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 151
    More: Interesting, Moldova, Transdniestria, Crimean, Moldovan, democracy  
•       •       •

8549 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Mar 2014 at 9:39 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 12:50:05 PM  

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

/maniacal laugh
//maniacal laugh


Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 151 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report