LUCASWILLEN05 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 This sounds like an interesting development considering Russian claims on the terriory of he Baltic States. In all likelihood Russia is sending a diplomatic message. However, Mscow could have something more siniser in mind in the future. https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/russia-complains-lithuania-arms-supply-ukraine-181242984.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Kettle, Pot calling........ The Lithuanian response was right on target. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuri Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Sometimes i feel like the Kremlin is run by children... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexey K Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 This sounds like an interesting development considering Russian claims on the terriory of he Baltic States. In all likelihood Russia is sending a diplomatic message. However, Mscow could have something more siniser in mind in the future. https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/russia-complains-lithuania-arms-supply-ukraine-181242984.html What kind of claims did you mention? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 What kind of claims did you mention? Well, it would appear that the Kremln is saying one or more of the Baltic States have been involved in supplying arms to Ukraine. The question is the significance of this allegtion and wha Moscow's response might be. As we all knw there have been similar allegations throughoutthe conflict about Russian involvment is support of the sepretists. For now we are seeing proxy war with both sides being supplied by outside powers much as we saw during the Cold War in Africa and the Middle East. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Well, it would appear that the Kremln is saying one or more of the Baltic States have been involved in supplying arms to Ukraine. The question is the significance of this allegtion and wha Moscow's response might be. As we all knw there have been similar allegations throughoutthe conflict about Russian involvment is support of the sepretists. For now we are seeing proxy war with both sides being supplied by outside powers much as we saw during the Cold War in Africa and the Middle East. I don't think that is accurate. UKR is not a proxy war. Russia would like us to think in those terms as it is the goal of their denials, but they are well past the point of simply supplying arms. From the west however, the level of lethal aid is so small as to be ridiculous. I think this statement from the Kremlin is more about defining to it's near neighbors that Russia does not like interference in how it runs the battle near it's borders. It is a threat, however I think a threat that the Kremlin can only voice so far. Russia is not in a position to do too much without risking an escalation with NATO. With the war in Ukraine looking no nearer to a favorable resolution than it did a year ago, Russia has to be wary of overextending. However trying to get some kind of resolution in UKR does include keeping the west from arming UKR. Lithuanian aid is symbolic, but it opens the door. Putin wants that door closed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 Sometimes i feel like the Kremlin is run by children... Very dangeous children armed to the teeh including nuclea weapons. Putin is probably a very intlligent idividual and a shred politicin. Sometimes I feel that comparing him to the late 19th Century German satesman Otto von Bismarck could be accurate. At other times it seems more like Kaiser Wilhelm II or Hitler. Kremlin watching these days is perhaps more difficul than it has been since the md 1980s. Then we had geriatrics like Brezhnev. Chernnko and Andropov in charge. Putin is clearly more vigourous a leader than they were and at 62 much younger. He seems to be aiming for a Eurasian Union, possibly a rebranded andrbuilt Soviet Union or Tsarist Empire. Certainly he wants to restore Russia as a World Power at least to the 1980s level. That of course brings him into conflict with others including former Soviet Republics who may not want to be subordinate to Moscow again and with US/NATO interests. Russia's leading membership of the Shanghai Co-Operation Organisation gives Moscw at least some political backing fom Beijing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexey K Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Well, it would appear that the Kremln is saying one or more of the Baltic States have been involved in supplying arms to Ukraine. The question is the significance of this allegtion and wha Moscow's response might be. As we all knw there have been similar allegations throughoutthe conflict about Russian involvment is support of the sepretists. For now we are seeing proxy war with both sides being supplied by outside powers much as we saw during the Cold War in Africa and the Middle East. I was talking about territorial claims. Haven't found any info yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 I don't think that is accurate. UKR is not a proxy war. Russia would like us to think in those terms as it is the goal of their denials, but they are well past the point of simply supplying arms. From the west however, the level of lethal aid is so small as to be ridiculous. I think this statement from the Kremlin is more about defining to it's near neighbors that Russia does not like interference in how it runs the battle near it's borders. It is a threat, however I think a threat that the Kremlin can only voice so far. Russia is not in a position to do too much without risking an escalation with NATO. With the war in Ukraine looking no nearer to a favorable resolution than it did a year ago, Russia has to be wary of overextending. However trying to get some kind of resolution in UKR does include keeping the west from arming UKR. Lithuanian aid is symbolic, but it opens the door. Putin wants that door closed. Arguably it is or might soon become one. It can becompred to the proxy wars fought during the ColdWar in various parts of the world including Central America, Africa, Asia and theMiddle East. Right now hwe West does not want to do much more than offwer political support to Kiev but that can change. As in the Cold War both sides will want to be careful how far they let it escalate as yousuggest. The West also knows that to push intervention too far risks a direct military clash with Moscow. Mscow lso has to be careful not to push too hard or in to obvious a fashion for much thesame rason. It is very similar to a classic Cold War era conflict 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Sometimes I feel that comparing him to the late 19th Century German satesman Otto von Bismarck could be accurate I am no fan of Bismarck, but that's a pretty big insult to the German party here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Guess it really comes down to definitions. In some cases the major power belligerents don't really get directly involved, but simply provide aid and possibly "volunteer manpower". Spanish civil war for example. Angola might be another as Soviet participation was mostly observers with Cuba providing the manpower. An alternative definition includes where one side is committed and the other only supplies aid to an indigenous force. Vietnam and Afghanistan being prime examples. I would agree UKR does fit under that example. Russia has committed regular forces, however the west as yet is supplying minimal aid and primarily non lethal aid. In that sense the West has not yet upped the ante to Vietnam or Afghanistan levels. Edited February 28, 2015 by sburke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 I am no fan of Bismarck, but that's a pretty big insult to the German party here. Not intended to be. But Bismarck could be very Maciavellian indeed. Consider the way he manipulated the Ems Telegram to provoke France into the 1870 Franco Prussian War. And compare with the way Georgia was provoked ino a simmilarly foolish war in 2008. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 Guess it really comes down to definitions. In some cases the major power belligerents don't really get directly involved, but simply provide aid and possibly "volunteer manpower". Spanish civil war for example. Angola might be another as Soviet participation was mostly observers with Cuba providing the manpower. An alternative definition includes where one side is committed and the other only supplies aid to an indigenous force. Vietnam and Afghanistan being prime examples. I would agree UKR does fit under that example. Russia has committed regular forces, however the west as yet is supplying minimal aid and primarily non lethal aid. In that sense the West has not yet upped the ante to Vietnam or Afghanistan levels. No it hasn't. Nut Russia has come pretty close to tht levl. The seperatists are clearly very well equipped looking at the footage. Angola was indeed one example I was thinking of but also Central America, this time with the US arming the Contras in secret unil Olver North and the Iran - Contra scandal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Not intended to be. But Bismarck could be very Maciavellian indeed. Consider the way he manipulated the Ems Telegram to provoke France into the 1870 Franco Prussian War. And compare with the way Georgia was provoked ino a simmilarly foolish war in 2008. Oh he could, just I think Putin is closer to an opportunistic infection. Looking at the progression from trying to have Ukraine as a puppet through it's president, to suppressing opposition to said president, through the crimea and beyond it's more a statement of Ukrainian weakness (thanks to previous puppet) and European unwillingness to commit than any sort of deft handling (see the hamfistedly stupid MH 17 shootdown response for a good example). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 No it hasn't. Nut Russia has come pretty close to tht levl. The seperatists are clearly very well equipped looking at the footage. Angola was indeed one example I was thinking of but also Central America, this time with the US arming the Contras in secret unil Olver North and the Iran - Contra scandal. I disagree, I think Russia has committed regular forces and they have been in the frontline in a few battles. (I am assuming your first statement was a disagreement with that). Yes the Separatists have been well armed, but left to their own even with those arms they were almost eliminated in August. Anyone who thinks Russian regular units are not in Ukraine is going to have to come up with some explanation then how suddenly the Separatists went from a near military debacle to going on the offensive on a broad front with attacks launched from across previously secure section of the border. I don't buy it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Not intended to be. But Bismarck could be very Maciavellian indeed. Certainly. But Bismarck was also a pretty shrewd judge of how far he could take Germany, a facility that his successors (the aforementioned Kaiser and Hitler) lacked. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Oh he could, just I think Putin is closer to an opportunistic infection. Looking at the progression from trying to have Ukraine as a puppet through it's president, to suppressing opposition to said president, through the crimea and beyond it's more a statement of Ukrainian weakness (thanks to previous puppet) and European unwillingness to commit than any sort of deft handling (see the hamfistedly stupid MH 17 shootdown response for a good example). Nah, Ukraine is doing poorly because it is a corrupt ****hole, Russia or not. Back around 2002-2008 when they were closer to our sphere they were still a corrupt ****hole and their military performance was, if anything, even worse than it is now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 Oh he could, just I think Putin is closer to an opportunistic infection. Looking at the progression from trying to have Ukraine as a puppet through it's president, to suppressing opposition to said president, through the crimea and beyond it's more a statement of Ukrainian weakness (thanks to previous puppet) and European unwillingness to commit than any sort of deft handling (see the hamfistedly stupid MH 17 shootdown response for a good example). Opportunities let us say can be created and exploited by, let us say, certain kind of statesman. Look at he wayy Putin created nd developed the South Ossettia situation manouvering Georgia into starting a war it could not hope to win. and Putin's methods in Ukraine are just as machiavellian. Everyone knows he is helping the seperatists who seem, shall we say, remarkably well armed, but there is just not enough evidence to ctually prove that Putin's Kremlin is behind it. And without such proof Western democracies are even less willing to take any action. Putin is astute enough o know that and astute enough to make it very hard to catch him out. This guy is former KGB remember 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 Certainly. But Bismarck was also a pretty shrewd judge of how far he could take Germany, a facility that his successors (the aforementioned Kaiser and Hitler) lacked. Michael And Putin would seem to know how far he can go. At least thus far. He may of course become overconfident and make a mistake 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexey K Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 And Putin would seem to know how far he can go. At least thus far. He may of course become overconfident and make a mistake Right now it's too early to assess him and other present day politician. Years or decades should pass. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 Right now it's too early to assess him and other present day politician. Years or decades should pass. From a historical point of view, yes. As a current international figure of an important nation on the world stage however we must assess him now and we only have his record thus far to go on. The long term consequences however cannot yet be known. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Depends on your goal in the assessment. If you are trying to figure out what he is planning, or what is important to him you obviously need to form an assessment. From an overall view though, history will judge him as with everyone else years later when we have a much better picture. For example, I have a personal view of his and the FSB's role in the Moscow Apt bombings, but I don't really know the truth. Maybe in the years ahead that information will come out in one form or another where we will really know. Same thing with Ukraine. We have suspicions about how this all unraveled, but life tends to be far more complicated than we realize. I'd suggest the following as a really good read on events during a time of crisis and how complicated it can get, and how we humans can fundamentally completely misunderstand one another. It is a fascinating read for it's own sake, but the similarities in a crisis with so many different players all on their own agendas is enlightening. http://www.amazon.com/Berlin-1961-Kennedy-Khrushchev-Dangerous/dp/0425245942 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Opportunities let us say can be created and exploited by, let us say, certain kind of statesman. Look at he wayy Putin created nd developed the South Ossettia situation manouvering Georgia into starting a war it could not hope to win. and Putin's methods in Ukraine are just as machiavellian. Everyone knows he is helping the seperatists who seem, shall we say, remarkably well armed, but there is just not enough evidence to ctually prove that Putin's Kremlin is behind it. And without such proof Western democracies are even less willing to take any action. Putin is astute enough o know that and astute enough to make it very hard to catch him out. This guy is former KGB remember On the other hand, he's literally alienated everyone who's not Belarus, NATO is actually getting serious about military rebuilding, US forces are returning to Europe, countries that previously had no interest in NATO are starting to make rumbles about if not joining, at least extensive cooperation. and he's shown that Russian agreements mean literally nothing. If his goal was to become a pariah, and make Russia's position in the world marginal? Hang the mission accomplished banner. His BFFs are the Syrian president and that's about it, and people who previously followed the "Russia is our partner" line are deeply discredited. He's destroyed any room Russia had to maneuver, all to in so many words, achieve another fake-"People's Republic" Which again, makes him that infection. He hasn't asked how far he should go, he's simply gone as far as he can, and the rewards for this is a bunch of dead Ukrainians and a smattering of dead Dutch folks on the side. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 On the other hand, he's literally alienated everyone who's not Belarus, NATO is actually getting serious about military rebuilding, US forces are returning to Europe, countries that previously had no interest in NATO are starting to make rumbles about if not joining, at least extensive cooperation. and he's shown that Russian agreements mean literally nothing. If his goal was to become a pariah, and make Russia's position in the world marginal? Hang the mission accomplished banner. His BFFs are the Syrian president and that's about it, and people who previously followed the "Russia is our partner" line are deeply discredited. He's destroyed any room Russia had to maneuver, all to in so many words, achieve another fake-"People's Republic" Which again, makes him that infection. He hasn't asked how far he should go, he's simply gone as far as he can, and the rewards for this is a bunch of dead Ukrainians and a smattering of dead Dutch folks on the side. Well, he has alienated pretty much every government in the West. However he still seems to have a good relationship with China http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-russias-president-is-putin-the-great-in-china-1412217002 He is probably relying on support from the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation. While he has that he has imporrtant and powerful friends. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 China would hurl Russia under the bus the second Russia becomes a nuisance. Europe, the US and honestly the rest of the world at large are more important to China's economy (which is really what they care about). Russia and China are certainly not friends, nor could Russia count on any sort of support from China (and indeed, their past historical interactions have been at best, mutually exploitative). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.