Russian & Eastern Europe Geopolitics thread

[athanaric]

You mean that this peaceful organization called NATO wouldnt had interfered in a case of a pro-Russian coup in Lithuania or Estonia? Now thats laughable. Or perhaps they wouldnt. Lithuania or Estonia dont have oil as far as i know. Raiding Iraq or Libya matches more to their logic and interests

Irrespective of other cases and regions, Russia doesn't have any more of a claim to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania than Germany, Poland, Sweden, or Denmark have (all these coutries have had control over parts of the region in the past). Any Russian attempt to seize any part of these countries, be it via a "loyalist uprising" or a straightforward invasion, is no more justified than, say, the US invading, and seizing parts of, Canada on some pretext. Or, say, Britain invading Spain.

NATO and EU are far from ideal, but membership in these organizations in voluntary and there are actual benefits to them. If Estonia joins the EU, it doesn't mean that a garrison of German and French settlers will be installed to ensure proper conduct, and that henceforth that "minority" will demand more and more privileges. That's the difference.

[Roma_Victrix]

Irrespective of other cases and regions, Russia doesn't have any more of a claim to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania than Germany, Poland, Sweden, or Denmark have (all these coutries have had control over parts of the region in the past). Any Russian attempt to seize any part of these countries, be it via a "loyalist uprising" or a straightforward invasion, is no more justified than, say, the US invading, and seizing parts of, Canada on some pretext. Or, say, Britain invading Spain.

NATO and EU are far from ideal, but membership in these organizations in voluntary and there are actual benefits to them. If Estonia joins the EU, it doesn't mean that a garrison of German and French settlers will be installed to ensure proper conduct, and that henceforth that "minority" will demand more and more privileges. That's the difference.

If that were the case, Germany under Merkel would have already launched an invasion into Greece shortly after Tsipras was elected Prime Minister, to ensure their proper conduct and repayment of loans. That's not how the EU works. In the old USSR and Warsaw Pact countries, however, if you stepped out of line, you got stomped like Hungary and Czechoslovakia. These days the Russian Federation limits their stomping to non-EU and non-NATO countries like Georgia and Ukraine. However, what if Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia weren't part of NATO? Would the Russian Federation consider them fair game too? I guess we'll never know.

[Gertrudius]

You mean that this peaceful organization called NATO wouldnt had interfered in a case of a pro-Russian coup in Lithuania or Estonia? Now thats laughable. Or perhaps they wouldnt. Lithuania or Estonia dont have oil as far as i know. Raiding Iraq or Libya matches more to their logic and interests

That's right, obfuscate about what NATO might conceivably possibly potentially do at the furthest limits of probability. Let me ask you this, would NATO invade Sweden if its government reversed its cooperative relationship with NATO? Because last time I checked, Ukraine at the time of maidan maintained it's status as a non-aligned (i.e. neutral) state (kinda like Sweden). See the disconnect in a wild hypothetical of what NATO would do in regards to one of it's allies, and the fact that Russia and Ukraine are not, and have not been allied? That is only one of several major gaps in the logic of your comparison. What you think NATO might do is irrelevant, it's not the one shipping its sons home from the Ukraine in caskets.*

Let's see, a limited exclusively training oriented mission in Iraq, entirely subsidiary to the US led coalition (which was not a NATO mission), and a UN sanctioned and requested bombing campaign over Libya...... Of course! It's the perfect diabolical position from which to loot their oil. -cue evil laugh. That's right, and now that the massive secret oil reserves of Kosovo and Afghanistan are also in our grasp, not even Russia can stop us from world domination! If you are going to spout conspiracy theories that are unsubstantiated and off topic, prepare to be mocked. If you characterize that unsubstantiated and ridiculous theory regarding oil and NATO's interests as "logic", what do you define a steaming pile of crap as?



*Let me note that I think it is a tragedy that those men have to suffer and die for such a morally bankrupt cause. I do not rejoice to see them die and it saddens me to think of the pain that their families must be going through.

[Sire Brenshar]

What I meant was that who in NATO would believe the Russian minority in, say, Estonia is subjected to ethnic cleansing? No one would believe that.

Still though, there would be confusion as to how accurate that information is.

If we compare to the current crises in Ukraine, we see we still have problems proving undoubtedly that Russians regulars are present there and have intervened. And this is a year after the conflict began already, back then things were even less clear.

And more importantly: we do largely see that our governments at least recognised quickly what was occurring. The populace however, took longer to convince (Ill wager a majority are just following the media and official lines, and dont have any interest beyond that), and still today we seem to have a considerable number of people who are supportive of the Russian narration. So any political party loath to have anything to do with Russia, can opt to play stupid (or are already stupid, ie Marine Le Pen, UKIP, and all them), and can rely on public opinion being divided enough for it not to be political suicide.

I do admit though that after putting it that way Id imagine NATO members would actually make some kind of stand, but we can't forget what would be going through their minds: ''should we really risk a major confrontation with a unpredictable nuclear power over a tiny nation in an indefensible location with a large Russian minority?''

The aftermath of that would be interesting. I dont imagine NATO would actually collapse, not in Western Europe and North America anyways, but the debate over an EU army would probably take national spotlights. Former Warsaw Pact states might either take the finland route and start warming up to Russian influence or well, prepare militarily and hope they won't also get thrown under the bus, I guess.

Also worth pointing out who in NATO is actually prepared for a confrontation with Russia. The US obviously makes or breaks the whole thing, but the UK and Canada would be right behind them and are also rather capable.

QUOTE=wudang_clown;14435436]
I wonder if NATO could engage in a hybrid war, too.
[/QUOTE]

Hard to image NATO doing that, as its a pretty illegal by international standards.

Its also more of a strategy for when you have the weaker hand.

It's political fiction. In reality, even if PiS was in power (that's the more right wing party), Polish government would not turn hostile towards Lithuania. That's the party which has always been advocating firm stances in opposition to Russian actions in any crisis which Russia has been involved in.

Not PiS, but if a previously small (ie not in parliament) right wing-nationalist party was to gain power, say in response to the deteriorating geopolitical backyard.

If so public opinion might be turned against Lithuanians, not to hostile as in ready for war, but more at odds and complicating their common alliance.

The Polish ultimatum to Czechoslovakia in 1938, and its (to this day) negative consequences to Polands image come to mind (I am familiar with the Polish case and the events leading to that annexation btw). Just an example.

Or small cases like Jedwabne or German fifth columns being shot in Poznan, can be blown into huge issues, controversial for a long time after no matter how unproportionate or inaccurate they are to events and reality. Once again Odessa comes to mind too, 'some' posters here are still refering to that as an example of Ukrainian fascism.

I think they would simply launch their Iskanders en masse, targeting all important strategic installations, including military bases. That's why the Polish government wants to but Tomahawks. Otherwise - terrorizing local population, sure; however, firstly they would have to have access to Western Ukraine, or they could somehow launch raids from Belarus, but the former would mean Ukraine is completely defeated, which won't happen (any time soon, at least), and the latter would require Lukaszenka's permission.

I guess. Like I said Im just throwing ideas out there.

We do have a level corruption which is still too high, but to call it endemic today is an exaggeration. According to Transparency International, in 2014 Poland was in that regard slightly worse than Portugal, but slightly better than Spain (or other way around, I don't remember exactly). And Estonia, for example, was ranked higher than France. So, the label isn't really accurate in this context anymore.

Good point, I wasn't even aware of that.

A final thing I could say is Poland inherited the infamous Soviet bureaucracy and, well a lot of that inefficient Soviet stuff like the court system and all those government owned firms. Defense, coal mines railways etc.

If they tried, it would have been invaded already. So far the only ones speaking about "invasion" are US /NATO and their puppets "allies".
Plus all the anti-Russian hysteria is quite beneficial for US.

Have you learned the concept of a limited war yet?

Of course what would a HH troll post be without insinuating that NATO members are 'puppet states' (an easily disprovable claim, but what's the point of doing so if the suggestion itself is evidence of lack of interest in facts or of delusion), or again involving the US who has been nothing if not provably disinterested in Europe and Russia for the past decade under its current administration, but clearly thats not obvious enough.

[nemgod]

Irrespective of other cases and regions, Russia doesn't have any more of a claim to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania than Germany, Poland, Sweden, or Denmark have (all these coutries have had control over parts of the region in the past). Any Russian attempt to seize any part of these countries, be it via a "loyalist uprising" or a straightforward invasion, is no more justified than, say, the US invading, and seizing parts of, Canada on some pretext. Or, say, Britain invading Spain.

NATO and EU are far from ideal, but membership in these organizations in voluntary and there are actual benefits to them. If Estonia joins the EU, it doesn't mean that a garrison of German and French settlers will be installed to ensure proper conduct, and that henceforth that "minority" will demand more and more privileges. That's the difference.

Latvia being in NATO is going to protect it from outside sources but it also has a demographic time bomb in that it has 10-20% of the country that it refuses to give citizenship to. People that have been born and raised in Latvia without a citizenship of any country because of their outdated backward laws.

Latvia could tomorrow give out blanket citizenship to these people tomorrow and any so called threat from Russia using disgruntled locals as an excuse goes away overnight.

[StarDreamer]

Latvia being in NATO is going to protect it from outside sources but it also has a demographic time bomb in that it has 10-20% of the country that it refuses to give citizenship to. People that have been born and raised in Latvia without a citizenship of any country because of their outdated backward laws.

Latvia could tomorrow give out blanket citizenship to these people tomorrow and any so called threat from Russia using disgruntled locals as an excuse goes away overnight.

Well to be fair the "time bomb" is only there due to Russian imperialism under the Russian Empire and SU. They tried to best to depopulate areas from locals and resettle them with Russians.
I agree that their laws are outdated and they should give citizenship to those born in Latvia.

[diegis]

I do admit though that after putting it that way Id imagine NATO members would actually make some kind of stand, but we can't forget what would be going through their minds: ''should we really risk a major confrontation with a unpredictable nuclear power over a tiny nation in an indefensible location with a large Russian minority?''

The aftermath of that would be interesting. I dont imagine NATO would actually collapse, not in Western Europe and North America anyways, but the debate over an EU army would probably take national spotlights. Former Warsaw Pact states might either take the finland route and start warming up to Russian influence or well, prepare militarily and hope they won't also get thrown under the bus, I guess.

I dont think NATO closing its eyes and let one member to be thrown under the bus is an real option. Losing as such its eastern members will mean losing any credibility and weight on international stage, with a following cascade effect that will affect all members eventually.
EU common market will probably fall, and thats the engine that provide most of the economy level in western Europe too. Social unrests will surely follow after that fall of living standards (possibly even a big dive), not to mention the ever present these days (at least in some circles) islamist danger in those countries (and that is real in good part, as we had seen already). Some wars will probably start here and there in eastern Europe at least. Russia and very probably China too will gain new positions in Europe and EU will be greatly diminished and lose most of its importance.

Military funding will greatly increase everywhere, significantly more then supposedly 2 % of GDP as its the idea now in NATO, some other European countries will go on nuclear route if NATO is down. If some as North Korea or Pakistan and such did it, is not too hard for others to do it.

China will see this as an oportunity to do as she please in Asia, and pretty much all western positions in Middle East will fall too as they won't be seen as reliable, and fundamentalists there will love that and will greatly use it for their own benefit.

I am sure Russia will love that too, it will not only release the pressure that affect her now, but will turn the tide (an even much bigger tide on the medium and long run) against whatever is left from NATO and EU as well. The world today is already globalized in a large degree and such big actions have global consequences.
So I think NATO will answer in force or accordingly to any Russia actions, and Russia know this. And the question is from them too, would Russia risk a war that will eventually lead to her own destruction? They can't win a conventional war with NATO, and NATO obviously can't look the other way if some member is attacked by an outside enemy.
So why would Putin (and his oligarchs) risk their hard gained rich and power positions for such imperialist adventure? Why risk their lives (and the lives of Russian people) after they get such wealth and power in Russia? Because the nuclear war will be soon their only option, and they can't win that either. There will be only loosers, but some may survive better, and those are not Russians either.
Probably China will be the greates winner after such a war.

[Carach]

I dont think NATO closing its eyes and let one member to be thrown under the bus is an real option. Losing as such its eastern members will mean losing any credibility and weight on international stage, with a following cascade effect that will affect all members eventually.
EU common market will probably fall, and thats the engine that provide most of the economy level in western Europe too. Social unrests will surely follow after that fall of living standards (possibly even a big dive), not to mention the ever present these days (at least in some circles) islamist danger in those countries (and that is real in good part, as we had seen already). Some wars will probably start here and there in eastern Europe at least. Russia and very probably China too will gain new positions in Europe and EU will be greatly diminished and lose most of its importance.

how do you come to such an apocalyptic conclusion from that.

i second the opinion of sire; it would mean europe would be pushed more into its own defence. which tbfh is long overdue. Too many governments happy to reduce their defence spending to ridiculously low levels whilst ignoring all the threats (conventional and unconventional) they face.

It wouldn't be the end of the EU, financial systems wouldn't collapse because a self-defence alliance disappeared - the alliance was largely irrelevant during the 00's anyway (further shown by the fact only a few countries even spend close to the minimum level required to be a member), it had no identity or real threat to face. Russia have hilariously given it reason to exist again.

[Papay]

That's right, obfuscate about what NATO might conceivably possibly potentially do at the furthest limits of probability. Let me ask you this, would NATO invade Sweden if its government reversed its cooperative relationship with NATO? Because last time I checked, Ukraine at the time of maidan maintained it's status as a non-aligned (i.e. neutral) state (kinda like Sweden). See the disconnect in a wild hypothetical of what NATO would do in regards to one of it's allies, and the fact that Russia and Ukraine are not, and have not been allied? That is only one of several major gaps in the logic of your comparison. What you think NATO might do is irrelevant, it's not the one shipping its sons home from the Ukraine in caskets.*

Let's see, a limited exclusively training oriented mission in Iraq, entirely subsidiary to the US led coalition (which was not a NATO mission), and a UN sanctioned and requested bombing campaign over Libya...... Of course! It's the perfect diabolical position from which to loot their oil. -cue evil laugh. That's right, and now that the massive secret oil reserves of Kosovo and Afghanistan are also in our grasp, not even Russia can stop us from world domination! If you are going to spout conspiracy theories that are unsubstantiated and off topic, prepare to be mocked. If you characterize that unsubstantiated and ridiculous theory regarding oil and NATO's interests as "logic", what do you define a steaming pile of crap as?



*Let me note that I think it is a tragedy that those men have to suffer and die for such a morally bankrupt cause. I do not rejoice to see them die and it saddens me to think of the pain that their families must be going through.

To answer you question:If a pro-Russian coup occured in Sweden, NATO obviously would invade the country

[Derpy Hooves]

To answer you question:If a pro-Russian coup occured in Sweden, NATO obviously would invade the country

No they wouldn't. The US tolerates hostile regimes in the Americas. We have Maduro claiming daily that the US is creating coup after coup against the government. South of the US border we have a cartel going on. The US has not invaded.

[athanaric]

To answer you question:If a pro-Russian coup occured in Sweden, NATO obviously would invade the country

Why would a "pro-Russian coup" occur there? Why not a pro-Dutch coup? Or a pro-Italian coup? Both are probably more likely in Sweden.

[Sire Brenshar]

To answer you question:If a pro-Russian coup occured in Sweden, NATO obviously would invade the country

You are stating your opinion, so why do you say 'obviously'?

Let us ask instead: Has NATO invaded Hungary and Turkey? Two NATO states with autocratic rulers and pro-Russia governments, elected in not quite free or fair elections (or 'coups' rather, as the definition seems to have evolved), yet absolutly no response from NATO or any other Western state so far short of verbal public disapproval.
If what you said was true to any degree, and if you'd want to argue that the situation that led to those governments being in power is different from that in Ukraine, well we should still have seen some semblance of a hostile Western response. As in if NATO invasion of Sweden depends on that place having a pro-Russia coup, a hostile NATO response, or any kind of political pressure really, (sanctions, locking of EU funds, etc) should depend on there being a pro-Russia illiberal government in place. As you can see, not the case.

And for that reason your opinion can be dismissed as complete fiction and impossible.

Or do you want to clarify that its the coup alone that provokes the response, and not the political intentions of a coup.

[Gertrudius]

To answer you question:If a pro-Russian coup occured in Sweden, NATO obviously would invade the country

Based on what? Your comprehensive telepathic understanding of NATO, it's doctrine, and the policies of it's member states? Again, if NATO is this aggressive monstrosity you seem to claim it is, why aren't there thousands of NATO troops rolling into Donbass? Why didn't they invade when Ukraine decided to adopt it's non-block status, in what was clearly a diplomatic coup for Russia?

You seem to make allot of unequivocal, and from where I'm sitting ridiculous, claims. I can't help but think it stems from having no factual understanding of NATO as an organization. The fact that it's hamstrung from being able to conduct the nefarious policy you so blithely affirm as fact is readily apparent to someone with even a cursory understanding of it's organizational structure. The combination of at least internal transparency and consensus required for decision making in the North Atlantic Council renders the notion of unilateral direct action against anyone in Europe based on their policy decisions and alliance affiliations hilarious. In the specific case we are talking about, where are you expecting Norway and Denmark to fall in this war? they have a defensive alliance with Sweden, and presumably NATO is the aggressor in this ridiculous scenario, and by treaty that obligates Denmark and Norway (also Finland), to support Sweden in their defense. But at the same time, consensus is a requirement for action within NATO, so how does it make sense for Denmark and Norway to declare war on themselves, or do so against their strong regional interests? If NATO could so simply override such objections as your assertion requires, then why is Macedonia not a member of NATO? It has been held in limbo for years because of the objection of one member state, and one that incidentally makes up a tiny percentage of the overall population and military resources of the alliance. It's almost like individual allies actually have a say in the alliance, and might be able to act as a break on hasty actions desired by others. But of course, that's ridiculous!

It makes it look suspiciously like you put no critical thought into your answer, and are just continuing to make inane assertions that are only supported by a narrative ignoring many important factors and realities, which are self-servingly disregarded in order to support your particular position on this issue.

[trance]

To answer you question:If a pro-Russian coup occured in Sweden, NATO obviously would invade the country

If Russia invaded Sweden I do sincerely hope that NATO would aid us.

NATO can not from any perspective be viewed as an aggressor if it intervened LOL.

[SPECTREtm]

To answer you question:If a pro-Russian coup occured in Sweden, NATO obviously would invade the country

Congratulations for cooking up the dumbest answer I've seen in a long time here, Pap. Beyond that I think Gert pretty much nailed it.

Just for the heck of it, how the hell would a pro-Russian coup happen in Sweden?

[Carach]

I've never been to Sweden. Got some swedish cousins though. Where's the best place for a holiday? I want to know for when we invade the place.

[SPECTREtm]

Malmø, because it's easier to go to Copenhagen from there

[Adar]

Malmø, because it's easier to go to Copenhagen from there

I think the British have already done enough sightseeing of that particular area.



For tourism I recommend Gotland. A very nice and central location of the Baltic.

[Abdülmecid I]

No they wouldn't. The US tolerates hostile regimes in the Americas. We have Maduro claiming daily that the US is creating coup after coup against the government. South of the US border we have a cartel going on. The US has not invaded.

Do you consider cartels as hostile governments?

[trance]

I've never been to Sweden. Got some swedish cousins though. Where's the best place for a holiday? I want to know for when we invade the place.

Just as long as you leave some long range AA-missile systems and helicopters with anti-submarine capacity behind when you leave you're welcome to stay as long as you like.

Västergötland/Bohuslän is nice though, if you stay away from the Chicago-like ghettos of Gothenburg ofc.