Russia - General Discussion.

[Todjaeger]

Indeed but they were under the spheres of influence of different players at various times in history; more powerful players. Take the Baltics; for different periods they were under the Swedes, Germans, Russians and Poles; all countries which at one time or the other considered the Baltics to be areas of strategic importance. Turkey [non Warsaw Pact of course] was never under the Soviets or the Czars but was considered at various times to be a Russia/Soviet sphere of influence due to the strategic area the country was located in. The former Soviet Central Asian republics are still considered to be in Russia's backyard; in it's sphere of influence.

I would not consider Turkey to ever have been within either the Russian or Soviet sphere of influence. An area of strategic interest to them certainly, given the ability to control access to and from the Black Sea. Given the various wars fought between the Ottoman Empire and the Tsarist Russian Empire prior to WWI, it does seem that a number of the current Eastern European nations were either a part of the Ottoman Empire, or were more within the Ottoman sphere of influence than any Russian sphere prior to the end of WWI. Given the chaos and aftermath of the Russian Empire's performance in WWI, and the following Russian Civil War, it also seems that the Soviets were more concentrating on re-establishing control of areas that had actually been part of the Russian Empire proper (albeit populated by non-Russian majorities) until the Civil War.

 

[Vivendi]

The Iskanders deployed in Belarus are also 'nuclear capable'. No idea if the Russians still stockpile nuclear arty rounds though.

That ''clear'' message was sent quite a while ago.

According to the article I linked to, Iskanders have limited reach. I am not sure about Iskanders in Belarus but those in Kaliningrad can (again, according to the article) reach Berlin and Warsaw, but not London, Paris and Rome. Wheras the Kinzhal can reach London, Paris and Rome.

NATO is supposed to be a multi national effort; why aren't more countries deploying troops there [even in small numbers] to demonstrate the resolve and solidarity NATO always talks about.

Various reasons. Norway for instance have very few troops, and we share a border with Russia. We cannot send more than what we already have sent without severely compromising our own security. The other NATO countries are aware, and are not asking Norway to send more. Denmark and the Netherlands have sent some minor additional contributions already. France, Germany, Spain and Italy should be able to send more. And Turkey of course. For various political reasons they are hesitant. However, Germany have signaled they might send another 350 troops. No wonder Russia is so afraid of NATO, it's aggressive posture right now must seem very scary to Russia.

Maybe but it's a two way street; the Russians can point out that a NATO which has been steadily expanding closer and closer to Russia's borders and its traditional spheres of influence has led to where we are now; Russia responding in a way it feels it has to.

NATO has tried many times to start a dialog with Russia, and has also tried to implement and abide to various agreements and protocols. As discussed previously, Russia has "responded" by turning the Russian representation at NATO HQ into a spy ring, breaking various agreements, killing opponents living in NATO countries, starting troll factories aiming to weaking Western democracies (note: not limited to NATO countries!), launching cyber-attacks against various Western countries (note: not limited to NATO countries) and invading some neighbours (so far limited to non-NATO countries).

No wonder Eastern European countries want to join NATO! Ukraine was not really interested in joining NATO until they were invaded by Russia.

Non-NATO countries Finland and Sweden are observing what is happening, they notice the troll factories and cyber attacks from Russia against their own democracies, and they also notice that Russia is threatening them with military attacks including nuclear, if they decide to enter NATO. However when looking at what happened to Ukraine, and how Russia trashed the Budapest memorandum, more and more people in Sweden and Finland also want to join NATO. This increased interest in Sweden and Finland of joining NATO is not related to any pressure from NATO, it is simply a reaction to the Russian behavior.

 

[swerve]

...
Non-NATO countries Finland and Sweden are observing what is happening, they notice the troll factories and cyber attacks from Russia against their own democracies, and they also notice that Russia is threatening them with military attacks including nuclear, if they decide to enter NATO. However when looking at what happened to Ukraine, and how Russia trashed the Budapest memorandum, more and more people in Sweden and Finland also want to join NATO. This increased interest in Sweden and Finland of joining NATO is not related to any pressure from NATO, it is simply a reaction to the Russian behavior.

Like China, the Russian government only understands bullying & has never heard of the fable of the sun & the north wind.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Like China, the Russian government only understands bullying & has never heard of the fable of the sun & the north wind.

They've heard of it, but they took the wrong lesson from the story and simply blamed the North wind for not blowing hard enough.

Russia/China: "Just blow the man off his feet into the air and then rip the cloak out of his fingers. Don't worry about what happens when he falls back down and is hospitalised or dies."

 

[STURM]

Vivendi,

I'm aware that not all NATO countries have the same level.of resources as the U S Britain, Germany and France they still can deploy a limited number of troops or certain assets, I wasn't suggesting they deploy.whole corps or divisions... The whole purpose of deploying troops is to make a political statement, to.demonstrate resolve and solidarity. A Spanish detachment of Typhoons, Belgian mechanized company, Dutch SPH battery and,an engineering component from Portugal, to use as examples, are ewell within their capabilities.

Yes as things stand there will be no surprises if Finland and Sweden end up in NATO. That would leave just Switzerland, Austria and a host of other small countries. The question is what will achieve with regards to Russia? Will it have the effect of deterring Russia [unlikely ] or will lead to a hardening of Russia's attutude towards NATO and also create more insecurity on its part which in turn influences their behaviour?

Yes I'm aware of what Russia has been up to for quite a while now with regards to cyber attacks, actions intended to destabilise and create uncertainty with potential opponents, etc, but like it or not Russia has legitimate security concerns, grievances and insecurities. It's responding in a way which it knows how and in a way it feels works for it. It's a two way street, you can write volumes of how NATO has tried dialogue and diplomacy and that all thats gone wrong is solely the fault of the Russians and them alone but it does not change things.

The fact remains that some middle ground has to be reached and it takes two to tango. Unless of course you believe that Russia really desires war and that Europe is eventually going to be engulfed in yet another war.

 

[Vivendi]

Vivendi,

I'm aware that not all NATO countries have the same level.of resources as the U S Britain, Germany and France they still can deploy a limited number of troops or certain assets, I wasn't suggesting they deploy.whole corps or divisions... The whole purpose of deploying troops is to make a political statement, to.demonstrate resolve and solidarity. A Spanish detachment of Typhoons, Belgian mechanized company, Dutch SPH battery and,an engineering component from Portugal, to use as examples, are ewell within their capabilities.

Norway has sent 1 Frigate (of 4) to the Mediterranean; in addition there are some 130 Norwegian soldiers in the Baltics. That's actually all we can contribute at the moment unfortunately.

The Netherlands has sent the warship HNLMS Rotterdam to the Baltic Sea, and will send a couple of F-35 to Bulgaria. They also have forces on stand-by.

Denmark has sent 4 F-16 to the Baltics, and also a Frigate into the Baltic Sea. Spain is sending ships to join NATO naval forces and is considering sending fighter jets to Bulgaria. France has expressed its readiness to send troops to Romania under NATO command.

Belgium has troops on standby.

As mentioned Germany is considering to send 350 troops. Not sure what Portugal, Greece, Italy and Turkey are doing though.

NATO - News: NATO Allies send more ships, jets to enhance deterrence and defence in eastern Europe, 24-Jan.-2022
Belgian army has troops prepared if Ukraine situation escalates (brusselstimes.com)

 

[Feanor]

Russia deploys MiG-31K with hypersonic Kinzhal land-attack missile. The nuclear-capable Kinzhal can reach most European capitals when launched from the MiG.

Russia Deploys Hypersonic Missile To Baltic In Range Of NATO Capitols (forbes.com)

This seems a pretty clear message of threat to European countries, and most likely should bee seen in the context of the "Ukrainian" situation.

Yes and no. Their forward deployment isn't anything new, they've been sitting around in South MD, within range of much if not all of Europe for a while. And if you consider the range of the MiG-31K, and the range of the munition, just where could they be set up where they wouldn't be a threat to much if not all of Europe? Russia has a plethora of tactical and strategic nuclear delivery systems, this is just one more.

The Iskanders deployed in Belarus are also 'nuclear capable'. No idea if the Russians still stockpile nuclear arty rounds though.

There was confirmation of 'special' munitions for the Iskanders some time ago, so presumably yes, they have nuclear missiles for them. Artillery is a separate question.

Something which occurred to me is that when it comes to coverage and footage on Russia we tend to see heavy stuff in the form of MBTs. IFVS, arty and other things but with the Ukrainians it tends to be more of infantry. No idea why but this is certainly the case.

The Ukrainian armed forces are badly short on armor and artillery, especially MBTs. They've formed buckets of new units, but their stockpile of Soviet-era weapons can't stretch to cover. That's why many brigades, instead of the two arty btlns they're supposed to have, each with 3 batteries of 18 systems (MLRS and howitzer) have a single brigade artillery group with 1-2 4 gun batteries of howitzers, and often just a single MLRS battery. Many also have a tank company instead of a tank btln, and many of the tank btlns have 20-25 tanks, instead of the 31 they're supposed to have.

 

[STURM]

Todjaeger,

How would you define the Caribbean.and Afghanistan, 'spheres of influence' or 'areas of strategic importance' for the U.S. Britain?

When the U.S. was on its way to.becoming a great power it spread its influence and established near hegemony in the Caribbean to the extent that it was ready to.go to war with European power which threatened challenged U,S, power in the region.

Afghanistan was of the outmost importance for Britain because it led to India and the biggest worry was that after annexing the areas to the north of Afghnistan [the present day 'stans'], Russia would enter Afghanistan on its way to India. During a border war fought between Afghanistan and Persia, British troops were landed on Kharg island as a warning to the Persians. The Brits had no.desire to colonize but their policy was a friendly, compliant and subserviant government in Kabul.

 

[STURM]

There was confirmation of 'special' munitions for the Iskanders some time ago, so presumably yes, they have nuclear missiles for them.

Would I be correct in saying that Soviet doctrine called for Scud and other IRBMs to be employed almost exclusively [with chemical warheads] on operational level targets [some with strategic effects if successfully neutralised]] like command posts, logistic hubs and forward airfields and that how Scuds were employed by Iran and Iraq, as a not too accurate 'terror' weapon against large targets like cities is not how they would have been employed by the Soviets. .

 

[Atunga]

According to the article I linked to, Iskanders have limited reach. I am not sure about Iskanders in Belarus but those in Kaliningrad can (again, according to the article) reach Berlin and Warsaw, but not London, Paris and Rome. Wheras the Kinzhal can reach London, Paris and Rome.


Various reasons. Norway for instance have very few troops, and we share a border with Russia. We cannot send more than what we already have sent without severely compromising our own security. The other NATO countries are aware, and are not asking Norway to send more. Denmark and the Netherlands have sent some minor additional contributions already. France, Germany, Spain and Italy should be able to send more. And Turkey of course. For various political reasons they are hesitant. However, Germany have signaled they might send another 350 troops. No wonder Russia is so afraid of NATO, it's aggressive posture right now must seem very scary to Russia.


NATO has tried many times to start a dialog with Russia, and has also tried to implement and abide to various agreements and protocols. As discussed previously, Russia has "responded" by turning the Russian representation at NATO HQ into a spy ring, breaking various agreements, killing opponents living in NATO countries, starting troll factories aiming to weaking Western democracies (note: not limited to NATO countries!), launching cyber-attacks against various Western countries (note: not limited to NATO countries) and invading some neighbours (so far limited to non-NATO countries).

No wonder Eastern European countries want to join NATO! Ukraine was not really interested in joining NATO until they were invaded by Russia.

Non-NATO countries Finland and Sweden are observing what is happening, they notice the troll factories and cyber attacks from Russia against their own democracies, and they also notice that Russia is threatening them with military attacks including nuclear, if they decide to enter NATO. However when looking at what happened to Ukraine, and how Russia trashed the Budapest memorandum, more and more people in Sweden and Finland also want to join NATO. This increased interest in Sweden and Finland of joining NATO is not related to any pressure from NATO, it is simply a reaction to the Russian behavior.

Post deleted with author advising no offence was meant.

@Atunga

I am not sure how to classify this. Given factual events Russian is open to criticism. You clearly take issue with this. You make vague accusations without addressing the fact that the issue on the Ukraine border is in response to the Russian build up. This is an effort to keep NATO out of its sphere of influence (and we know Russia are uncomfortable with this). How do you justify this tactic to keep Ukraine within the Russian sphere of influence when it appears the majority of Ukrainians do not what this noting the indications are that Ukraine citizens (and as a sovereign nation) are not happy with this. You make the point that Finland and Sweden did not join NATO for fear that this sort of response would occur ... how is this a justification.

At this stage I consider your response as unacceptable. Out of fairness I am giving your a chance to justify why Russia should be allowed for threaten a country to ensure it does not sign a treaty with NATO (or any other country). If you do not feel like responding I will ban you for trolling. If the response is more of the same (without a reasonable case) then the same sanction will apply.

Your call.

alexsa

 

[Feanor]

Like China, the Russian government only understands bullying & has never heard of the fable of the sun & the north wind.

There is another possibility for Russian deployment to Belarus. On February 22nd Belarus is going to have a constitutional referendum that may very well expand Lukashenko's powers drastically or even involve a gentle transfer of power to a handpicked successor. Given what happened at the last elections there, I wouldn't be surprised if this causes another round of internal instability. Russian troops could be there to ensure that no matter how bad the crackdown by Belorussian security forces, no foreign intervention is possible without starting a major war.

 

[Beholder]

All in all ~7 armies worth of units on RF side.
It is composed from public available sattelite images
(on date 07/02) by israeli oficer that deal with sattelite images.
It is from this video:

 

[STURM]

Russian troops could be there to ensure that no matter how bad the crackdown by Belorussian security forces, no foreign intervention is possible without starting a major war.

Granted but even if there were no Russians troops in Belarus what is the likelihood of foreign intervention in the event of a major domestic crisis? As it stands NATO doesn't even have the will to.be in conflict with Russia over the Ukraine and NATO or foreign intervention in Belarus will lead to a Russian response.

 

[Feanor]

Granted but even if there were no Russians troops in Belarus what is the likelihood of foreign intervention in the event of a major domestic crisis? As it stands NATO doesn't even have the will to.be in conflict with Russia over the Ukraine and NATO or foreign intervention in Belarus will lead to a Russian response.

If Lukashenko's hold on power becomes truly precarious, elements of his own government might start looking in other directions. At that point all it takes is a handful of leading western governments recognizing Tikhanovskaya, an uprising by some force-wielding state structures, and you have the grounds for a foreign intervention to help topple the dictator. You might see this is as unlikely, but I suspect Lukashenko himself, or Putin, might not.

 

[STURM]

Indeed. When Putin talks about certain things NATO has been.doing which is detrimental to Russia's security, it's not all rhetoric. He actually believes it. Certain things are seen as very provocative by the Russians, although this might not be apparent to outsiders.

I remember reading somewhere that there were various occasions during the Cold War where the Soviet leadership was convinced that a NATO strike was imminent, especially during large scale exercises like REFORGER.

 

[the concerned]

Is it true that the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad is a bought piece of land.

 

[STURM]

It was formerly part of Germany. A Prussian city.

 

[Steinmetz]

Hopefully Macron made some leeway in his talks with Putin and Zelensky. However saying that the "Minsk Agreement" should be the standard of de-escalation and peace at the moment is rather redundant. It's just a band-aid to a much larger problem, and can't last forever in it's current form. It seems to be France and Germany want to create a different resolution opposed namely the United States and the UK. If I was them, I would push for a new "Minsk" agreement, with more concrete language.

Minsk agreements “base” for resolving "Ukrainian issue" - Macron

If what I'm reading about the UK sending over Anti-Ship missiles is true, that's very counter productive. I think that would constitute as a definite red line, outlined by Russia.

Stay back! Britain to arm Ukraine with anti-ship missiles in warning shot to Putin

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1491336415367798785

Excerpts from the Putin/Macron presser:

 

[Atunga]

What dialog has NATO offered Russia? What opponents did Russia kill? Don't NATO spy on Russia? Why u making it look like NATO is innocent? Don't NATO carry out cyber attacks? They even spy on them selves, they kill leaders of other countries and brag about it later, what did Gaddafi do to them? They killed Gaddafi and then allowed Libya to rot.. the NATO big guns are the ones looting Africa and killing any leader that tries to oppose them.. if it was Russia or China doing to Africa what the west is doing to Africa, I am sure you will have it on the list of Russian atrocities.. you can say Russia is bad but you can't compare their bad activities to that of NATO. NATO does bad in commercial quantities and they don't have to fear retribution or Sanctions, they get away with everything they do... Finland and Sweden didn't join NATO and they know very well why they didn't, and if anything, what's happening in Ukraine will make them maintain their stance against joining NATO. Finland and Sweden don't want missiles pointing at their cities, they don't want to get caught up in the cross fire when the shooting starts, they have maintained this policy for decades even at the height of the cold war, it's not going to change

@Atunga

I am not sure how to classify this. Given factual events Russian is open to criticism. You clearly take issue with this. You make vague accusations without addressing the fact that the issue on the Ukraine border is in response to the Russian build up. This is an effort to keep NATO out of its sphere of influence (and we know Russia are uncomfortable with this). How do you justify this tactic to keep Ukraine within the Russian sphere of influence when it appears the majority of Ukrainians do not what this noting the indications are that Ukraine citizens (and as a sovereign nation) are not happy with this. You make the point that Finland and Sweden did not join NATO for fear that this sort of response would occur ... how is this a justification.

At this stage I consider your response as unacceptable. Out of fairness I am giving your a chance to justify why Russia should be allowed for threaten a country to ensure it does not sign a treaty with NATO (or any other country). If you do not feel like responding I will ban you for trolling. If the response is more of the same (without a reasonable case) then the same sanction will apply.

Your call.

alexsa

I will try and be straight forward and transparent then hope that I don't get banned but that's your decision to make. [Mod edit: IMO, states need not be deliberately trying to cause strife between each other to encounter a security dilemma; however, the steps both NATO or Russia make for increased security gains can result in the escalation of conflict.

• Moscow seems to have switched from deterrence to aggression to manage its security dilemma. Please read the 14 Dec 1974, the UNGA approved Resolution 3314 (XXIX), which defined “aggression.” While this is non-binding, it is certainly interesting to see how Russian behaviour against Ukraine matches the agreed definition of “aggression.”
• If the use of force is authorised, Putin will use it to achieve political goals and inflict pain on Ukraine. This could be done by destroying military units, inflicting casualties, taking PoWs, and degrading Ukrainian ability to defend against future escalation. This is because Moscow believes Kyiv will remain hostile and is increasing its military capabilities.

Despite the above, I recognise that Russia has an escalation strategy to get a desired geopolitical outcome.

What concerns me is that Atunga’s post contains actual falsehoods. It seems to be an attempt at being counter factual (without supporting links to prove Atunga’s unsupported assertions). ]

In this high stake competition between NATO and Russia over Ukraine both sides have been involved in dubious practice in order to get the upper hand over the other. we all blame Russia for what is happening in Ukraine today but every body seems to forget that the core problem was started by the Coup d'etat that over threw a democratically elected government of Ukraine.. I don't have a problem with what ever tactics NATO or Russia employs to get Ukraine into their various spheres of influence because they both want to win and have the upper hand.. my question is, why is it that When Russia is accused and bashed in horrible ways on here everybody cheers then when a few horrible things are said about NATO and the West, it's not acceptable?

I was responding to someone that said all sorts about Russian behavior and how Russia is deemed bad, just tried to remind him that NATO are no angels then I get banned? [Mod edit: Enough with this illogical argument that claims unfairness, when the Moderators have given you extra leeway. But you chose to use this leeway given, to hang yourself, by posting more misinformation. Given your attempt to redefine Russia aggression as a right, I suspect your time here will be short.

More importantly, what Atunga writes is often factually wrong, nonsensical when read in context, and entirely lacking in substance. Let me add a few bullet points for Atunga’s consideration.

• Whether the US and other NATO members should help Ukraine and how much is a tough policy question.
• The Russian argument against NATO expansion is premised on the idea that the former Eastern European and Baltic states do not enjoy full foreign policy autonomy, that they are within a Russian sphere of influence.
• Feb 2022 talks in Berlin between Ukraine and Russia, joined by France and Germany, at first held hope for some progress, but at the end, nothing palpable emerged.
• Team Biden likes to present the view that Ukraine is peaceful, stable and wants to fight corruption. But reality intrudes — it country that is at war with breakaway provinces (that are supported by Russia). This never ending war is a drain on its treasury. Ukraine wants to build commercial ties to western Europe but it lacks the zeal to reform its corrupt institutions; nor does it have the required rule of law or norms for a modern economy.

An invasion of Ukraine, if it occurs, will be a humanitarian and economic disaster not only for Ukraine, but also for Russia. IMHO, Putin has painted himself into a corner. He has built his foreign policy around a confrontation with NATO, but he does not have the domestic strength at home for a sustained foreign military campaign – Russia’s GDP is smaller than Japan or South Korea.]

In regards to Finland and Sweden, it's well known that these countries have maintained neutrality so they don't get involved in a potential war between NATO and Russia, they maintained neutrality even when Russia was more powerful and aggressive so I don't think they feel threatened in any way… [Mod edit: Factually incorrect. Finland sees Russia as a source of challenges to its sovereignty (see this May 2018 article: With Russia right across the border). This is why Finland’s strategy towards Russia combines economic and political co-operation, intended at reducing the risk of bilateral tensions, with military deterrence. In addition, the Finnish Navy is passionate about naval mines. This includes both laying mines —as well as hunting for them.

IMO, it is undeniable that Finland maintains it mine laying capability, conscription and its 64 fighter air force for military deterrence due to the Russian threat.

Sweden's most far-reaching defence cooperation is its cooperation with Finland. The two countries have similar security policies, and have extensive defence cooperation. Further, Sweden’s Foreign Minister Ann Linde and her Finnish counterpart Pekka Haavisto, demonstrated this point by meeting with NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in Brussels for “dialogue” on their “deepening partnership” — Sweden and Finland have security policies that demonstrate that they feel threatened.]

 

[John Fedup]

You don’t think Sweden and Finland feel threatened by Russia? Their actions of late suggest otherwise.