Russia declares war on Ukraine. Live updates from inside Ukraine

reply to post by Rocker2013


you are completely right on all your points IF majority of the world countries can ignore Russia economically.

which they can't.

they can at very high cost.

I am sure they would like to ignore, isolate Russia but I really doubt that will happen.

as we speak, deals between the countries are going on.

as for Sochi - you understand that the money spent is good spent, right?

Sochi Construction

demus
reply to post by Rocker2013

 

you are completely right on all your points IF majority of the world countries can ignore Russia economically.

which they can't.

they can at very high cost.

I am sure they would like to ignore, isolate Russia but I really doubt that will happen.

as we speak, deals between the countries are going on.

as for Sochi - you understand that the money spent is good spent, right?

Sochi Construction

for example:

Adding more fuel to the flames in Washington were public remarks by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in which they maintained their "neutrality" and failed to back up the United States. "We have good and trusting relations with the Americans and the Russians, and our experience has been very positive with both sides. So I don't understand the idea that Israel has to get mired in this," Lieberman told Israel's Channel 9 television when asked about the Ukraine crisis.

U.S. officials angry: Israel doesn’t back stance on Russia

demus
do you (along with few other individuals here) really believe all that you just said?

Its a possibility that has merit and should be looked at. When you review Putin's actions after the collapse, its consistent. One day it becomes inconsistent and he starts behaving in a manner that is a complete 180 from the norm. Sure anyone can change, but there are usually signs that can be seen with the 20/20 perspective. From everything I have seen, this change seems to have been triggered by 1 incident - Ukraine.

A country that Russian Supporters don't care much for, make comments about how back Crimea was / Ukraine is. If that's so, and that is Putin's position, then explain the invasion?

demus
do you really believe that Putin/Russia is losing here?

In the long term - Absolutely.
The Russian economy is not as solid as its being portrayed. The investments in Crimea will be very expensive to bring them to the level Russia promised. Russia was using the gas card which I truly believe exploded in his face. I think he has miscalculated the response, assuming Europe / West would allow Russia to treat Ukraine any way he wanted, so long as they get their gas.

I think he felt Merkel, would is point for the EU response, most likely because they have the largest trade balance with Russia - about 60 billion in trade a year. I think he felt Merkel would not support an action that would economically hurt Germany. I think it threw him when Europe started looking for other sources of fuel.

Energy is 25% of Russia's income / budget. When you start loosing those funds, the situation becomes more problematic. Sure there will be other buyers but one has to ask themselves. What type of discount would be required to allow some of these countries to purchase gas? Each country has their own financial needs, own currencies and some countries would not be able to purchase at the prices the west / Ukraine are being charged.

The other issue with economics -
Russia exports more than just gas. If the countries who buy those other items from Russia opt to stop buying because of Russian actions, you will lose even more income, again putting strains on budgeting for all he wants. Again their are other countries who could possibly fill the gap by buying Russian items however the amount they purchase is not going to be the same amount that the EU / Ukraine were buying.

When you lose a market, you look for new ones. Where would Russia find a country / countries that would switch and import Russian items to the extent to make up for the loss of the EU / West markets? Everything above is centered solely on Europe / West. That does not include the response of Asian / African / South American nations / markets.

Defense Sector -
Putin has announced his plans for the military, spending about 20 trillion rubles to upgrade and modernize the military with completion expected to be around 2020 +/-.

Everything Russia / Putin has promised is now in jeopardy, especially if you factor a war into the equation. In those instances civil projects slow while military projects get priority.

demus
do you really believe Putin's decisions are not sane?

Based on comparison from when he took office up until now I would say he's lost touch with reality somewhere. To use a Nazi comparison (bear with me) he is almost acting in the same manner Hitler did when Berlin was being taken.

Hitler kept giving orders to generals to relocate their units to different areas to repulse the Russian advance. The issues was Hitler was trying to give orders to military units that no longer were a fighting force. He could not grasp that and instead blamed the generals for not fighting hard enough. Hitler truly thought he had a chance, using those non existent units, to win the war on both fronts.

Hitler opted for suicide (leaving the conspiracy of him being alive out of it).
While I don't think Putin would kill himself, I am concerned he may instead resort to non traditional weapons. The same could be said about north Korea.

Anyways sorry for the lengthy post. Bear in mind this is my opinion based on what I am seeing.

ufoorbhunter


The fact that there is a German nation today is largely a miracle. In many respects a total annihilation of Germany and it's people could have been expected in 1945, but the Soviets were unbelievably forgiving

edit on 13-4-2014 by ufoorbhunter because: (no reason given)

Please, the Soviets were just as dirty, as far as land grabbing, and just as bent on world conquest. Do you not remember what they did in Finland? Everyone likes to forget that. Poland? Unbelievably forgiving? Oh yes, they were such amazing people.

demus
you wrote so much yet said nothing.

Keep it civil please. The end of my post I stated it was my 2 cents worth - IE opinion.

demus
police stations and government buildings are symbols and means of rule, government.

Which I pointed out in my post.

demus
that is why such targets are primary when taking over a control.

For psychological reasons yes. For military reasons not so much. While it made sense in the past, in todays day and age a fixed location can spell disaster. Until that city is pacified and the front moves away from it, they will be targeted.

demus
how would you assume control over a city/territory if you left police stations, other strategically important buildings under control of enemy?

The same way the Germans did when they blitzed and the same way the allies did in WWII in the Pacific theatre.

They bypassed more heavily defended areas and continued their advance. By staying put in those areas, it allowed the Germans and the allies to create pockets to contain those areas. Once an operation is stable you come back to those areas and whittle them away using a siege mentality.

Any army / fighting force is only as effective as their supply lines. Cut the line and it results in defensive mentality that will force the surrounded units to start conserving everything in order to hold out. The surrounding forces can then pick and choose where they will attack.

demus
all the points you discussed are secondary.

Possibly but looking at the entire picture, at least in my opinion, those secondary issues go hand in hand with an advancing army.

reply to post by Xcathdra


1. Crimea is important - probably more than we know so I don't understand "explain the invasion" question.
Invasion never happened. You already know what happened.
If you wish to call it invasion you can but it is clear that Putin for one reason or another had to have Crimea join Russian Federation.

2. Economy?
All you said about economy is again true, except that the countries that are exporting/importing to and from Russia are not doing so because they like Russia or Russians but because of nice, sweet money.
Russia cannot find a new market overnight?
No country in the world can find new market for it's goods overnight.
I don't understand why you think Russia will "lose markets" when they are very important market themselves.

3. Hitler?
It's already getting old.
There are some similarities but overall, the situation is completely different.

First and most important, Russia do not target, based on racist laws, minorities in it's own country.
Completely the opposite of what the Hitler did first, don't you think?
So you and others should stop with the "Hitler rant", it's nothing like that.

ufoorbhunter
What? You believe that Kaliningrad should be returned after what the Germans did to the USSR. They destroyed the country, in some ways it still hasn't recovered, they murdered 29 million people. There's no way you can compensate for the 29 million with land, but I seriously doubt Russians see it as you do.

Because at the end of WWII the allies, all of them including Russia, agreed to return control of territories / nations back to the respective owners.

The allies complied.
The Russians did not with Stalin keeping almost all of E. Europe in addition to Kaliningrad.

The flaw I see in your position is the fact E. Germany was under occupation after the war by the Russians. Are you suggesting only W. Germany should be punished? If he was ok giving up E. Germany instead of leveling to dirt, then Kaliningrad should hve been returned as well.

Using Putin's own argument - The territory of Kaliningrad was sovereign German territory until Soviet Occupation. Since the Russians refuse to allow a referendum, shouldn't Germany be able to take it by force?

Xcathdra
Until that city is pacified and the front moves away from it, they will be targeted.

demus
how would you assume control over a city/territory if you left police stations, other strategically important buildings under control of enemy?

The same way the Germans did when they blitzed and the same way the allies did in WWII in the Pacific theatre.

until the city where people revolt against the current government is pacified; I think that is already happening and also may be a reason for such tactics.

also explains why they are not doing what Germans did:

different situation - different tactics - different strategic targets.

demus
1. Crimea is important - probably more than we know so I don't understand "explain the invasion" question.
Invasion never happened. You already know what happened.
If you wish to call it invasion you can but it is clear that Putin for one reason or another had to have Crimea join Russian Federation.

I will respectfully agree to disagree on the invasion question.

demus
2. Economy?
All you said about economy is again true, except that the countries that are exporting/importing to and from Russia are not doing so because they like Russia or Russians but because of nice, sweet money.

Sure, but the loss of European markets, in addition to possibly 100 other nations that condemned Russian actions in Crimea.

demus
Russia cannot find a new market overnight?
No country in the world can find new market for it's goods overnight.
I don't understand why you think Russia will "lose markets" when they are very important market themselves.

Are they important themselves?

Again respectfully I disagree and here is why. Russia is already experiencing some effects from the sanctions. Those nations that are placing sanctions on Russia means as lucrative as the Russian market looks, they cant invest in it. You then have banks who are refusing loans to businesses linked to Russia because of sanctions. Without financing and markets to replace the ones lost will force Russia to make do with what she has. It also has the effect of foreign investment drying up so they are not sanctions by their own country for violating the sanction. The investors also look down on trying to spend millions / billions in Russian areas close to the "front". Why spend millions or billions in an area where a war is possible?

demus
3. Hitler?
It's already getting old.
There are some similarities but overall, the situation is completely different.

When I refer to Hitler I am referring to their strategies to achieve the military goals they set / PR goal's they set. We can agree to disagree on Germanys execution of those plans with regard's to people / certain groups.

demus
First and most important, Russia do not target, based on racist laws, minorities in it's own country.

Uhm ok. What about Konigsberg and Tartars - 2 groups in Russia who were mass departed starting after WWII.

A nation does not have to have a race law in order to claim they don't discriminate on race. When the Russian government allows targeted actions against a minority people based solely on the fact they are a minority, is in fact racism. It means while the law may say everyone is equal, refusing to enforce that law when blatant racial discrimination occurs towards minorities is again racism.

demus
Completely the opposite of what the Hitler did first, don't you think?
So you and others should stop with the "Hitler rant", it's nothing like that.

edit on 13-4-2014 by demus because: limiting the awerness

Actually no its not the opposite of the Nuremberg Race Laws. Actually Russia race discrimination started prior to Germanys own laws, with Russia's in 1930 and Germany in 1937. Putin's actions mimic Nazi mindset / strategic views / Stalin / strategic views.

Why are Tartars being forced to relocate out of Crimea?
Why is Russia gung ho about protecting ethnic Russians yet does not give a damn about the minorities?
The very basis of Russian Race Discrimination are enshrined in the recent words of Putin -
"We will protect ethnic Russians. "

A doctrine and law, as authorized by the Russian government at the request of Putin, that only protects a single group of people. Just like the Hitler's Nuremberg Laws and Putin's law on protecting only a single group of people. Don't forget about Stalin and his actions / laws.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I don't think Putin's insane, I think he got some information from Snowden. Maybe we had something planned and he's acting first. Maybe Snowden gave up our long game. Maybe he somehow knows the full extent of what we can do about it. Maybe the ONLY reason we would welcome Ukraine in the EU is to screw Russia. Maybe how he handled the Syria issue was based on Snowden info, and now he has confidence in the info. Either way this reeks of insider trading.

I am convinced Snowden ties into this somehow. We really f'd up, we should have dropped the charges just to get him back here and SHUT UP.

I see parallels with both world wars to be honest. And this nasty situation could well escalate into another world war. Except it may well go nuclear. I honestly think Putin has lost the plot. He is becoming a very bitter man with a lot of anger issues. Not a good thing when you have your finger on the nuclear button. I never did like Putin. Not that I know or have met him. It's just my gut feeling that this guy is bad news and will potentially be the end of us all. He is looking back to a SOVIET era and has no intention of breaking away from that past or his KGB mould. What Russia needs is someone who is prepared to look forwards and throw off the long shadow of it's communist past. If other Eastern European countries like Czech Republic and Poland can do it, why cant Russia? Part of the answer is that Russia has never truly known democracy apart from a brief moment pre Russian Revolution with the Dumas. I have no argument with the Russian people. It is the politicians. My personal opinion is that Putin stole the chance of democracy after Yeltsin died and he took over. And this has led up to where the world is finding itself today. At a dangerous crossroads. This crisis will lead to either war or it can be stopped with diplomacy. And all because Putin has visions of recreating a Greater Russian Empire.

Wirral Bagpuss
..... And this has led up to where the world is finding itself today. At a dangerous crossroads. This crisis will lead to either war or it can be stopped with diplomacy. And all because Putin has visions of recreating a Greater Russian Empire.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

* - Albert Einstein

reply to post by Xcathdra


of course I was talking about present day Russia and Putin.

Other countries had it's own racial laws back in a days, USA being one of them.

One poster just mentioned Snowden and Putin actions as a counter - attack.

I am thinking along similar terms.

maybe it's not Snowden but to me it is clear that Putin actions are projected to counteract something...

"attack is the best defense" said one chinese long time ago.

only similarity between Hitler's actions and Putin's actions is using made up or real threat to citizens of Germany/Russia to achieve some strategic goals.

Xcathdra


The allies complied.
The Russians did not with Stalin keeping almost all of E. Europe in addition to Kaliningrad.

The Allied losses were absolutely incomparable to the Soviet losses. Britain and America were sitting on the fence compared to the USSR, they were a side show that only created a real front when victory over Nazi Gerany was 100% guaranteed. They had no right to take land as compensation, the Soviets had every right.

The war inflicted on the west by Nazi forces was different to that in the east. In the east it was total war, the way the Nazis treated civilians and POWs was in a different class. The Soviet Union was effectively destroyed in areas of Nazi occupation.

British or US casualties were about 1 person for every 100 Soviets killed. You just can't compare the Allies post war response to German reparations when looking at this figure.

This may have been posted already but just saw the following:

PzFeed Top News
@PzFeed
BREAKING: Ukraine's acting president says has decided to launch "full scale anti-terrorist operation" in east with use of armed forces

opethPA
This may have been posted already but just saw the following:

PzFeed Top News
@PzFeed
BREAKING: Ukraine's acting president says has decided to launch "full scale anti-terrorist operation" in east with use of armed forces

Yes BBC reporting this too right new, released by Reuters. "Full scale" possibly means English speaking mercenaries. It's send 'em in now or maybe never for Putin.

reply to post by opethPA


Unfortunately this is exactly the kind of escalation the Russian tactical strategists want to happen. It would be used to justify a strong Russian response, and perhaps an overt incursion which could lead to an invasion.

Also unfortunate for Ukraine, is that they are likely damned if they do and damned if they don't now.

During the Crimean crisis I tended to believe that Putin's securing of the peninsula was both justified and required in order to stabilise that region. Crimea was and remains an unique circumstance, but I fail to see how other regions of the Ukraine can seek to follow Crimea? The fact that Putin has not reduced the number of troops along the Eastern Ukraine border remains a disturbing presence, and thus the questions to be asked is...why were they assembled there in the first place and why do they remain?

Putin is neither stupid or naive. He hasn't lost the plot, but probably has information which we here on ATS can only speculate on. We are seeing the fomentation of political and cultural fracture in the Ukraine, and I do not doubt that 'agent provocateurs' are being used on both sides...but is this truly just between Ukraine and Russia?

If it was simply an issue between Ukraine and Russia, I believe both sides would be working diplomatically to iron out their differences, but the real problem is not in the government buildings, but that toxic nationalistic ideologies at street level, where ordinary people meet and go about their daily affairs, are being peddled to make the Ukraine a powder keg for Putin.

To be honest, I am confused and at a loss as to understand the current situation which is continuing to occur in the Ukraine. Putin's troops are massed on the border waiting for a collapse of law and order to occur in the Ukraine, and will probably enter Ukraine once the current Ukraine administration loses control of its streets. If Russian troops enter Ukraine it would work for both sides, but would be peddled by the West and factions in the Ukraine as an invasion. Russian troops would restore a semblance of order and it would be in Putin's best interests to play advocate for both sides. In other words, to maintain order to allow dialogue to continue, because without that dialogue, the Ukraine will fall into utter chaos, something Putin simply cannot allow, but which the West, caring little for the Ukraine people, would like nothing better to see. A chaotic Ukraine would undermine Putin's economic and financial ambitions.

The West may well issue threat after threat after threat towards Russia, and continually paint it as the aggressor, but the West is not about to enter into a war, conventional or otherwise, with Russia for the sake of the Ukraine. No! The West is simply happy to bring chaos to the Ukraine to mire Putin in a political pool of quicksand.

For Putin to harbour expansionist plans to re-enlarge Russia to something mirroring the Soviet era would be a massive mistake, and it would most certainly bring a full stop to Russia's economic and financial growth. The Soviet Union was an entity that could not be afforded which is why it collapsed in the first place, which is why I cannot see Putin seeking to make land grabs and expand Russia. He needs the Ukraine to become stable, and at the moment, he cannot achieve this, but his patience may well wear thin on the riotous events continuing to plague the Ukraine.

Some mad scenes going on here. www.ustream.tv...

Seems like a pro Russian group have been surrounded by a larger group of pro Ukrainians. Scary situation.

reply to post by demus


I think one should note here that in the East of Ukraine, there are not "widespread revolts" against Kiev, but rather small groups of well armed "Russians" taking advantage of the power vacuum. Most protests have struggled to get past the 1,000 people mark. Hardly a mandate to declare yourself an independent state or to take over Government buildings.

o post by ufoorbhunter


Comparing casualties like that is a misleading argument. The Soviet Unions losses largely stemmed from their own strategies and tactics as much as any German actions. In the early part of the War, soldiers would be recruited in the morning, trained over lunch and be on the front by dinner, often with inadequate weaponry if any at all.

Also, one has to remember the Purges of the Soviet Army prior to the War which left the Red Army bereft of most of it's competent commanders and junior officers - those that were left did really stupid things rather than go against the orders of Stalin, in fear of their lives. leading to some disastrous battles the likes of which hadn't been seen since the 1st World War. It wasn't unusual for the Soviets to throw whole divisions into the mix just to try and cross a river, in some cases losing 20,000 men in a day.