Russian & Eastern Europe Geopolitics thread

[Vanoi]

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-signs-t...124624670.html

MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty with Georgia's rebel South Ossetia region on Wednesday that almost completely integrates it with Russia, alarming Georgia and the West a year after Moscow took over Crimea.

Just Russia taking advantage of the frozen conflicts it has helped create. Now the region isn't officially part of Russia but treaty integrates much of its economy, police, military, custom services and border guard.

I don't see relations between the West or Russia getting better anytime soon if these are the actions Russia continues to take.

[wudang_clown]

I don't understand what's the problem. President Putin loves all races and nations and he just tries very hard to make Russia ultra-multi-cultural state. What is wrong with that?

[fkizz]

What is wrong with that?

Well if I didn't like when Putin put bombers with nuclear abilities flying around our borders, and I live in Portugal, I can imagine the Georgians feeling a bit worried and why/how.

Add to that the possibility of the higher ups drinking vodka when making decisions..

I don't care if Putin has nice shades or swag when he enters in office or whatever, reasons for NATO being around are obvious and clear.

[wudang_clown]

Well if I didn't like when Putin put bombers with nuclear abilities flying around our borders, and I live in Portugal, I can imagine the Georgians feeling a bit worried and why/how..

How can Georgians be worried? They have been bordering Russia since forever, I doubt annexation of a small area with few tens of thousands of people make them even more worried that they were. Keep in mind we are talking about a region with an ethnic minority which was opposed to Georgian rule at least since the beginning of the Soviet Union. So it's not just modern Russia expanding. The roots of the problem are much deeper.

[Sire Brenshar]

Im afraid the OP wont be too detailed, but I figured this is necessary as there are currently 3 or so threads that either are about developments in Russia or heavily discuss it.

This thread is about Russia in particular, about Eastern European states in general (loosely defined), and of their relations with one another and the world within the context of what is a deteriorating geopolitical situation. Mostly this should deflect the amount of off-topic/vaguely related discussions in the Ukraine Development thread and keep that one more focused on events directly involving Ukraine - Here Ukraine instead can be discussed as a state on the unfortunate frontline of a growing international confrontation between the West and Russia.

Hypothetical discussions and predictions are encouraged (if only by me), but please keep in mind we should strive to make our posts informative and actual discussions and to keep our ideological differences from just being arguments of opinion but rather as interesting different perspectives on events.

If in doubt please refer to: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ng-Forum-Rules

Not to burden our mods unnecessarily but there are several threads and posts that can very easily be merged into this one.

[Sire Brenshar]

Russian Army plans to conduct an exercise, aim of which would be to deploy mobile Iskander missile system in the territory of the Kaliningrad Oblast. The exercise is a part of the planned combat readiness tests. Moreover, Tupolev Tu-22M3 (NATO codename:*Backfire-C) bombers are going to be stationed in Crimea – as the TASS media agency reports.

http://www.defence24.com/News_iskand...oned-in-crimea

Tu-22M3 and Tu-95 units might also get deployed to Kaliningrad, do those who dont want to read the whole article (considering its poor English quality I might not blame them ;p)

Iskander-M would replace or supplement the existing Tochka-U launchers, and add the capability of of struck in targets up to 400km (from the previous 120km), with increased evasive ability to counter Anti-Missile systems, like those planned on being bought in Poland and being deployed by the US (ie Aegis Ashore) in the North of that country and in Romania.

There exists as well Iskander-K missiles with 500km range, or an unofficial range of up to 2000km. (Im not sure what the source of that claim is however)

Not much to comment really, I think everyone understands how this affects things. However if in the future Kaliningrad was to secede, it could mean a huge blow to Russias strategic arsenal. It bears noting Kaliningrad has strong pro-EU yearnings and a (now banned) separatist party. It is, after all geographically closer to Warsaw than to Moscow.

Not long ago Russian head of ministry of arms control Mikhail Ulyanov also mentioned that Russia if it desires could deploy nuclear weapons in Crimea, though too that there currently are none.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...50311?irpc=932

To support something I wrote in the Ukraine Development thread:

'' Russia is invulnerable to direct military actions so long as they have a nuclear umbrella.''

President Vladimir Putin has said he was ready to put Russia's nuclear weapons on standby during tensions over the crisis in Ukraine and Crimea.
[...]
On putting Russia's nuclear weapons into a state of combat readiness, Mr Putin said: "We were ready to do this."
"[Crimea] is our historical territory. Russian people live there. They were in danger. We cannot abandon them," he added.

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31899680

So again, anything qualified as 'historical Russian territory', where they deem 'Russians' to be under threat, and anything that is a denial of Russian interests, can be met with nuclear retaliation.

Nothing new, this has been official Russian doctrine since 1997, and at times (80 s) the policy of the USSR. But where the USSR had clear boundaries diligniating its own, and Warsaw Pact satellite states territory, today Russia isnt as clearly defined and as we see its borders are still open to interpretation by the Russian leadership, and it should be remembered that historical territories directly controlled by Russia stretched to Germany, South Eastern Europe and the Middle East. And as well, where Marxist thought dominated USSRs elite, today the dominant ideology is Russian nationalism and religion, that is usually less rational and more apocalyptic, and has far more support from the general populace.

So in my opinion, expect Crimea (and S. Ossetia) to not be the last of Russsian territorial expansions and do not expect that just because we in the West are war averse and perhaps more 'rational', that we should expect Russia to be and act according to those principles. Personally speaking if I was able I would be in the Canadian or Polish reserves right now to do my part if the worst comes.

[Papay]

South Ossetia is a "bait" for the Georgians to make them enter Eurasian Union. You want to enter Eurasian Union? You can take back these territories. You dont want? Then you must recognize that you've lost these territories forever

[Butan]

"Russia continues to expand"-... in South Ossetia, a territorry they helped liberate from Georgia years ago (the country who tried to re-integrate them by force multiple times, since the 90's), led by the widely unrecognized (mostly by NATO countries) Ossetian government fully supporting Russian presence.

Just helping the thread with a bit more detailed narration

[fkizz]

How can Georgians be worried? They have been bordering Russia since forever, I doubt annexation of a small area with few tens of thousands of people make them even more worried that they were. Keep in mind we are talking about a region with an ethnic minority which was opposed to Georgian rule at least since the beginning of the Soviet Union. So it's not just modern Russia expanding. The roots of the problem are much deeper.

I'll admit Caucasus complexities aren't my expertise, and that on Caucasus you might be more knowledgeable than me, but looking on how it's going on Ukraine, making a dichotomy on Ukraine, where even an unrelated civilian airplane has been shot down in the crossfire, whoever did it I'm not discussing it now, and comparing the difference in treatment in eastern ukraine to crimea, it's easy to see why some georgians would feel scared or uneasy.

Or some of them might not want anexation, they do have their Georgian language, and culture or am I wrong?

Also the fact that Georgia is tiny compared to Russia, and Russia boasts a strong military.. Georgians can have reasons to feel afraid.

Biggest question is, does Russia really need to annex Georgia? Do the costs outweight the benefits? Doesn't Russia have internal problems to solve instead?

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

... led by the widely unrecognized (mostly by the NATO axis)...

wtf -.-

[Butan]

The "axis" bothering you? I changed it so you can breath again

[Stavroforos]

Probably better this way, since it will make it much harder for Georgians to start acting up again.

[Vilkas09]

yea, Eastern Europe is definitely a next target for Russia because they have em... things. Also Iskander-K is a clear sign about em... everything. What I want to say is that I really feel sorry and pray for Poland, Estonia, Finland, etc.

Now some good old bedtime reading for those who expect russian invasion soon:





Read and be prepared.

p.s.: also there is recent Holywood movie Red Dawn about american teens saving America from Russian invasion:



Can be applied to Eastern Europe. Watch it. If you will survive the movie, then russians will be a walk in park for you.

[snuggans]

"Russia continues to expand"-... in South Ossetia, a territorry they helped liberate from Georgia years ago (the country who tried to re-integrate them by force multiple times, since the 90's), led by the widely unrecognized (mostly by NATO countries) Ossetian government fully supporting Russian presence.

Just helping the thread with a bit more detailed narration

just like how they helped liberate Crimea and Donbas. ( i help too with detailed narration )

anyway, i say proceed with the missile defense shield in eastern Europe and later in Ukraine whenever they end up joining. easy decision here, especially when hes throwing some of his phallic toys into Kaliningrad.

[Vilkas09]

this is just a tiny little piece of land with pro russian folks living there. Let it be.

[Derpy Hooves]

"Russia continues to expand"-... in South Ossetia, a territorry they helped liberate from Georgia years ago (the country who tried to re-integrate them by force multiple times, since the 90's), led by the widely unrecognized (mostly by the entire world) Ossetian government fully supporting Russian presence.

Just helping the thread with a bit more detailed narration

FTFY
Only four countries recognize South Ossetia. Nauru, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Russia.

[nemgod]

just like how they helped liberate Crimea and Donbas. ( i help too with detailed narration )

anyway, i say proceed with the missile defense shield in eastern Europe and later in Ukraine whenever they end up joining. easy decision here, especially when hes throwing some of his phallic toys into Kaliningrad.

Apples and Oranges. Unlike Crimea. South Ossetia never wanted to be in Georgia. They were fighting for independence from Georgia even before the USSR fell apart. Couple years later a UN peace agreement was put together. One part actually allowed for Russian troops to be there (Yes they were there legally under a UN framework agreed to by everyone). During the build in tensions between Georgia and Russia over the region there was a brief skirmish and then another ceasefire agreement happened. This ceasefire agreement was ended by Georgia who started bombing and shelling South Ossetia on the opening ceremony of the Beijing olympics.

These attacks struck and killed at least two Russian soldiers who were there legally. During this time the Georgian president rushed to the west crying how Russia is attacking, meanwhile Russia was having a buildup in their side of the border. While this happened Russia tried to go to the UN to call for an immediate ceasefire. US/UK said no and threatened to Veto. After that happened then Russia took gloves off and went half out on Georgia. Yes they went past the S.Ossetia/Abkhazian borders but you don't stop at borders if it doesn't give you a tactical advantage.

[hellheaven1987]

Finland is next.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[snuggans]

Apples and Oranges. Unlike Crimea. South Ossetia never wanted to be in Georgia. They were fighting for independence from Georgia even before the USSR fell apart. Couple years later a UN peace agreement was put together. One part actually allowed for Russian troops to be there (Yes they were there legally under a UN framework agreed to by everyone). During the build in tensions between Georgia and Russia over the region there was a brief skirmish and then another ceasefire agreement happened. This ceasefire agreement was ended by Georgia who started bombing and shelling South Ossetia on the opening ceremony of the Beijing olympics.

These attacks struck and killed at least two Russian soldiers who were there legally. During this time the Georgian president rushed to the west crying how Russia is attacking, meanwhile Russia was having a buildup in their side of the border. While this happened Russia tried to go to the UN to call for an immediate ceasefire. US/UK said no and threatened to Veto. After that happened then Russia took gloves off and went half out on Georgia. Yes they went past the S.Ossetia/Abkhazian borders but you don't stop at borders if it doesn't give you a tactical advantage.

i am not equating Crimea to S. Ossetia, i am mocking the liberal usage of the term 'liberate' when its applied to the actions of the Russians in these conflicts, especially when human rights organizations have indicated there have been gross offenses by the Russians on minorities in S. Ossetia, which shares some similarities with Crimea.

regardless of what the local self-determination is, Russians have time and time again continued to exacerbate things whenever they are not completely fabricating what the local self-determination should be, as seen through the phony referendums in Crimea with its poor poor malignant choice of options, or by expropriating dissidents out of the area.

[Costin_Razvan]

not only is Crimea's economy collapse accelerating after the Russian invasion but the funds Putin is injecting into the place is hemorrhaging Russia back at home so it's a double edged sword. now that they are ruled by Putin their civil liberties are a joke compared to what they are able to have with the current Ukrainian govenment

Crimea is getting injection of funds from the Kremlin and the Russian economy isn't collapsing despite what some might wish. I don't need a source for that since there's been plenty saying it. As for the notion of civil liberties. Oh you mean the same Ukraine where the police has recently given the right to shoot protesters or where the SBU is arresting people for protesting against the government incompetence in waging the war in Donbass? That Ukraine.

You and Dromi are made of the same cloth.

start sourcing all of that garbage you just posted, including the part where you left out how if Putin tries to bomb anybody that you just listed the Russian navy will cease to exist pretty fast. "by the balls", what is this a comedy show?

How about you source any of the delusions you've posted in this thread including the idiocy that the Russian navy would cease to exist pretty fast. Let me give you an idea: There are virtually no NATO forces in the Black Sea Fleet with the exception of regional forces and a few frigates/destroyers on a training exercise. NATO cannot deploy significant naval assets in the Black Sea because of the Montreaux convention and the tonnage limits contained there nor can it reinforce anyone during a war time because of that same convention ( passage is not allowed during war by any of the parties ).

The Turks won't throw away the Montreaux Convention because it benefits them primarily.

Airborne assets? Oh you mean squadrons of fighter jets to deal with the squadrons of fighters and bombers the Russians have posted in Crimea or in the south as well as the dozens of S-300/S-400 missile systems and the P-800 anti-ship missile systems present there. Recently Russia sent in their TU-22Ms to Crimea.

NATO can of course send significant forces in the region, but so can Russia heavily reinforce Crimea with dozens more anti-ship and anti-air missiles and jet fighters if a war breaks out. There are over 30.000 Russian troops on Ukraine, dozens of some of their best aircraft along with the strongest fleet on this side of the world and that was before 2015 started. Now Crimea is set to receive even more advanced equipment, fighters, ships, submarines and troops.

The gain from having Crimea is that it gives Russia significant leverage over virtually every other black sea power. Only Turkey is in any position to contest that due to their control of the straights but the Turks are getting along quite with Russia: No sanctions over Crimea, no condemnation on the same level as the EU/US over it, and a new pipeline deal.

Your claim that the Russian Armed Forces in Crimea could be so "easily destroyed" has no basis in factual reality.

Here's a comparison that you might understand: Imagine the US decided to sent into Guantanamo Bay two entire Carrier Battlegroups on a permanent basis along with an entire marine division while tensions racked up between the two countries. How exactly do you think Cuba would feel towards that if not afraid?

Romania, Bulgaria are Cuba in that situation.