Jump to content
Chops

Backstory events sliding toward Nonfiction

Recommended Posts

Lucas,

Sburke,

ok, but then this must be valid for ALL.

Rules that are only applied selectively are no rules. Rules must be valid for all participants. Why is this always and only raised when I post and not when others do the same, when they attack Russia or suggest that Putin wants to annex Ukraine and much more?

I think this behaviour is highly unjust.

You can argue that point with Steve if you like, just trying to make you aware that you are skirting the edge fair, unfair or whatever.  I don't make the rules, just observing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally i consider this to be private property. Battlefront are the ones who pay for the servers, so they make the rules. It is quite simple.They offers their customers a board to discuss their games. They probably do this because it attracts interest in their products and helps them tracing bugs. The players in turn get a place where like minded people can meet online, discuss the games, find opponents, share mods, etc. Everybody profits. However, this place is still Battlefronts property. When you are a guest at somebody elses house, you respect the house owners rules. If you dont like it there, you are always free to leave.

 

Some much for who think makes the rules.

 

 

Regarding Skinfaxis statement that he is beeing trated unjustly and that only his posts are unwelcome:

 

You registered on this board 3 days ago. I do not think that you have enough information to make an objective judgement on how people discuss political differences on this board. Your statement that you and only you are treated in any particular way is baseless speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have banned skinfaxi for 4 days because he simply refuses to listen to my many warnings. I don't give a flying Fig Newton if he doesn't understand how his behavior is different from others. That is his problem and should not be suffered by other Forum members.

Hopefully the enforced time out will give him pause for thought next time. If it doesn't, then the ban will be extended. Perhaps permanently.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skinfaxi A number of people, including the forum admnistrator have kindly requested that you drop it. Please do so. I could very easily pick holes in your last post if I were so minded and so could any of the other very well forum members here. However' this forum is intended for discussion of the CMBS wargame, not for discussion of the real world politics behind it.

This, BTW, is the crux of the issue.

Obviously it is impossible for us to discuss any of this without some degree of bias showing through. It is an incidental side effect of discussion. I accept that and I think everybody else does as well. However, there is a big difference between that and someone clearly intending to direct the conversation away from the topic being discussed. The more the comments are disconnected from the topic, the more problematic it becomes.

Skinfaxi crossed that line several times and was warned that he had strayed out of incidental political views. For example, merely mentioning Secretary of State Kerry is evidence enough since what the heck does he have to do with ANYTHING that is being discussed here? Absolutely nothing.

Patterns of behavior are also important. Anybody who has been on a forum for any length of time can sense when someone has an axe to grind. Axe grinders are more interested in pushing their own narrow agenda instead of working with others. For me, with 16 years of moderating the 1.5 million posts on this Forum, I am not someone that can be fooled. I can often spot an axe grinder within 2-3 posts. They as obvious as they are unwelcome.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, I'm and axe grinder then. Occasional one by this forum's standards. First time I hear of this term though. Funny visuals come to my mind. :)

Edited by Hister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't really agree with people that are saying nothing bigger then it currently is can come out of this mess. Things can quickly go off the dodo under such circumstances.

Yes :(

This is the overall premise for the war in Black Sea. Each of the three sides make mistakes based on bad assumptions. No one mistake or bad assumption leads to war, but the collection of them do.

It is a bit similar to the direct start of WWI. Russia was extremely unhappy with what the Austro-Hungarian Empire was doing in the Balkans. When diplomacy failed the Tzar figured he needed to back up his words with a credible military threat. To do that he had to mobilize military forces. Germany, who was allied with A-H, had a policy to not allow the Russians to have a huge army massed along its border. The German thinking was pragmatic... once Russia gathered its strength, Germany would not be able to fight it and the western countries who definitely wanted a war (England and France).

So individual decisions were made by individual states for their own individual reasons with their own individual goals. The result was something that all nations quickly regretted starting. But by then, it was too late.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, I'm and axe grinder then. Occasional one by this forum's standards.

Yes, which is why you almost got yourself a vacation from the Forum in the other thread. Fortunately, you did pay attention to the warnings. Eventually ;)

 

First time I hear of this term though. Funny visuals come to my mind. :)

cover.jpg

It is the purpose of the term :D It is someone who is focused on making a sharp axe, even when there is no purpose of having an axe at all. We actually have it as part of the Forum's official definition of bad behavior:

 

5. Axe Grinder - it is only natural that people will occasionally have to agree to disagree. An Axe Grinder is someone who goes out of his/her way to make sure that such a topic remains a thorn in the side of an individual or the Forums in general. Usually it resurfaces in the form of snide comments or opinions restated as if previous debates never occurred. This causes old arguments, that likely have no resolution, to spark up again. This is inherently different from a "pet peeve" that is brought up within the context of some discussion, especially if it is acknowledged that opinions differ. Though after a while the distinction may be lost due to repetition.

And the other obvious issue that often goes along with it:

 

4. Hijacker - topics are created around a certain idea and the first post usually defines its scope. Threads naturally shift, expand, and contract as they progress. Some people, however, try to unnaturally change the subject or scope for one or more reasons. Usually it is to get the attention of one or more people actively posting in that particular thread. Unintentional hijacking is common so usually a friendly indication of this by a fellow Member is all that is needed to put things right again. However, very rarely a Member does this habitually and therefore is a general distraction to the Forum as a whole.

http://community.battlefront.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm in need of a vacation. Does Battlefront cover the expenses? I was thinking about going to French Alps for a week. ;) 

 

Sorry again Steve for being a stubborn axe grinder in that thread. Ok, I'm doing it again right now aren't I, eh eh? :rolleyes:  

 

151.jpg

 

 

This thread topic can hardly avoid political talk though. You might want to sharpen your own axe Steve.  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, what were we talking about?

Interview article today with Strelkov, interesting in that his assertion is Putin is trapped on Ukraine issue. He gives a history to his own actions and while they may or may not be factual, it is an interesting plot line in terms of the OP. In essence the position is one where getting out is inherently as difficult as just upping the ante. Strelkov doesn't really elaborate, but the plot line in CMBS of multiple parties all reacting from different perceptions becomes more and more plausible. Even the NATO head is warning that military aid is inherently risky as we need to judge what that will mean in Russia. Whether one agrees with the Russian position or not or even whether one considers it justified or not, it still needs to be weighed in the equation of what is the end goal.

I think most of us feel the spring is going to determine whether this escalates. The current separatist offensive appears to have slowed for whatever reasons. While they might feel a bit optimistic, they have also extended the frontline in a way they will find difficult to defend without serious continued aid. Western military aid is too late to assist in the current situation, it would be more targeted to helping Ukraine come spring. That aid in turn ups the ante for what Russia feels it needs to put forward to accomplish it's goals which aren't even clear.

There was another interesting article of a worst case for Russian foreign policy and that is what if Germany gets drawn into a position of actively contributing to Ukraine's defense. The position put out in this article is the nature of US-Russian relations is global. There is more on the table there and less of a direct U.S. Interest in Eastern Europe. Germany however has long history both good and bad going back centuries of relations with Eastern Europe. What Russia potentially risks is something similar to China regarding Japan, a tipping point where the inertia since WW2 of asserting a role that is mostly remembered from that one war is overcome. Both Germany and Japan have a much longer history of political and military involvement that has been temporairily set aside after the horrors of the Second World War. Russia may very well succeed in bringing Germany out of the defensive stance it has maintained for 70 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was another interesting article of a worst case for Russian foreign policy and that is what if Germany gets drawn into a position of actively contributing to Ukraine's defense. The position put out in this article is the nature of US-Russian relations is global. There is more on the table there and less of a direct U.S. Interest in Eastern Europe. Germany however has long history both good and bad going back centuries of relations with Eastern Europe. What Russia potentially risks is something similar to China regarding Japan, a tipping point where the inertia since WW2 of asserting a role that is mostly remembered from that one war is overcome. Both Germany and Japan have a much longer history of political and military involvement that has been temporairily set aside after the horrors of the Second World War. Russia may very well succeed in bringing Germany out of the defensive stance it has maintained for 70 years.

 

That's an interesting argument. Could you post a link to that article?

 

My country is indeed in a strange postition in this crisis. During the Schröder government, there was a drive to closer ties with Russia, as a kind of counter-balance to the transatlantic relationship, which was highly strained by the 2003 Iraq invasion. This also played well in the German population, where there's quite a bit of latent Anti-Americanism. It also scared the eastern NATO countries quite a bit, for obvious historical reasons.

 

Now, the Merkel government needs to roll back some of this closer relationship with Russia (even if it means damaging the German economy and troubling her coalition partner, the social democrats). However, I find it highly unlikely that Germany will find itself in a postion of actively opposing Russia with anything besides economic sanctions. This would not work with the current coalition government, and it would also be at odds with the majority of the German population.

 

The only way this might change, in my opinion, would be in case of an active military threat against Poland or the Baltic states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point of sburke's to focus on is that this is not a "one sided" event. I know very well that the Russian point of view is that everything is being decided in Washington and they are merely reacting to it. This is not a position that neither facts nor logic support. It would mean that Russia has no foreign policy or that it has made zero attempt to direct events to its advantage.

While there can be debate about what Russia is and isn't doing, it is absolute insanity to argue that Russia is doing *nothing* at all. Additionally, it is pretty obvious that Ukraine means more to Russia than it does to anybody other than the Ukrainians, so I would further state that it is insane to suggest that Russia isn't the one most interested in getting "its way" in this crisis. In summary, Russia is not a passive actor in this drama, nor is it lacking an agenda.

For sure US, Europe, and NATO are also actively involved. One can debate exactly what their goals are or how involved they have been in the whole crisis, but for sure they are. Like Russia, they have interests and, like Russia, they are going to act to protect those interests.

Ukraine is the one that generally gets left out of the discussion, in particular by those in support of Russia's interests. Ukraine has clearly decided that it wants to determine its own future. Clearly there is war being waged on its territory and without any doubt Russia is in no small part responsible for it continuing. Only a fool would argue to the contrary. Which means Ukraine is making decisions that are in its self interest and inherently in conflict with those of Russia, but potentially also with the West.

What this all means is that there are multiple parties all trying to achieve certain goals from this crisis. This means they are inherently at odds with each other. In particular those of Ukraine and of Russia. The war will only be resolved when Ukraine and Russia have an agreement both are willing to live with. Until that time, the war will continue and the risk of escalation will remain.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an interesting argument. Could you post a link to that article?

 

My country is indeed in a strange postition in this crisis. During the Schröder government, there was a drive to closer ties with Russia, as a kind of counter-balance to the transatlantic relationship, which was highly strained by the 2003 Iraq invasion. This also played well in the German population, where there's quite a bit of latent Anti-Americanism. It also scared the eastern NATO countries quite a bit, for obvious historical reasons.

 

Now, the Merkel government needs to roll back some of this closer relationship with Russia (even if it means damaging the German economy and troubling her coalition partner, the social democrats). However, I find it highly unlikely that Germany will find itself in a postion of actively opposing Russia with anything besides economic sanctions. This would not work with the current coalition government, and it would also be at odds with the majority of the German population.

 

The only way this might change, in my opinion, would be in case of an active military threat against Poland or the Baltic states.

I agree with this assessment. If you look at German public support for action in the Balkans, you can see that it was controversial. This despite knowing there was mass murder being conducted and having to deal with a large influx of refugees (I was in southern Germany in 1992 and it wasn't hard to see this, though not as much as Austria). Similarly, the decision to take part in IASF was not a "no brainer" in the minds of the German public and the Bundeswehr's participation came with lots of strings attached.

Therefore, it does not take a political science expert to predict that Germany's involvement in a full war with Russia would be... problematic, to say the least. If Russia expanded the war into the Baltics, that would likely move a greater percentage of Germans (and the government) towards involvement, but most likely with major limitations.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes :(

This is the overall premise for the war in Black Sea. Each of the three sides make mistakes based on bad assumptions. No one mistake or bad assumption leads to war, but the collection of them do.

It is a bit similar to the direct start of WWI. Russia was extremely unhappy with what the Austro-Hungarian Empire was doing in the Balkans. When diplomacy failed the Tzar figured he needed to back up his words with a credible military threat. To do that he had to mobilize military forces. Germany, who was allied with A-H, had a policy to not allow the Russians to have a huge army massed along its border. The German thinking was pragmatic... once Russia gathered its strength, Germany would not be able to fight it and the western countries who definitely wanted a war (England and France).

So individual decisions were made by individual states for their own individual reasons with their own individual goals. The result was something that all nations quickly regretted starting. But by then, it was too late.

Steve

 

Steve, I have sworn off not to debate politics here and I am still planning to walk a fine line on that; but there is one thing that I am genuinely curious about - do you honestly believe that Russia and US (two of the most dominant nuclear powers in the world today) would militarily confront each other over Ukraine? Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate that storyline within the context of your game... but you are obviously a very intelligent and well informed guy (although I happen to respectfully disagree with most of your analysis on this matter) - Can you seriously foresee Russians and US risking an all-out nuclear apocalypse over Ukraine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, I have sworn off not to debate politics here and I am still planning to walk a fine line on that; but there is one thing that I am genuinely curious about - do you honestly believe that Russia and US (two of the most dominant nuclear powers in the world today) would militarily confront each other over Ukraine? Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate that storyline within the context of your game... but you are obviously a very intelligent and well informed guy (although I happen to respectfully disagree with most of your analysis on this matter) - Can you seriously foresee Russians and US risking an all-out nuclear apocalypse over Ukraine?

When admitting you are not going to get the whole loaf can bring down governments on both sides of a conflict truly bad things can happen. Bad, bad things.  Like the last three years of the First World War kind of bad. Nobody got anything out of the conflict after the fall of 1914 that was worth what they paid in blood and treasure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When admitting you are not going to get the whole loaf can bring down governments on both sides of a conflict truly bad things can happen. Bad, bad things.  Like the last three years of the First World War kind of bad. Nobody got anything out of the conflict after the fall of 1914 that was worth what they paid in blood and treasure.

 

Bad things have alrady been happening for a while in this conflict and I fail to see how anything would get better in a new future; that is a bit implicit though. My actual interest lies in Steve's and any other rational contributor's prediction for a likelihood of a direct US-Russian military confrontation in a near future. For the record - I estimate it to be around 0.00000001 percent likelyhood...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, I have sworn off not to debate politics here and I am still planning to walk a fine line on that; but there is one thing that I am genuinely curious about - do you honestly believe that Russia and US (two of the most dominant nuclear powers in the world today) would militarily confront each other over Ukraine? Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate that storyline within the context of your game... but you are obviously a very intelligent and well informed guy (although I happen to respectfully disagree with most of your analysis on this matter) - Can you seriously foresee Russians and US risking an all-out nuclear apocalypse over Ukraine?

Dan put it pretty well. When the nations marched off to war in 1914 each one thought they would come out on top. After the first year of war none thought it would be a cakewalk, but if they just tried harder they could come out better off OK. At least well enough to claim victory. The last two years of the war were just stubborn butchery, with the brief German delusion that they had enough strength to mount a decisive offensive with the forces that had previously been engaged in fighting Russia (which was now in collapse).

I've put probably 1000+ hours into studying this conflict in Ukraine. Those studies are in the context of 25 years of studying warfare and politics. It is not going to get better any time soon because Russia sees the struggle in Ukraine as a life and death matter. So does Ukraine. The West is divided, but the majority feel that if Russia crushes Ukraine then there will be another conflict at some point sometime in the near future. Some in the West also feel they have a morale obligation to help Ukraine. There is an argument that the US, at least, has a legal obligation under the Budapest agreement.

As for Russia's nukes, the problem here is that Russia knows that it will lose a conventional war with the West. Even if one believes that Russia's military force is man for man as good as anything the West has, Russia lacks the resources (manpower, weaponry, industrial capacity, etc.) to win an all out war. Nukes are Russia's "trump card" which it can play at any time. The West knows this because Russia spends considerable energy reminding them. For example, the nuclear bomber in the English Channel last week.

So no, I don't see anybody backing out of this mess any time soon. And that means there is always the chance it will go further than it has already. Nuclear? Our species is moronic enough to have such weapons, therefore it is moronic to use them. Even without a deliberate state ordered nuclear response, it only takes one accident or rogue group to get that ball rolling.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad things have alrady been happening for a while in this conflict and I fail to see how anything would get better in a new future; that is a bit implicit though. My actual interest lies in Steve's and any other rational contributor's prediction for a likelihood of a direct US-Russian military confrontation in a near future. For the record - I estimate it to be around 0.00000001 percent likelyhood...

Hell i'd half that estimate, personally :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan put it pretty well. When the nations marched off to war in 1914 each one thought they would come out on top. After the first year of war none thought it would be a cakewalk, but if they just tried harder they could come out better off OK. At least well enough to claim victory. The last two years of the war were just stubborn butchery, with the brief German delusion that they had enough strength to mount a decisive offensive with the forces that had previously been engaged in fighting Russia (which was now in collapse).

I've put probably 1000+ hours into studying this conflict in Ukraine. Those studies are in the context of 25 years of studying warfare and politics. It is not going to get better any time soon because Russia sees the struggle in Ukraine as a life and death matter. So does Ukraine. The West is divided, but the majority feel that if Russia crushes Ukraine then there will be another conflict at some point sometime in the near future. Some in the West also feel they have a morale obligation to help Ukraine. There is an argument that the US, at least, has a legal obligation under the Budapest agreement.

As for Russia's nukes, the problem here is that Russia knows that it will lose a conventional war with the West. Even if one believes that Russia's military force is man for man as good as anything the West has, Russia lacks the resources (manpower, weaponry, industrial capacity, etc.) to win an all out war. Nukes are Russia's "trump card" which it can play at any time. The West knows this because Russia spends considerable energy reminding them. For example, the nuclear bomber in the English Channel last week.

So no, I don't see anybody backing out of this mess any time soon. And that means there is always the chance it will go further than it has already. Nuclear? Our species is moronic enough to have such weapons, therefore it is moronic to use them. Even without a deliberate state ordered nuclear response, it only takes one accident or rogue group to get that ball rolling.

Steve

 

Thank you for your reply. I understand your logic, although again I have to respecrfully disagree. Just out of - curiosity do you happen to know a lot of folks at top positions in US Intelligence, Military, and Foregin Service? I am not talking about the political appointees, but real pros who CIA brass  would go to for advice...I have been lucky enough to know a few and I can guarantee you tht there is absolutely nothing moranic about them. I don't know too many of their Russian counterparts, but based on recent history they seem to be just as shrewd and rational. Now I might very well be wrong, but when reading such threads it apperant to me that the majority of posters here have very little clue of the red lines that you simply can not cross when two giant nuclear powers are confronting each other. Luckily our leaders are a lot more aware of the risks involved in such confrontation.

Edited by DreDay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between events in Russia, ISIS and the Middle East, Central Banks around the world devaluating their currencies and all the other stuff like homegrown terrorist attacks, it makes one long for the good old days of the Cold War. The rhetoric was hot, but at least the superpowers kept their allieds, clients and proxies in line for the most part.

 

The move from a bi-polar world to a multi-polar one hasn't been without its share of challenges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply. I understand your logic, although again I have to respectfully disagree. Just out of - curiosity do you happen to know a lot of folks at top positions in US Intelligence, Military, and Foregin Service? I am not talking about the political appointees, but real pros who CIA brass  would go to for advice...I have been lucky enough to know a few and I can guarantee you tht there is absolutely nothing moranic about them. I don't know too many of their Russian counterparts, but based on recent history they seem to be just as shrewd and rational. Now I might very well be wrong, but when reading such threads it apperant to me that the majority of posters here have very little clue of the red lines that you simply can not cross when two giant nuclear powers are confronting each other. Luckily our leaders are a lot more aware of the risks involved in such confrontation.

If Russia's leadership was aware of the risk of such conflict there would not be ~5,000 dead people in southeastern Ukraine.  They got Crimea for almost nothing and didn't have the sense to quit while they were ahead. Now the best case scenario is a slow bleed on their entire geopolitical position, blood, and treasure.  If there is an end in sight I can't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply. I understand your logic, although again I have to respecrfully disagree. Just out of - curiosity do you happen to know a lot of folks at top positions in US Intelligence, Military, and Foregin Service? I am not talking about the political appointees, but real pros who CIA brass  would go to for advice...

Nope. I know a few with military intelligence backgrounds, but nobody in decision making positions. I do, however, read what those people write. Just got down reading a blog entry from one, in fact.

I have been lucky enough to know a few and I can guarantee you tht there is absolutely nothing moranic about them. I don't know too many of their Russian counterparts, but based on recent history they seem to be just as shrewd and rational. Now I might very well be wrong, but when reading such threads it apperant to me that the majority of posters here have very little clue of the red lines that you simply can not cross when two giant nuclear powers are confronting each other. Luckily our leaders are a lot more aware of the risks involved in such confrontation.

I think that nuclear war is not a serious consideration in Moscow any more than it is in DC. But the weapons exist and that creates the possibility that someone is going to screw up. It is also never a good thing to have an autocratic, militaristic regime in control of such weapons. The smaller the decision making cycle, the less checks there are against bad thinking. It also means decisions, even massive ones, can be made quickly and rashly. Reputedly Putin's inner circle has shrunk to about 4 people, all of which are Soviet era military and KGB backgrounds. This is not a recipe for broader, diversified strategizing.

Still, I do not think war is likely between Russia and the West, conventional or nuclear. Russia has no chance of surviving a nuclear war any more than it has a chance of winning a conventional war. A conventional war against the West likely means the end of Putin's regime, a nuclear war means the end of Russia period. Hopefully Putin understands this as much as others do. Unfortunately, there is the chance he does not.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Russia's leadership was aware of the risk of such conflict there would not be ~5,000 dead people in southeastern Ukraine.  They got Crimea for almost nothing and didn't have the sense to quit while they were ahead. Now the best case scenario is a slow bleed on their entire geopolitical position, blood, and treasure.  If there is an end in sight I can't see it.

 

And this is preciesely why I don't participate in political discussions on this board. I am lucky enought to have enough colegues and friends who offer fresh, rational, and original views on the current state of geoplitics; and I am sorry to say that whatever you've written in your last posts ain't it; so I gladly succeded this thread to you. Peaches and luv!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Russia's leadership was aware of the risk of such conflict there would not be ~5,000 dead people in southeastern Ukraine.  They got Crimea for almost nothing and didn't have the sense to quit while they were ahead. Now the best case scenario is a slow bleed on their entire geopolitical position, blood, and treasure.  If there is an end in sight I can't see it.

Quite. When Russia invaded Crimea I was not surprised, as anybody whose read the Black Sea manual should know. When the troubles started in the "Novorussian" territory I was also not surprised. It was at this point I started saying "if Putin is smart, he'll stop now. He'll get what he really wants and the West will not punish him in any meaningful way". Putin misread the situation or felt he had no choice or both.

Given what's happened since the Summer of 2014, logically the Kremlin would have rethought it's strategy. A rethinking could produce something that might lead to a better result for Russia or a worse one. But there appears to be little to no change, which means it's not terribly difficult to see what the immediate future is likely to bring. And it's not good for anybody.

In contrast, the West is rethinking its strategy. Though it is still struggling with internal disagreements (Greece certainly adds a new dimension), there is a slow shift happening. The countries most threatened by Russia have signed various multilateral defense agreements *outside* the context of NATO. Today Denmark signed one with the Baltics, for example. Even though Germany and France are still vetoing lethal aid to Ukraine, the US is moving tentatively closer to it. If the US goes forward with it, other nations will join (Poland in particular). The effect of Javelins, MANPADs, and electronic warfare systems in the hands of Ukraine would be a major change in both strategy and effect on the ground.

Even France, which came close to selling the Mistrel ships to Russia despite the crisis, is not disposed to letting this conflict go on forever. I think this quote from Hollande sums up the risk of things getting worse pretty well:

Asked if France would join the United States in providing such equipment to the Ukrainian military, Hollande said "the option of negotiation, of diplomacy, cannot be extended indefinitely."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/05/europe/ukraine-conflict/index.html

Side note, I read CNN about once a month these days because it isn't very useful for my studies. It just happened to come into my view today because of a Katy Perry headline ;)

The point of quoting Hollande is not to make some sort of political point (as a certain temporarily banned member might accuse me of), but to illustrate that the West's position of dithering and debate is not something Putin should count on lasting forever. Slobodan Milošević made that mistake and look what it got him... a small room in The Netherlands for the last days of his life.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is preciesely why I don't participate in political discussions on this board. I am lucky enought to have enough colegues and friends who offer fresh, rational, and original views on the current state of geoplitics; and I am sorry to say that whatever you've written in your last posts ain't it; so I gladly succeded this thread to you. Peaches and luv!

Debates benefit from people expressing contrary positions and offering differing points of view. Saying that you possess the ability to present such contrary and different lines of discussion, but are unwilling to because someone posts something you don't agree with, definitely doesn't add much to a debate. Certainly doesn't make it more interesting!

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...