Russian & Eastern Europe Geopolitics thread

[Heathen Hammer]

lying repeatedly doesn't suddenly turn it into a truth, HH.

If you understand that, then why do you keep doing that in every Russia-related thread?

Ouch...

Russia's Smartest People Are Leaving In Droves
Russia's Brain Drain Is Astounding
Why the middle class is leaving Russia
Why Smart Russians Are Fleeing
Russian Emigration Spikes in 2013-2014

But that is my point. Once Russians rise up against pro-Western oligarch scum and send them to jail, things might get better.

[Derpy Hooves]

But that is my point. Once Russians rise up against pro-Western oligarch scum and send them to jail, things might get better.

​If they are truly pro-West, and they control Putin (as you claim), then why would they invade a country that is trying to join the EU (one of the biggest Western institutions)?

[Heathen Hammer]

​If they are truly pro-West, and they control Putin (as you claim), then why would they invade a country that is trying to join the EU (one of the biggest Western institutions)?

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.

[Tiberios]

Whether or not the USSR can be classified as a Russian state is not the topic of this thread. Please stay on topic everybody.

[SPECTREtm]

But that is my point. Once Russians rise up against pro-Western oligarch scum and send them to jail, things might get better.

I'm not surprised you didn't read - you never do. Long story short, your point (whatever the hell that is) has nothing to do with these.

[Dromikaites]

Well, its also somewhat different, Russia has the vast expanses of Siberia to call upon for raw resources, it has vast swathes of land to back into if it needs to, it has nuclear weapons, it has substantially greater manpower, and it has greater military expenditure. Russia may have a similarly sized economy to Italy, but in a war, both in the short term and in the long term, it would be in a far superior position. What's more, if Italy was to try to recreate the Roman empire it would immediately find itself up against France, Germany, Spain, Britain and Turkey (among many others), which combined would proceed to faceroll it rather quickly, Russia is up against the likes of Georgia and the Ukraine.

Indeed, most of the countries of Europe are akin to an array of blunted knives on a table, Russia is more akin to a similarly sized but sharpened knife attached to a tightly coiled spring; the destructive power of each may seem comparable at first glance but in actuality Russia is far more prepared than anyone in the E.U..

Having an oversized military actually makes things more difficult instead of making them easier. Especially when the economy is going down fast.

And then there's the issue of how valuable that military actually is.

The nuclear arsenal is of little use, just like it was in Afghanistan.

The conventional forces are sub-par in spite of the impressive numbers. Their performance in Georgia and Eastern Ukraine was unimpressive. So what exactly can Russia reconquer with those conventional forces? Georgia?!

Trying to reconquer Central Asia would be repeating both the Afghan and Chechen wars several times over.

Trying to reconquer Ukraine after barely succeeding to hold onto half of the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts (against ~10% of the Ukrainian army) is highly unlikely as well.

Trying to reconquer the Baltic States, all of them NATO members? Putin would find his tie was tied too tight, Pavel I style.

[Sir Adrian]

To be fair the Russian army did not actively try to reconquer Ukraine, you can't really judge the quality of an army based on a few illegal clandestine operations.

[Carach]

If you understand that, then why do you keep doing that in every Russia-related thread?

blah blah blah. What a childish response that in no way actually addresses anything i've ever said. Never disappoint.

u gonna respond to me in the other thread where i disproved ur or u still conveniently ignoring it?

I'm not surprised you didn't read - you never do. Long story short, your point (whatever the hell that is) has nothing to do with these.

Well the rest of us thank you for your links. Im never sure where he's really going with his posts either but you know you've got him good when he responds with the equivalent of "im a mirror" playground antics.

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.

you've already been told several times over several threads that an invasion doesn't necessarily equate to territorial conquest. I would ask that you refrain from repeating the fact that you are misinformed for the millionth time but i know it falls on deaf ears.

[ShockBlast]

To be fair the Russian army did not actively try to reconquer Ukraine, you can't really judge the quality of an army based on a few illegal clandestine operations.

True that but the sent in VDV and Spetsnaz and the Ukrainians fought them to a stand still.Giving ground only against to huge surges of Russian forces.

[Derpy Hooves]

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.

​But they have invaded Ukraine. They stormed government buildings and besieged Ukrainian military bases in Crimea then forced a referendum. Following that, they assisted a rebellion, and then turned the tide of the war

[Papay]

​But they have invaded Ukraine. They stormed government buildings and besieged Ukrainian military bases in Crimea then forced a referendum. Following that, they assisted a rebellion, and then turned the tide of the war

...which is of course what every other country in the world would do under these curcumstances

[ShockBlast]

...which is of course what every other country in the world would do under these curcumstances

No, they would not.

[Papay]

No, they would not.

Britain did it in the case of Northern Ireland

[Derpy Hooves]

Britain did it in the case of Northern Ireland

Not comparable
>>http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?678447-What-s-the-difference-between-Crimea-2014-and-Northern-Ireland-1922

[Carach]

rofl. claiming Ireland is anything like the Crimea situation is absolutely absurd.

yet another hopelessly poor strawman attempt. my god......

[Gertrudius]

...which is of course what every other country in the world would do under these curcumstances

(Emphasis Added)

And yet, it's not every other country on the planet that's doing it as you so unequivocally put it. Nor even those that have vested interests on the line in Ukraine. There are not Leo 2's or Abrams with recently blotted out insignia and unit designations massing on the conflict zone. Nor are the burned out husks of such vehicles found in the wake of Ukrainian offensive actions. NATO or EU service men have not gotten lost and captured by separatist and Russian forces, because figuring out where borders are is just so difficult. Large numbers of active duty NATO soldiers are not taking vacations to the conflict zones.

Are Europe's NATO or EU member states making bellicose statements regarding returning Kaliningrad to Germany? Has Poland occupied portions of Belarus because of concern about the oppression of the Polish population by Lukashenko's autocratic government, and have they held an internationally condemned referendum returning former Polish territory back into the arms of the motherland?

Really? Every country on the planet would do exactly the same today given similar circumstances?

When those desperately trying to legitimize Russia's actions can do so from a standpoint of logically consistent argument based on the merits of the case I will be truly ecstatic. When they can do so without resorting to mentions of the US, NATO, EU, or other actors who are supposedly "just as bad", as a means of framing Russian actions as consistent with international norms, I may have to have a lie down to recover from such coherence. If Russia or it's supporters can logically explain how it has any business commenting rancorously on what freely chosen economic or alliance affiliations its neighbors adopt, or how a practically irrelevant defensive alliance like NATO poses any real direct threat to the Russian Federation (a relevance it ironically has gained in light of Russia's revanchist actions), I just might have to huddle over a cup of hot chocolate to recover from the shock.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

I will take this opportunity to apologize for being a condescending ass, it's not my natural inclination. Incoherence, logical fallacies, and a failure to attempt a mature understanding of complex issues has a tendency to bring out the worst in me. My ire is not primarily directed at you and your post, though your fallacious generalizations are certainly not helping.

[Papay]

(Emphasis Added)

And yet, it's not every other country on the planet that's doing it as you so unequivocally put it. Nor even those that have vested interests on the line in Ukraine. There are not Leo 2's or Abrams with recently blotted out insignia and unit designations massing on the conflict zone. Nor are the burned out husks of such vehicles found in the wake of Ukrainian offensive actions. NATO or EU service men have not gotten lost and captured by separatist and Russian forces, because figuring out where borders are is just so difficult. Large numbers of active duty NATO soldiers are not taking vacations to the conflict zones.

Are Europe's NATO or EU member states making bellicose statements regarding returning Kaliningrad to Germany? Has Poland occupied portions of Belarus because of concern about the oppression of the Polish population by Lukashenko's autocratic government, and have they held an internationally condemned referendum returning former Polish territory back into the arms of the motherland?

Really? Evey country on the planet would do exactly the same today given similar circumstances?

When those desperately trying to legitimize Russia's actions can do so from a standpoint of logically consistent argument based on the merits of the case I will be truly ecstatic. When they can do so without resorting to mentions of the US, NATO, EU, or other actors who are supposedly "just as bad", as a means of framing Russian actions as consistent with international norms, I may have to have a lie down to recover from such coherence. If Russia or it's supporters can logically explain how it has any business commenting rancorously on what freely chosen economic or alliance affiliations its neighbors adopt, or how a practically irrelevant defensive alliance like NATO poses any real direct threat to the Russian Federation (a relevance it ironically has no gained in light of Russia's Revanchist actions), I just might have to huddle over a cup of hot chocolate to recover from the shock.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

I will take this opportunity to apologize for being a condescending ass, it's not my natural inclination. Incoherence, logical fallacies, and a failure to attempt a mature understanding of complex issues has a tendency to bring out the worst in me. My ire is not primarily directed at you and your post, though your fallacious generalizations are certainly not helping.

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

[Mangalore]

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

Weird comparison. Both states are members of NATO and a coup by local Russians would be a coup against the very sovereignity of those states. It would be precisely the reverse of Crimea or East Ukraine with the affected countries having a public mutual defense treaty with the US and European allies and wanting to preserve their country's integrity.

It would be nothing like anything Putin did...

[Papay]

Weird comparison. Both states are members of NATO and a coup by local Russians would be a coup against the very sovereignity of those states. It would be precisely the reverse of Crimea or East Ukraine with the affected countries having a public mutual defense treaty with the US and European allies and wanting to preserve their country's integrity.

It would be nothing like anything Putin did...

US supported a coup against an elected and sovereign government(Yanucovic). Its the same thing

[Caelifer_1991]

Having an oversized military actually makes things more difficult instead of making them easier. Especially when the economy is going down fast.

And then there's the issue of how valuable that military actually is.

The nuclear arsenal is of little use, just like it was in Afghanistan.

The conventional forces are sub-par in spite of the impressive numbers. Their performance in Georgia and Eastern Ukraine was unimpressive. So what exactly can Russia reconquer with those conventional forces? Georgia?!

Trying to reconquer Central Asia would be repeating both the Afghan and Chechen wars several times over.

Trying to reconquer Ukraine after barely succeeding to hold onto half of the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts (against ~10% of the Ukrainian army) is highly unlikely as well.

Trying to reconquer the Baltic States, all of them NATO members? Putin would find his tie was tied too tight, Pavel I style.

It makes things more difficult in peace-time, due to its economic burden; it makes things substantially easier in war-time when that vast supply of munitions and equipment is likely to be required.

Their military has been subject to a large scale modernisation and update program over the last 15 years, and is no longer the dilapidated shell of the 1980's Soviet Army that it was in the 1990's.

The Nuclear arsenal is significant in that it prevents large scale retaliation, allowing Russia to chip away at the borders with half measures.

See above.

As to the remaining three, that is only true so long as the status quo is maintained, and the status quo is only maintained so long as NATO remains unified and powerful. If NATO should find itself in some other large scale war and if nuclear annihilation has been circumvented then you can be damned sure that the Russians will pry open the gap and pour into it. Now, what hypothetical situation would result in large scale undermining of NATO and circumvention of nuclear deterrents? That is a wide open topic of hypotheticals that we could discuss all day, and would be besides the point; the point is that Russia is more a threat than anyone else in the neighbourhood and that to compare them to say, Italy, within the E.U., is a completely invalid comparison, both in war-time and peace-time.