Nope. Because of how this is agreed upon, Turkey cannot close it for countries of Black sea.
It is same as direct hostilities more or less. Not completely impossible, but have great implications, far beyond of what it is look like.
Russia - General Discussion.
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
It is same as direct hostilities more or less. Not completely impossible, but have great implications, far beyond of what it is look like.
Rock the kasbah
Active Member
US to Russia: Explain Your Military Buildup to the UN
The UN Security Council will meet on Monday in the latest diplomatic move amid tensions.
www.defenseone.com
Steinmetz
Active Member
Turkey and Russia have a more pragmatic relationship with each other, one that NATO isn't really involved with. They strike their own deals in Syria, Libya, etcetera. Erdogan will march to the toot of his own horn as much as he can. Plus Erdogan is trying to be the mediator between Ukraine and Russia without NATO's presence.
Why is Turkey trying to mediate the Ukraine-Russia crisis?
It's not really hard to fathom.... NATO has made it clear that it will not go to war with Russia over the Ukraine. It is however taking several steps to provide various types of support to Ukraine including sending arms. these arms will improve the ability of the Ukrainians to defend themselves but will not be decisive. The very notion that these arms are sent to bait Russia is preposterous ... If NATO really wanted to bait Russia [as you claim] all it has to do is to send Patriot batteries and other types of weaponry which would leave the Russians no choice but to react to...
In case you missed it there have been talks; intensive ones. Now; whether those talks were held in a ''brotherly'' depends on your personal definition.
'Two brothers'? What is this some motivational talk? Things have long gone past the stage where past Russian/Ukrainian ''brotherly' feelings [if there were ever any] will be enough to resolve things....
Indeed. Air and missile and missile strikes by themselves will probably to result in the political objective the Russians desire and will leave them in a neither here nor there position. Air and missile and missile strikes by themselves might also lead to Russia looking weak. If diplomacy fails the only way for Russia to achieve what it desires is an invasion; only the scope of that invasion remains unclear; whether a land corridor to the Crimea or a race towards the Dnieper [a case of history repeating itself, only this time the Russians will be racing to to that river for different reasons compared to 1944] to create a large buffer zone.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Welfare has anything to do how a society transformation to democracy. That's more than enough studies and actual condition shown that. If you say otherwise, clearly your understanding on democratic transition on a society is very flaws.
This all debate coming because you putting Ukraine as modern nation then Saudi. That's what I'm saying a draw a line because it is nonsense. There's no enough indicators that can justifies Ukraine is more modern nation then Saudi.
Now you move to culture, well that's clearly shown your bias to Arab culture. Again with a society like Ukraine still control by Oligarchy from one to another, Society just like in Balkans still playing on Ethnics card, clearly not a society already transition to Democracy.
Again all this talk of Ukrainian as democracy just another Western bias because Euro Maidan is pro west.
No I read your comment clearly. Like I said integration from Ukrainian and Russian Jews to their fellow Jews society in Israel is nothing can be said as barometer for Ukrainian as culture ready toward democracy.
On contrary with Jews from Ukrainian and Russian moving in relatively very large numbers to Israel shown there's something ethically problematic in those societies. People don't emigrated in large numbers only for Economics reasons. You're the ones who don't read.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #286
In my opinion, even the delivery of Patriots would leave Russia with other choices then a military action.
You're probably right. The Russians would react but not necessarily by going to war.
In your opinion; would the actual deployment of NATO combat units on Ukrainian soil lead to war; being a 'red line' that Russia would not tolerate?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #288
I want to be clear. When I say that Russia has other choices, it doesn't mean that they won't act in response to something like a Patriot delivery. It's my opinion that they have other options. What their red line is, is an interesting question. I'm curious also what you mean by combat units. Plenty of NATO units have deployed to Ukraine on rotation. By combat do you mean that they will be involved in front line combat in Donbass? Or by combat do you mean units that aren't rear-end support units? If the latter, it's already happened. If the former, that seems very unlikely.
Pentaprism
Member
How would they stop it? Surely if they shoot Russian Aircraft or sink Russian ships they risk starting WW III?
Agree he doesn't need to do anything. But he has warned about crossing Russia's red lines and said there may be a Military response if Russia's concerns are not responded to satisfactorily. So I think he will do something. It could just be an announcement of permanently basing troops or an Air Wing in Belarus. He has repeatedly said he is not invading and I don't believe he will invade.
Yes there will be Sanctions either way but their severity may be different. And yes West can keep sending shipments after the conflict stops. But Russia can start bombing them again. A bit like the situation in Syria, Iran sends arm shipments destined for Lebanon or Palestine, Israel takes them out. But some probably get through.
Interesting that Russia is a guarantor of Ukraine territorial integrity, didn't know that. Not sure that it means much at this point.
But I disagree it would be better to go all out. Anyway let's hope Russia does not go all out, it would be a sad day for Humanity.
I meant whole units deployed and tasked with helping to defend the Ukraine if the Russians invade. It's a purely hypothetical question as NATO has made clear that it won't be involved militarily but it's interesting to speculate what Russian reaction would be if say the Yanks deployed an armoured division alongside a Brit mechanised brigage east of the Dnieper.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #291
As in units deployed to Ukraine with a publicly stated purpose of assisting Ukraine in combat, if Russia should invade? In my opinion this wouldn't trigger a Russian attack. But it could trigger public deployment of Russian troops to the LDNR, to mirror the NATO move. And if NATO forces deploy along Ukrainians to the front line, they might find themselves hit by Russian artillery fires (remember the Syria mess in spring of 2020 when a Turkish unit took a potshot at another Su-24M, and got hit with a missile strike in real time? Remember when Turkish armor got destroyed by Russian airpower around iirc Saraqib? the excuse was that the Turkish forces were mixed in with the rebels and Turkey is NATO). Russia might also borrow from the western playbook and declare a no-fly zone over the Donbass for anything other then MEDEVAC flights cleared through the OSCE.
I don't think so. It can go on for some time, but ultimatelly West will be forced by internal reasons to stop it.
West cannot allow RF to bomb third countries in general. Certainly not Ukraine. In Syria for example RF is invited by Syrian government.
Without similar legitimisation, any direct military action in europe is unlikely.
Direct military force application by USA extremelly possible. Longer that lasts, bigger chance USA will intervene.
No one really knows. Invasion is not in RF interests. But, decision makers of RF are not really tied to RF interests.
One thing for sure RF proper is basically off limit no matter what. It means any military action will be outside, which in turn make risk calculation for people in power in RF somewhat unpredictable.
Well, for starters Ukraine have somewhat potent air defence. RF have somewhat outdated technology. If western powers start to move modern air defence systems to Ukraine it can prety much stop any possible RF air campaign.
Even more so if they give combat planes to Ukraine and say lease airfield in some NATO country.
This games can be played by both sides after all. As You said no one will go to WW3, so we will have local war, same is arab-israeli wars, or korea war, or vietnam war.
Which is not ideal for anyone. That why I said that RF will probably prefer ground invasion, or none at all.
Well, best outcome is RF will deescalate. Or build some military base in Belarus as a response, or something like that as long as it is not direct military action. After all they not really promised one.
You think so? Maybe but then internal factors/politics or even prestige - on paper - could result in NATO responding to a russian invasion.
Does it really? Even if it has a ''potent'' AD network; whether it an survive against a Russian attack which will also include extensive EW remains to be seen.
That may b so but 'dated' doesn't necessarily signify it has no utility. It became a cliche to hear about how datet the Russian air force was but in Syria it accomplished its objectives with the assets in hand.Tthey may not have been to Western standards but they delivered the results.
Very true but in the Korean war and the Ramadhan/Yom Kippur war the threat of superpower intervention came close. The greatest fear is that NATO might be dragged into a conflict with the Russians and that conflict might fast spiral out of control.
Problem is it's not as simple as that. Russia - obviously - does not see itself as the aggressor. It's responding to what it perceives are threats on the part of NATO. If we want to talk about 'best outcomes' one can also point out that NATO can at least make a certain concession which will reduce tensions and give Russia the opportunity to scale things down a bit - win/win formula for both sides.
I would be surprised if that's not an option they're looking at. It can say that Belarus feels threatened by the build up of NATO forces on its doorstep and has invited Russia to send troops in. NATO can huff and puff but can't do much beyond that.
Last edited:
Yes.
I can't see NATO going to compromise on issues that even remotely point to possibility of renewing "sphere of influence" logic in europe.
Nope, they will allow military action to happen instead. IMO
Probably RF need to seek concessions to save face in other places.
NATO made it clear that they are not going to war with Russia over Ukraine but they are ready to supply arms and give various types of support to Ukraine including political and sanction support. Tell me how this is not encouraging Ukraine to fight Russia? Ukraine has even taken it to the next level by accusing countries that don't want to supply arms to them of encouraging Putin. The thing is, for you guys, Russia has no right to draw a red line, Russia should not have any interest at all whatsoever and that perception is making everyone sleep walk into a very unpredictable crisis
So you keep saying but as I've pointed out the arms transfer are for various reasons and baiting Russia isn't one of them. If the intention was really to bait Russia; there would be faster and more effective means ...
Speak for yourself but not for others.. If you've been here long enough and have been closing observing this thread; you'd be aware that I have been very critical of NATO and have also ben tying to view things from A Russian perspective.
Well, it remains to be seen how things eventually pan out. For the moment Russia has the initiative; it has got the whole of the west/NATO on edge. We also know that Putin feels time is on his side and that when Russia is determined to so something it goes ahead and does it; we saw this in Syria.
Putin’s NATO power play stirs disquiet among Russia’s security elite | The Strategist
Comments implying that President Vladimir Putin’s ultimatums and threats against the US, other NATO states and Ukraine are counterproductive have appeared in Russia’s hitherto unimpeachably loyal media. Even muffled dissent in an increasingly authoritarian state ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
''Comments implying that President Vladimir Putin’s ultimatums and threats against the US, other NATO states and Ukraine are counterproductive have appeared in Russia’s hitherto unimpeachably loyal media. Even muffled dissent in an increasingly authoritarian state suggests that disquiet in the Russian professional security elite may be more widespread than visible. This won’t inhibit Putin in his campaign to achieve a compliant leadership in Kyiv or a failed Ukrainian state, or to annex the part of eastern Ukraine he controls and force the US and NATO to accept a new European security order on his terms.''
''Snyder says Putin made demands he knew would be rejected. ‘Moscow tabled two draft treaties and asked that they be signed as they stand; in them, Americans are asked to accept provisions that the Kremlin must surely know are unacceptable and to sign away the sovereignty of other countries, especially Ukraine.’''
Can Russia and NATO Come to an Agreement?
Is there a realistic format for a political undertaking not to expand NATO to Russia’s borders?
carnegiemoscow.org
''Putin’s call for legally binding agreements that NATO will not expand any further east has reduced its maneuvering room. It’s hard to imagine the alliance’s partners agreeing to any such thing, especially in a legally binding form, which would, in the United States, need to be ratified by the Senate. In any case, Moscow’s unrealistic demands—and their public announcement, when such sensitive issues are better discussed in private—have prompted suspicion in the West that they are simply a cover operation, and that the tight deadline issued by Moscow for starting talks indicates an imminent decision on a military operation.''
''Nor has Moscow proposed any concessions of its own in exchange for the military and political limitations it would like to impose on NATO countries and Ukraine—other than repeating an old initiative for a moratorium on deploying short- and medium-range missiles in Europe.''
''The political pledge made to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not expand its military infrastructure onto the territory of the former East Germany has never been broken. That is better than an unspoken promise not to accept Ukraine into NATO for another ten years. Diplomacy is the art of the possible, and this scenario, unlike others, is possible.''
Last edited:
they should be encouraged to talk without external influence, the brotherly affiliation between Ukraine and Russia is no secret, there's a considerable amount of Russian speakers in Ukraine and they share a long border. How can u want to fight your rich neighbour who also happens to be your biggest if not only energy supplier, Ukraine makes lots of money from transit pipelines and all this is not enough for them to talk to Russia, to make sure they sort things out? So pressuring the EU to halt NS2 and working with the US to contain Russia are better options Right?
It's also no secret that bilateral relations have dropped to their lowest levels and there is hardly any ''brotherly affiliation'' anymore; certainly not with the generation born after the Cold War.
right so it's the Ukraine which wants to ''fight'' and Russia was forced to do what it did in 2014 and what it's doing now solely because of Ukrainian actions? Do I understand you correctly?
Your reasons don't hold water, they are supplied to bait Russia into some sort of military action so that they can Roll out the sanction and accuse Russia of attacking weak Ukraine.. I have been reading this thread for ages, and it seems to be forbidden for Russia to have red lines or interests but all other western countries with US support have interests that should be observed