Putin, and NATO's decleration of war.

originally posted by: bjarneorn
And no, that isn't what was said. Anders fogh Rasmussen, stated as a fact, that they would do anything in their power to aid Kiev. Those are pretty much his words ...

Er, what were his words then? The Nato Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen has made several speeches of late. These focus on the fact that Nato will protect allies. The defence of Nato and "allies" is used interchangeably, which would be an interesting message for Putin.

Russia is playing with fire. There won't be a direct confrontation over Ukraine, or any overt support, but Russia will not be allowed to do another land grab, of that you can be sure. Land grab, annexation or control is still "invasion" in most people's repertoire. Ukraine is a sovereign nation and Russia just needs to adapt. "Buffers" are just so Soviet.

Regards

a reply to: BobAthome

Khrushchev,, yeah,,,

Khrushev was a fool peasant from Novorossia. The problem with Communist regime that there are no adequate mechanisms to change elites at least comparable to Western weasels.

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: BobAthome

Khrushchev,, yeah,,,

Khrushev was a fool peasant from Novorossia. The problem with Communist regime that there are no adequate mechanisms to change elites at least comparable to Western weasels.

Khrushchev was born in the Russian village of Kalinovka in 1894, close to the present-day border between Russia and Ukraine.

ill let u figure out the rest.


peasant from Novorossia????

bet u would have not called him that too his face,,,in HIS time.

a reply to: BobAthome
Khrushchev was born in the Russian village of Kalinovka in 1894, close to the present-day border between Russia and Ukraine.

And this is the same type of folks like current Novorossia. If you want to quarell about this learn subtle accents of Russian south regions. And don't tell me about present day boundaries. Khrushev was born in Tsarist Russia with different administrative gubernia (districts) boundaries.

P.S. btw Brezhnev was Ukranian lol, if you look only where he was born.
If you so like wikipedia there is a quote

Brezhnev's ethnicity was specified as Ukrainian in some documents,[1][2] including his passport,[3] and Russian in others.[4][5]

a reply to: bjarneorn

You seem very hung up genitalia. This isn't the first time I've seen you refer to Putin as female genitalia as a pejorative. Misogyny?

Putin seems to be rather straight forward to me. I think he's been stronger than the the West, and in particular the current US administration. Power as they say, abhors a vacuum, and Putin was more than happy to secure the strategic point of Sevastopol. This seems mostly to be a failure by the West to secure Russia's security interests. Any diplomatic solution had to occur before the Russian incursion.
Putin will not be talked to death. While the sanctions will hurt Russia, I don't think the lifting of the sanctions will be seen as more valuable than anything the Russians have already taken and secured. I can see through the bluster from my desk; I'm sure the Kremlin is not frightened by our reaction. No response at all is better than a vague threats that noone believes you are willing to carry out anyway. Ultimately, I think that brings us closer to a shooting war in the future.
All the talk about "emboldening enemies" which everyone harped about and scoffed at is true. We're seeing it now, and I'm afraid we'll see it again in the future when someone (probably China, but maybe NK or Russia or Iran or ...) decides they can take what they want based on our response to the Ukraine. And maybe we decide that time it is of vital interest to respond militarily. Then we're in a shooting a war.

a reply to: _Del_

US crossed or rather bypassed the UN in Serbia and then in Iraq 2003. No one could or prefer to do anything. Main reason, these two powers were non-nuclear. Russia is MAJORLY nuclear so no point going military with them. US did however go ahead with sanctions and like any measure, these have the tendency to backfire too. Europeans stand to lose alot in that scenario and hence even sanctions were not too harsh, atleast for the moment.

IMHO, it would be idiotic for Kremlin to not have NovoRossiya carved out as a separate state now. If that does not happen then in 5 years Ukraine will be in NATO i.e. merely 200 kms from Moscow. Ukraine in NATO will start a chain reaction of many sorts that are hostile to Russian interests.

Btw, talking about military shooting war, here is a question regarding F-22s, given that you are a air defense expert.

The IRST feature in Su-35 or Rafale can look and track an infrared image of any plane ranging from 60 to 120 kms. What if this IRST is planted on a 100 foot pole and then placed "vertical looking" to track any plane flying at say 33,000 feet. That is barely 11 kms height and IRSTs can look at a distance of 60 kms and up. Would these goodies places at lots of places on map grids and sharing data with each other be able to search and track Stealth planes the moment they enter the map area of any country.

Look forward to your inputs. (not make fun of this query though, i am just a civilian amateur in the military stuff).

a reply to: victor7

If that does not happen then in 5 years Ukraine will be in NATO

Victor, you are very optimistic about time frames.
If the current trend doesn't stop we are at most 3 months before Nuclear Apocalypses.
US and whole world financial system need to be resettled way before 5 years. They can't wait 5 years to
occupy and steal resources from Russia.

originally posted by: victor7

IMHO, it would be idiotic for Kremlin to not have NovoRossiya carved out as a separate state now.

I certainly think that will be the goal, and possibly the end result. Short of military intervention, I see no reason for Russia to settle for anything less. There is nothing, carrot or stick, that can be presented by the West that holds more value than what they already hold in physical presence in that region and Crimea/Sevastopol.
I am not advocating military intervention; I am merely presenting the reality of the current situation. There is no motivation for Russia to leave. They'd rather deal with the pain of the sanctions than leave the Ukraine. This should have been hashed out diplomatically, securing and assuring Russian access to Sevastopol. Russia (understandably) will never allow themselves to be locked out of the Black Sea port. It is of vital geopolitical interest. The West should have made every effort to assure them that that access would be recognized and affirmed, and not be denied, no matter the government in Kiev. Perhaps they tried, but clearly in the end, the Kremlin was not sufficiently assured.
I don't think that NATO or the EU have the desire for a shooting war with Russia. They will use the sanctions and things like the Mistral sale as bargaining chips to settle score on a new status quo going forward. NATO will ask for a return to status quo ante bellum, but unless they are willing to come to blows (and they aren't), they'll be stuck with new lines on the map if that is Russia's end game.
Ultimately, I think it's counter-productive for Russia in the long haul. They could probably achieve their geopolitcal goals concerning the region diplomatically without the sanctions or the fallout. This will push all the Baltic states closer to NATO and things like theatre missile defense in Poland and forward staging by the US are all going to be pushed ahead because of this.

What if this IRST is planted on a 100 foot pole and then placed "vertical looking" to track any plane flying at say 33,000 feet. That is barely 11 kms height and IRSTs can look at a distance of 60 kms and up. Would these goodies places at lots of places on map grids and sharing data with each other be able to search and track Stealth planes the moment they enter the map area of any country.

Those sensors have a limited field of view and there is a lot of cubic airspace to cover even in a relatively small national border. There are many passive IR systems available. IR is rapidly attenuated by common atmospheric conditions. It's not perfect, but it is worth investing in. A comprehensive system like you are describing, however, would be extremely costly and complicated. Better to protect small regions than try to protect the entire border. The Russians typically invest all their eggs in a relatively small number of baskets. It is very effective. “He who defends everything defends nothing," as Fredrick II once said.

a reply to: _Del_

This will push all the Baltic states closer to NATO a

You have a weighed professional views on the topic, but knowledge about already drawn political lines is bit
lacking. Baltic states are in NATO 10 or more years already. Ukraine is the last straw, that is why I feel very pessimistic.

What are you, like 14? What's up with all the balls and pussy? Maybe once or something for effect but jeez dude...

Of all the world leaders stirring the aggression pot in recent years, Putin worries me the most. Kim Jong-un and Assad are foppish amateurs in comparison in my opinion because they don't have the background experience Putin does: old-school KGB colonel that recruited spies, former member of the Soviet communist party, lifelong education and experience in international law and politics, plus supposed involvement in dozens of high-profile assassinations of dissidents, journalists and whistleblowers over the decades paint this main in a rosy picture: he is a hard-line, no-nonsense, Cold War-trained dictator who gets things done his way.

Putin cannot lose Ukraine to NATO because that area is his petroleum and natural gas gateway to the European Union; if Ukraine goes NATO then the United Kingdom and the United States would essentially be in control of their distribution network, through which trillions of dollars flows.

He will go to war over this, make no mistake about it. That's his country's economic lifeblood. The Chinese pipelines aren't built yet, and the Russian economy won't run on timber and vodka exports alone in the interim.

a reply to: bjarneorn

In a game of chess, it is not about who can scream the loudest, or who talks the most. Its all about strategy. So I wouldn't be calling Putin a pussy yet. If he was a pussy he would have cowered when US and NATO said There Will be consequences for annexing Crimea. But Putin let caution to the wind. Crimea is geographically vital. Without it Russia would/could not get to the Mediterranean sea unless it went around the artic. So say what you will. I Think Putin is giving the US strategist a big headache.

a reply to: f0xbat

Crimea is geographically vital. Without it Russia would/could not get to the Mediterranean sea unless it went around the artic.

Wrong. Crimea is important because it is historically and culturally Russia.
There are other ports in Russian Black sea that can be used.

Also, Putin is weakling, if i would be in his place i would already first strike Nuclear over D.C. just because of general american ignorance about geography lol.

originally posted by: kitzik

Also, Putin is weakling, if i would be in his place i would already first strike Nuclear over D.C. just because of general american ignorance about geography lol.

Thank god you are not in his position. Only a fool would fire a first strike nuclear weapon at an opponent who has the capability to assure mutual destruction. People of Russia and the world can sleep a little easy.

The slurs against Mr Putin are un earned....Hes a strong and wiley guy if he can come to the Russian presidency out of the KGB.....
On the other hand he has billions investyed in petroleum....Its the mainstay of his personal fortune.....
How would a lowly Colonel get the wealth Putin has accumulated.......blackmail possibly.....collusion with the Russian mafia maybe.....
At any rate...hes a billionaire and he has the same weaknesses that all rich people have....

a reply to: f0xbat

mutual destruction

Mutual destruction is better choice over submission.

But you can sleep well, it is unlikely I will ever become Czar or Dictator of "ALL RUSSIAS" (proper title of Russian Tsar).
People In Russia don't trust people of my nationality lol, thats why they prefered Stalin to Trotskiy.

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: _Del_

This will push all the Baltic states closer to NATO a

You have a weighed professional views on the topic, but knowledge about already drawn political lines is bit
lacking. Baltic states are in NATO 10 or more years already. Ukraine is the last straw, that is why I feel very pessimistic.

All three are in NATO and the EU. There are currently no permanent NATO bases in the Baltic states. All three are now clamoring for them and will likely get them. All three, though particularly Latvia have tried to engage with Russia to varying degrees. Latvia has engaged in multiple bilateral agreements wih Russia.

a reply to: _Del_

Latvia has engaged in multiple bilateral agreements with Russia.

Latvia have some territorial dispute with Russia, claiming territory from Russia.
en.wikipedia.org...

Sure, if there would be full backing of NATO, this can also spark a war.

Speaking about Latvia bit more. Although Latvia is the member Of EU and NATO, or rather because of this
western countries turning a blind eye to the yearly parade of SS WAFFEN veterans.
And I mean real Latvian SS that fought in ww2.

a reply to: _Del_

Thanks Del, my guess was too that IRST might have peek through several layers of clouds and signal would get weak. May be if such a system is put 200 kms further ahead of the S-400's range of stealth detection then little bit of advanced warning would be there and might thwart F-22s firing off their stealth JSAMs right at the edge of S-400s detection range. Another possibility is to put these on the cheap UAVs flying at various heights. How many missiles would F-22s spend up to clear out the UAVs before running them out. Using the machine gun cannon might give F-22 away unless stealth bullets are used. I think Raptors can carry 8 missiles or something. Now how cheap can a UAV be is the question.

Regarding Ukraine and all near abroad politics there is a saying................weakness invites aggression, in other words, if you want peace then prepare for war.

Russia is mired in state corruption to chronic levels. $3-5B is stolen from state and sent overseas every single month. Corruption also increase the price of goods and services to common people as vendors paying bribes have to recoup these somewhere. Hence a vast majority of people in a corrupt state do not have much disposable incomes to spend on extra, other than basic goodies and thus fuel the economy.

Only in last few years, Russian military is getting extra funds and goodies. Till the time Russia shows such overall "not so strong" levels of defense preparedness it will be tested here and there in the geopolitics terms.

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: victor7

If that does not happen then in 5 years Ukraine will be in NATO

Victor, you are very optimistic about time frames.
If the current trend doesn't stop we are at most 3 months before Nuclear Apocalypses.
US and whole world financial system need to be resettled way before 5 years. They can't wait 5 years to
occupy and steal resources from Russia.

I am not that pessimistic to even consider nuclear war. However, if NATO wants to really speed things up and overlook few factors then Ukraine can be in the alliance in 1 year or so. Then for Russia to even send a tank or BTR with handful soldiers would be an invasion of sorts if going totally by the books.