Middle East and N.Africa v.21- WorldWarSyria

[ElizabethB.]

14 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

There's an article trending today about the U.S. up armoring (w/ tanks, missiles, etc.) strategic sites in Norway and around the Baltics in order to strengthen NATO's capability and deterence to Russia. Also the U.S. is sending F-15's to Finland that will be stationed about 100 miles from the Russian border. So it seems a very natural topic of discussion just now. 

Interestingly, 77% of Russia is in Asia, but near as I can tell (smirk) none of her is in the Levant unless we are talking about the occupation troops specifically, so I don't know if this is the right thread for the whole Russo/Finn/NATO posturing?

Personally I don't mind discussing it though, because we all know how the campaign in Syria is spilling out into the broader geopolitical relations between various actors including Russia and the U.S.

"That will be stationed to Finland"? Check your reference material. 

Also, check the Russian military bases that actually are stationed close to Finnish border, before making crudely ignorant remarks.

And, you can do all "Russo/Finn/nato posturing" all by your lonesome, you have had and wont have no company from me for that. 

[Mr Fixit]

7 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

There's an article trending today about the U.S. up armoring (w/ tanks, missiles, etc.) strategic sites in Norway and around the Baltics in order to strengthen NATO's capability and deterence to Russia. Also the U.S. is sending F-15's to Finland that will be stationed about 100 miles from the Russian border. So it seems a very natural topic of discussion just now. 

Interestingly, 77% of Russia is in Asia, but near as I can tell (smirk) none of her is in the Levant unless we are talking about the occupation troops specifically, so I don't know if this is the right thread for the whole Russo/Finn/NATO posturing?

Personally I don't mind discussing it though, because we all know how the campaign in Syria is spilling out into the broader geopolitical relations between various actors including Russia and the U.S.

 

Moves like this is exactly why the foreign policy establishment and its faithful media are promoting nonsense theories about Russia attacking Finland, Sweden, Poland, Baltics, and God knows who else. Anyone who knows a little bit on these issues is well aware that Russia will not attack these places, but they have to yammer and yammer about the Russian threat in the Baltics in order to justify moves like this. I mean, this is nothing new; it's a part of the official policy going all the way back to the Clinton years and the original NATO enlargement. 

[ElizabethB.]

7 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

That's just it, I don't intend to give it my best shot because you're, for no discernible reason, steering this discussion to WWI and WWII-era border redrawing that was widespread all across Europe. I'm telling you: this line of discussion does you no favours.

Only because you fail to comprehend the context.

Cold war logic doesn't apply anymore because the world is not the same it was after ww.

[Mr Fixit]

Yeah, because Ruskies today are even crazier than Stalinium-powered Ruskies of yore. I fail to comprehend the context because you failed to provide any context. Why the hell are we talking about Karelia in Anno Domini 2016? 

[DireWolfSpirit]

5 minutes ago, ElizabethB. said:

"That will be stationed to Finland"? Check your reference material. 

Also, check the Russian military bases that actually are stationed close to Finnish border, before making crudely ignorant remarks.

And, you can do all Russo/Finn/nato posturing all by your lonesome, you have had and wont have no company from me for that. 

No need for me to check my reference material as I have already read it. However if you'd care to check it it's here- http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/u-s-tanks-artillery-norwegian-caves/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iref=obnetwork

As for the Russo/Finn/NATO posturing i'm referring to the general tone of the article and the build up going on in the region. I have no idea what your insinuating about crude or ignorant remarks (as i'm only sharing what was read today) so I'll chalk it up to language differences or something?

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

4 hours ago, Mr Fixit said:

You beat me to it. I should've posted that picture when Finland came up!

(Wait a minute... Did you... No, you didn't... you actually thought I was being serious about Mexico... man!)

No. Don't you know who Donald Trump is? 

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

No need for me to check my reference material as I have already read it. However if you'd care to check it it's here- http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/u-s-tanks-artillery-norwegian-caves/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iref=obnetwork

As for the Russo/Finn/NATO posturing i'm referring to the general tone of the article and the build up going on in the region. I have no idea what your insinuating about crude or ignorant remarks (as i'm only sharing what was read today) so I'll chalk it up to language differences or something?

It says that they are to be stationed in Finland for some exercises, not permanently. 

[Hereward]

Mr Fixit is using an odd mixture of argument here. The fact of the matter is that a Great Power that feels an existential threat will use force. NATO's expansion into the east, and most particularly into the widening gap between the Baltic and the mountains, where Russia has been invaded from many, many times, leads to a perfectly rational feeling of danger. And he uses that argument, but then mocks the idea that that reasonable feeling of danger would ever lead to Russia doing anything militarily to protect its geopolitical borders, despite already having done so three times. 

[Mr Fixit]

Exactly right, Hereward. Although Russia is feeling threatened by the encroachment of NATO, I am indeed saying that it most certainly won't attack any of the neighboring Baltic states.

Though I suppose the question worth asking is why NATO countries, knowing full well how Russians, for legitimate historical reasons, feel about this soft spot of theirs, don't care in the least about respecting Russian concerns.

That's why I said that this is only the continuation of the Clinton policies and that Putin, for all his heavy-handedness is only reacting, and is not being proactive. NATO expanded right to Russia's borders back when they were supposedly buddies, they couldn't care less about vehement Russian opposition to Kosovo campaign and the subsequent unilateral redrawing of borders there, and NATO countries today are using what you yourself call "reasonable feeling of danger" based on actual historical precedent to further instigate Cold War tactics and rhetoric.

[ElizabethB.]

3 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

No need for me to check my reference material as I have already read it. However if you'd care to check it it's here- http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/u-s-tanks-artillery-norwegian-caves/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iref=obnetwork

As for the Russo/Finn/NATO posturing i'm referring to the general tone of the article and the build up going on in the region. I have no idea what your insinuating about crude or ignorant remarks (as i'm only sharing what was read today) so I'll chalk it up to language differences or something?

You did make crudely ignorant remarks, so let's  chill it up to you having the need to discuss things you have no knowledge of. 

It's a valid need though, one might even learn like that. 

[ElizabethB.]

15 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Mr Fixit is using an odd mixture of argument here. The fact of the matter is that a Great Power that feels an existential threat will use force. NATO's expansion into the east, and most particularly into the widening gap between the Baltic and the mountains, where Russia has been invaded from many, many times, leads to a perfectly rational feeling of danger. And he uses that argument, but then mocks the idea that that reasonable feeling of danger would ever lead to Russia doing anything militarily to protect its geopolitical borders, despite already having done so three times. 

When was the last time Russia was invaded from the Baltics ?

[Hereward]

Well, I partially agree. Russia should not have been provoked, but I do not think it is a given that Russia would not attack Finland or the Baltics. They will only not do so as long as they fear other Great Powers' own interests would cause a reaction that would worsen their own security. 

No-one is innocent in this regard. Great Powers will conduct an "ethical" foreign policy when they have no vital interests at stake and are so powerful that they can do so. But you only need to look at China in Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan, or the US against Spain and Mexico, or Britain switching sides between east European liberals and then propping up the Ottomans to see what a country will do to secure its vital geopolitical interests.

[Hereward]

6 minutes ago, ElizabethB. said:

When was the last time Russia was invaded from the Baltics ?

Never. It is generally invaded through the North European plain (or from the south or over the Urals, borders it still secures). It's interests dictate that it holds the narrowest part of that gap. The point was that a Great Power attempts to secure for itself defensible geographical borders and an absence of potential enemies beyond those immediate borders. I make no moral judgement here, I'm simply saying what the mindset is. Again, see China, see the US, see Britain, see France or Germany, etc.

[Mr Fixit]

This is of course a matter neither of us can give definitive answers on, but I have to say that I simply can't envision a likely scenario where Russia launches an attack on any country in the Baltic region. I think that the fact it's so often talked about in the media is only irresponsible scaremongering by certain parties who would like to use it as an excuse to (a) increase military expenditures and (b) apply additional pressure on Russia in the ever-expanding game of tit-for-tat.

[ElizabethB.]

3 hours ago, Mr Fixit said:

Yeah, because Ruskies today are even crazier than Stalinium-powered Ruskies of yore. I fail to comprehend the context because you failed to provide any context. Why the hell are we talking about Karelia in Anno Domini 2016? 

Mr. Fixit, since you display no interest on human right issues or how the world is different now than after ww, the cold war period, I see no reason for you to talk about Karelia now, or ever. 

[Mr Fixit]

1 minute ago, ElizabethB. said:

Mr. Fixit, since you display no interest on human right issues or how the world is different now than after ww, the cold war period, I see no reason for you to talk about Karelia now, or ever. 

Phew. I was getting worried there.

[Celestial]

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 10:07 PM, Mr Fixit said:

This is of course a matter neither of us can give definitive answers on, but I have to say that I simply can't envision a likely scenario where Russia launches an attack on any country in the Baltic region. I think that the fact it's so often talked about in the media is only irresponsible scaremongering by certain parties who would like to use it as an excuse to (a) increase military expenditures and (b) apply additional pressure on Russia in the ever-expanding game of tit-for-tat.

If that is the case, why do you keep beating the drum of Russia "feeling threatened by NATO encroachment"?

Russia invading the Baltics is technically feasible. They could do it at a moment notice if Putin so chose and when you say you can't envision such a scenario you are basically relying on the Russian government acting in a reasonable manner, which is not by any means a perfect guarantee.

On the other hand, you keep emphasizing Russia's grievances about NATO expansion and the supposed threat to its security. Do you seriously think that a NATO invasion of Russia is likely or even technically possible? It isn't. First of all, the political structure of Europe makes such a thing impossible. Second, Europe has largely been demilitarized post-Cold War. The necessary forces to carry out an attack on Russia simply do not exist anymore. An Operation Barbarossa redux would require a fundamental altering of the European and American political landscape, with dictatorial government taking over in the most important NATO countries, so they could dragoon their populations into a major war. Second, it would require a massive military build-up. All these steps would require 1-2 decades to complete, assuming it starts tomorrow, so Russia will have plenty of warning time. Second, if NATO was insane enough to contemplate war against Russia, it would not matter if they were on Russia's doorstep or not. The significance of such territorial assets in a major war between superpowers had died in the 1950s, with the development of big arsenals of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. If NATO would launch Operation Barbarossa Reloaded, it won't be with 150 divisions, as in the original, but with 1,000 nukes. In this context, whether Ukraine, Georgia or whatever is a member of NATO won't matter in the slightest.

So what exactly is Russia worried about? There is a simple reason for all the claptrap coming from Moscow: their political and military leadership still thinks they have some divine right to bully and dominate the former soviet countries and satellites. NATO expansion prevents that. Also, since Russian conventional forces are weak, they rely on their nuclear arsenal to bully and intimidate. The US missile defense threatens Russia's ability to be a bully, hence why they are so livid about it. There is no other logical explanation about it, unless you have information that NATO is somehow planning a sneak attack against Russia.

Finally, why so much empathy and consideration for Russia's hurt feelings? Russia has been a bad actor from the very first moment it has emerged as a great power under Peter I. Someone mentioned that Russia has been "invaded so many times". Actually, it was invaded only twice since the Romanovs took over. In 1812 by Napoleon, in 1941 by Hitler. In WW1, it was Russia who first declared war on Central Powers. On the other hand, ALL Russia's neighbours have been its victims during its imperial history: Sweden in 1700, Finland in 1939 and 1941 (yes, in 1941, it was the Soviet Union who started the Continuation War by launching several air raids against Finland on 25 June 1941), the Baltics in 1939, Poland and Romania too many times to counts, the Ottoman Empire several times, Persia as well, Afghanistan too and even China. There has not been any neighbor of Russia who has not been a victim of Russian aggression at one point or another. So, exactly, why the crocodile tears over Russia's anxieties?

[Celestial]

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 4:58 PM, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

No, I agree. USA and Europe haven't been acting in very good faith towards Russia either. This is certainly a great factor for what we have seen in Syria as well, where the West has been supporting radical rebels largely to have a chance of kicking Russia out of the Middle East. 

 

 

Excuse me for asking, but when had Russia acted in good faith towards.. well, anyone? The nonsense about NATO breaking its promise not to expand eastward is downright insulting.

What legal and moral right does Russia have to pretend such a thing, anyway? Those countries which joined NATO were all acquired by Soviet Union by force of arms and deceit. By signing the Atlantic Charter in 1941, the Soviet Union agreed to respect the principle of self-determination, a pledge it reiterated during the war. Later, when the Red Army entered Eastern Europe, the Soviets literally pissed on their former pledge, installed their puppet government in half of Europe and pillaged those countries dry, while exterminating any opposition. When a thief is forced to give back what it had once stolen, does he get to put conditions?

Soviet Union claimed they liberated Eastern Europe from Nazism, thus those countries should be grateful to them. Here is some food for thought: the Soviets became part of the anti-Hitler camp because Hitler turned on them on 22 June 1941.  Before that, the Soviet main concern was how to convince Hitler to divide Europe with them, to feed Germany oil and grains, to send the Fuhrer congratulations on his birthday and goose-step with German troops in Brest-Litovsk. Maybe also share experience on how to murder Polish prisoners. If Hitler had not broken the agreement, what did Soviet Union intend to do? Keep helping Hitler to drown Europe in blood and sell him rare steel alloys, so that the armor of the German Panzers be even tougher, perhaps?

[James Arryn]

2 hours ago, Celestial said:

 

Soviet Union claimed they liberated Eastern Europe from Nazism, thus those countries should be grateful to them. Here is some food for thought: the Soviets became part of the anti-Hitler camp because Hitler turned on them on 22 June 1941.  Before that, the Soviet main concern was how to convince Hitler to divide Europe with them, to feed Germany oil and grains, to send the Fuhrer congratulations on his birthday and goose-step with German troops in Brest-Litovsk. Maybe also share experience on how to murder Polish prisoners. If Hitler had not broken the agreement, what did Soviet Union intend to do? Keep helping Hitler to drown Europe in blood and sell him rare steel alloys, so that the armor of the German Panzers be even tougher, perhaps?

More food for thought;

 

Stalin was one of the earliest leaders to express significant concern about Hitler/the Nazis. He tried repeatedly to formulate alliances with nations like the UK, France etc. to check Nazi aggression. This all making sense because as any student of history can tell you, destroying communism in general and the Russians (Slavs/Bolsheviks, etc.) in particular were Hitler's openly expressed principle ambitions. Stalin reached out over and over again to other great powers, but was continually rebuffed, as those nations anticipated and were quite happy with the idea of the Nazis and Soviets going to war. Some thinking they preferred th Nazis to the Communists,mother thinking that either way, letting them weaken each other with war would make everyone else a winner.

This all came to a head with the Munich Accord,  Soviets (and Czechs) were excluded from even participating, with the result being an armed and expansive Nazi state expressly aimed eastward. So, with the Nazi clearly on the warpath, and the other powers clearly fine with that so long as it was directed towards himself, Stalin initiated the Molotov-Ribbentrop discussions that ended in their treaty. I really wonder what you feel the soviets should done. And unlike, say, the US, the Sovets didn't break any mutual protection treaties to abandon their allies to the Nazis until they were themselves attacked, and even after the M-R Pact, were still far and away the Nazis greatest trading partner, especially in munitions/military supplies.

 

Stalin was horrible, and the Soviets have more than their share of blood on their hands no doubt, but you picked a particularly poor example to illustrate same. 

 

[Horza]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

More food for thought;

Stalin was one of the earliest leaders to express significant concern about Hitler/the Nazis. He tried repeatedly to formulate alliances with nations like the UK, France etc. to check Nazi aggression. This all making sense because as any student of history can tell you, destroying communism in general and the Russians (Slavs/Bolsheviks, etc.) in particular were Hitler's openly expressed principle ambitions. Stalin reached out over and over again to other great powers, but was continually rebuffed, as those nations anticipated and were quite happy with the idea of the Nazis and Soviets going to war. Some thinking they preferred th Nazis to the Communists,mother thinking that either way, letting them weaken each other with war would make everyone else a winner.

There are problems with this account, starting with the fact that Stalin's "Third Period" international policy covering Hitler's rise from 1928 to 1933 was explicitly against alliances with bourgeois parties on the grounds that there was no essential difference between bourgeois democracy and fascism. Observers could therefore be skeptical of the turn to a "Popular Front" policy from mid-1934.

Additionally, there was an essential complication to Stalin's overtures to the west over the 1935-1939 period, in that the mistrust between powers was mutual - Stalin was extremely cautious about any prospective military pact. His view that the allies wanted a war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union paradoxically informed a belief that military alliances would be a pretext to provoking a conflict with Nazi Germany that Britain and France would fail to show up for. Stalin's ingrained paranoia and dialetical schema inclined him to the view that the capitalist democracies were the natural enemies of the Soviet Union, a view that he never abandoned and which lead to a very cagey and halting diplomatic overture to the west.

Last, but not least of the obstacles was that any effective military pact between the three powers would require a transit agreement with Poland, something that was for fairly obvious reasons politically almost impossible to arrange.

 

Quote

This all came to a head with the Munich Accord,  Soviets (and Czechs) were excluded from even participating, with the result being an armed and expansive Nazi state expressly aimed eastward. So, with the Nazi clearly on the warpath, and the other powers clearly fine with that so long as it was directed towards himself, Stalin initiated the Molotov-Ribbentrop discussions that ended in their treaty. I really wonder what you feel the soviets should done. And unlike, say, the US, the Sovets didn't break any mutual protection treaties to abandon their allies to the Nazis until they were themselves attacked, and even after the M-R Pact, were still far and away the Nazis greatest trading partner, especially in munitions/military supplies.

Stalin was horrible, and the Soviets have more than their share of blood on their hands no doubt, but you picked a particularly poor example to illustrate same. 

By the time of Munich, western rearmament efforts were well under way, and they weren't aimed at the Soviet Union. If Munich was an all-clear for a Nazi invasion of the east, why did Britain and France sign a defensive pact with Poland, diplomatically putting themselves right in the path of any eastward march? Contrary to the picture you're painting, in this period western interests in a pact with the USSR grew rather than shrank.

Paradoxically, the British guarantee to Poland in April opened up the diplomatic door for a Nazi-Soviet accomodation because it meant a war with Britain and France if Hitler went any further east. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is presented in your account as a neccessity to prevent the USSR being attacked after Poland, when it in fact made the invasion of Poland feasible in the first place.

As for counterfactuals, Nazi Germany's wartime economy was on the verge of boiling over. They needed a deal with the Soviet Union, not the other way around. If there hadn't been a pact the prognosis for Hitler was pretty terrible: having burned all his bridges and staked his economy on a short, victorious war in 1939 he was in a terrible corner that autumn. Going to war without the USSR onside was a nightmarish prospect, it would have exposed Germany to a long, uncertain war on a small material reserve, but backing down would have caused a domestic economic collapse. His political future was at stake in both situations, in the former from the generals who would have been even more unwilling to risk a fight, in the latter from those in his own party appalled at the diplomatic and economic consequences of a failed confrontation strategy.

No one comes out of this period looking good - western responses to Soviet overtures were sluggish and half-hearted, but this portrait of a poor Soviet Union abandoned to the Nazis is false. At the crucial point Stalin bailed Hitler out and it was not a forced choice.

[Mr Fixit]

5 hours ago, James Arryn said:

More food for thought;

 

Stalin was one of the earliest leaders to express significant concern about Hitler/the Nazis. He tried repeatedly to formulate alliances with nations like the UK, France etc. to check Nazi aggression. This all making sense because as any student of history can tell you, destroying communism in general and the Russians (Slavs/Bolsheviks, etc.) in particular were Hitler's openly expressed principle ambitions. Stalin reached out over and over again to other great powers, but was continually rebuffed, as those nations anticipated and were quite happy with the idea of the Nazis and Soviets going to war. Some thinking they preferred th Nazis to the Communists,mother thinking that either way, letting them weaken each other with war would make everyone else a winner.

This all came to a head with the Munich Accord,  Soviets (and Czechs) were excluded from even participating, with the result being an armed and expansive Nazi state expressly aimed eastward. So, with the Nazi clearly on the warpath, and the other powers clearly fine with that so long as it was directed towards himself, Stalin initiated the Molotov-Ribbentrop discussions that ended in their treaty. I really wonder what you feel the soviets should done. And unlike, say, the US, the Sovets didn't break any mutual protection treaties to abandon their allies to the Nazis until they were themselves attacked, and even after the M-R Pact, were still far and away the Nazis greatest trading partner, especially in munitions/military supplies.

 

Stalin was horrible, and the Soviets have more than their share of blood on their hands no doubt, but you picked a particularly poor example to illustrate same. 

Look man, you're wasting your breath here, as I've repeatedly found. Russian are to blame for everything that goes on in the world and St. USA and St. NATO are burdened by their holy responsibility to lead and protect. That's basically it. 

The whole line of this discussion is one long concocted bull**** that gets repeated a thousand times so that Goebbels starts believing in the end: Russia will attack Baltics, Finland, Poland... Russia will attack Baltics, Finland, Poland... Russia will attack Baltics, Finland, Poland...

It's a mantra that no rational discussion can end, because they'll always come up with "well, how can you be sure they won't?" And what can a person say except pointing out how silly and nonsensical this hypothesis is?