuke somebody to protect an ally?


The US is under no obligation to nuke another country for even invading the US. One would hope conventional means would be used to repel an invasion of any country before nukes were just automatically set off.

The US does invite allies to come under the US nuclear umbrella though with the idea that if their defense is backed up by US nuclear arms they will not need to develop their own nuclear arms. It's a means of nuclear nonproliferation by greatly reducing the number of countries who "need" nukes. So, if a major US ally was attacked with nuclear weapons, then yes, the United States would be under a lot of pressure to retaliate in a major way.
 
2014-03-25 07:19:12 PM  

Tatterdemalian: TheGregiss: Some asshole said I was a Neocon for opposing Putin's military expansion.

Am I still a Neocon for thinking Putin is a bad guy with expansionist aims?

Yes, but the liberals are getting desperate enough for someone (who isn't liberal and therefore actually willing to fight and die in their place) to deal with Bad Ass Vlad that they're not throwing that label around any more.

/eventually they'll get scared enough to actually listen to our advice
//probably won't be till after the first nuclear exchange
///at which point the only advice we'll be able to offer is, "Pull your head out of your anus just long enough to kiss your ass goodbye. Oh, and WE TOLD YOU SO."


Keep stroking yourself while imagining that day.
 
2014-03-25 08:12:54 PM  
"Moldova, Europe's poorest nation, and the breakaway republic of Transdniester."

"Despite the mix of ethnicities, sentiment seems to be strongly in favour of a return to the Russian fold."

So Putin would actually be doing the rest of Europe a favor, here.
 
Displayed 150 of 150 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report