NATO sources reporting Russian troops and tanks have crossed border into Ukraine

[VtaGeezer]

A thousand Russian regulars and two tank columns have openly crossed the border.  Beginning of the end for E. Ukraine.  Putin wants it back and the West will only offer moral support to Ukraine.  This inevitability is why Ukraine was not given NATO membership.

[albrecht]

A thousand Russian regulars and two tank columns have openly crossed the border.  Beginning of the end for E. Ukraine.  Putin wants it back and the West will only offer moral support to Ukraine.  This inevitability is why Ukraine was not given NATO membership.

I'm leaning towards Russia on this one. Why do we support voting in other countries but not admit that the majority of the people in the region wish to join Russia? The region was Russia until Khrushchev, possibly drunkenly, gave it away. And why would the UN not support the vote when the charter claims for self-determination of peoples?

[Kelt]

Ukraine's a sovereign nation, Russia has breached the Ukranian border. It's a fairly straightforward case of invasion, regardless of whether or not Putin says, "Nuh uh, we're not in Ukraine."

Ukraine is under no obligation to cede its territory to a neighbour simply because there are separatists in the East. If the separatists want to be Russian then Russia's right there next to them, and there's plenty empty space in Russia.  Move to Russia, rather than dragging Ukraine into a war with Russia.. which the Russians seem quite keen to do.

I read an article from some retired general saying NATO doesn't have the means to stop a Russian invasion of the West, just this morning. Frankly that sounds like horseshit. The West has been blowing up Russian hardware for giggles for decades. Personally I think you could send two 10 years old kids armed with Nerf guns and they could match the current Russian military 'might'.

The west is being very Chamberlainian about this... maybe start building up forces on the Ukranian western border, just to protect civilians in the case of a full-scale invasion from the East.

[MV/Liberace!]

The only thing on my mind is... Is Ed Dames OK?

[VtaGeezer]

Ukraine's a sovereign nation, Russia has breached the Ukranian border. It's a fairly straightforward case of invasion, regardless of whether or not Putin says, "Nuh uh, we're not in Ukraine."

Ukraine is under no obligation to cede its territory to a neighbour simply because there are separatists in the East. If the separatists want to be Russian then Russia's right there next to them, and there's plenty empty space in Russia.  Move to Russia, rather than dragging Ukraine into a war with Russia.. which the Russians seem quite keen to do.

I read an article from some retired general saying NATO doesn't have the means to stop a Russian invasion of the West, just this morning. Frankly that sounds like horseshit. The West has been blowing up Russian hardware for giggles for decades. Personally I think you could send two 10 years old kids armed with Nerf guns and they could match the current Russian military 'might'.

The west is being very Chamberlainian about this... maybe start building up forces on the Ukranian western border, just to protect civilians in the case of a full-scale invasion from the East.

That general is right.  The W Euros slashed NATO spending in the 90s and are, once more, looking for the American cavalry to ride in, but it's not going to happen. We have no direct interest in Ukraine; which culturally has never exactly been a beacon of American-style ideals anyway. 

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Chamberlainian

1) I've never seen that particular combination of letters before.

2) What does Wilt have to do with this?

[Kelt]

1) I've never seen that particular combination of letters before.

2) What does Wilt have to do with this?

1/ Every day's a school day.

2/ He's a big lad, and this is Big Boy Shit?

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Ukraine's a sovereign nation, Russia has breached the Ukranian border. It's a fairly straightforward case of invasion, regardless of whether or not Putin says, "Nuh uh, we're not in Ukraine."

Ukraine is under no obligation to cede its territory to a neighbour simply because there are separatists in the East. If the separatists want to be Russian then Russia's right there next to them, and there's plenty empty space in Russia.  Move to Russia, rather than dragging Ukraine into a war with Russia.. which the Russians seem quite keen to do.

I read an article from some retired general saying NATO doesn't have the means to stop a Russian invasion of the West, just this morning. Frankly that sounds like horseshit. The West has been blowing up Russian hardware for giggles for decades. Personally I think you could send two 10 years old kids armed with Nerf guns and they could match the current Russian military 'might'.

The west is being very Chamberlainian about this... maybe start building up forces on the Ukranian western border, just to protect civilians in the case of a full-scale invasion from the East.

I'm not sure that's true.  From what I understand Russian anti-aircraft networks have become very sophisticated in recent years.  With only a few F-22 stealth aircraft and none of the the F-35s in full service yet (I think), America's legacy aircraft would have difficulty dealing with that hardware.   The standard US playbook since at least the first Iraq War has been to dominate the air before sending a single soldier in.  And even when nuclear capabilities are not considered, Russia's military is still second only to the United States.

[Kelt]

That general is right.  The W Euros slashed NATO spending in the 90s and are, once more, looking for the American cavalry to ride in, but it's not going to happen.

Yeah, I don't think that's at all reality.

Just the top three EU NATO members have a military budget of 153 Billion dollars, Russia will spend around 70 Billion in 2014.

Russia has about 750,000 men in it's standing army to watch all borders, UK, Ger, Ita, Sp, Fr, has around 1 million.

Russia is a nation of around 140 million, the Western European NATO countries have... I think it was around 500 million at the last count, so it's not like Russia will be swarming Western Europe with a Red Horde any time soon.

As for the qualatative differences between a Leo, Challenger 2, or even a LeClerk, over the Russian MBT... T8xor T7x, no-one's going to be overly frightened by Russia's Cold War hardware, even if it is slightly better than the stuff the Iraqis had.

We have no direct interest in Ukraine; which culturally has never exactly been a beacon of American-style ideals anyway.

America doesn't live in a bubble where world events passes it by, even it it seems like it does.

[Kelt]

I'm not sure that's true.  From what I understand Russian anti-aircraft networks have become very sophisticated in recent years.  With only a few F-22 stealth aircraft and none of the the F-35s in full service yet (I think), America's legacy aircraft would have difficulty dealing with that hardware.   The standard US playbook since at least the first Iraq War has been to dominate the air before sending a single soldier in.  And even when nuclear capabilities are not considered, Russia's military is still second only to the United States.

Russia's military is second on to the United States in what regard?

Their manpower is dwarfed by the EU nations, their hardware is largely obsolete, Their budget is less than half that of the EU, their nuclear arsenal is negated by the fact that the French and British also maintain a nuclear arsenal regardless of how many thousands of pointless nukes the Russians have in theiir arsenal.


The US currently has around 200 operational F-22s, btw.... I would expect the vast majority of them to be maintained or at least ready to fly on short notice. Who even knows the combat capability of the Russian airforce? I wouldn't be over confident if I were a Russian.  They can throw out huge numbers of aircraft on paper, but if they don't have the spare parts to get them into the air then in reality they're pretty much useless except as targets.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Russia's military is second only to the United States in what regard?

Shooting down passenger jets? 

[Marc.Knight]

Russia's military is second on to the United States in what regard?

Their manpower is dwarfed by the EU nations, their hardware is largely obsolete, Their budget is less than half that of the EU, their nuclear arsenal is negated by the fact that the French and British also maintain a nuclear arsenal regardless of how many thousands of pointless nukes the Russians have in theiir arsenal.


The US currently has around 200 operational F-22s, btw.... I would expect the vast majority of them to be maintained or at least ready to fly on short notice. Who even knows the combat capability of the Russian airforce? I wouldn't be over confident if I were a Russian.  They can throw out huge numbers of aircraft on paper, but if they don't have the spare parts to get them into the air then in reality they're pretty much useless except as targets.

And, as importantly, they cannot sustain any type of expensive conflict.  Russia's GDP is less than Brazil's -  so they are essentially third world with a budget dependent on variable oil sales. 

All Putin is accomplishing is pissing off the Russian mafia by upsetting the status-quo. 

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Russia's military is second on to the United States in what regard?

Their manpower is dwarfed by the EU nations, their hardware is largely obsolete, Their budget is less than half that of the EU, their nuclear arsenal is negated by the fact that the French and British also maintain a nuclear arsenal regardless of how many thousands of pointless nukes the Russians have in theiir arsenal.


The US currently has around 200 operational F-22s, btw.... I would expect the vast majority of them to be maintained or at least ready to fly on short notice. Who even knows the combat capability of the Russian airforce? I wouldn't be over confident if I were a Russian.  They can throw out huge numbers of aircraft on paper, but if they don't have the spare parts to get them into the air then in reality they're pretty much useless except as targets.

I wouldn't go by budget.  There are huge discrepancies between different nations in terms of how they account their military spending.  I would also expect a military dollar to go far further in Russia than in Western Europe or the US where wage demands are high.  Numbers of personnel and small arms is one measure of strength, but probably not the best measure since the times of phalanx style warfare, except in a grinding war like WWI (edit:  okay, maybe I overstated that a bit).  I have no idea about the current state of Russian military equipment and would defer to you on that issue.  I am basing my assertion of Russian strength mostly on this website:

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

which, while maybe being lazy on my part, I would put against your or my knowledge of world military strengths (albeit I do not know your expertise or personal background).  In any event, I think the potential costs of a NATO engagement with Russia should be very concerning.

[Kelt]

I wouldn't go by budget.  There are huge discrepancies between different nations in terms of how they account their military spending.  I would also expect a military dollar to go far further in Russia than in Western Europe or the US where wage demands are high.  Numbers of personnel and small arms is one measure of strength, but probably not the best measure since the times of phalanx style warfare.  I have no idea about the current state of Russian military equipment and would defer to you on that issue.  I am basing my assertion of Russian strength mostly on this website:

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

which, while maybe being lazy on my part, I would put against your or my knowledge of world military strengths (albeit I do not know your expertise or personal background).  In any event, I think the potential costs of a NATO engagement with Russia should be very concerning.

Mike Tyson once said, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

There's no cast iron way of determining the outcome of any war, except perhaps in terms of say, NATO versus Paraguay. Where one side dwarfs the other to such an extent that, bar acts of god/gross stupidity, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.  And even then, maybe.

My main point was in response to the notion that the western Euro nations are looking for the United States to 'save their poor, defenceless hides' because they're terrified of the scary Russians, given the 'poor' condition of western Europe's military.  My response was that Russia is far from some unassailable, monstrous military force in comparison to even just the top three Euro nations, in terms of anything but nukes.. and given the French and Brits have enough nukes to turn Russia into toast, the Russians' nuclear advantage is nothing of the sort.

And while the Ruble or wooden groat, or whatever the Russians are using for money these days, goes farther in terms of internal spending than a Euro or pound, those wooden groats are maintaining  ageing military equipment that has not performed particularly well against its Western counterpart when pushing turns to shoving.

[VtaGeezer]

Russia's military is second on to the United States in what regard?

Their manpower is dwarfed by the EU nations, their hardware is largely obsolete, Their budget is less than half that of the EU, their nuclear arsenal is negated by the fact that the French and British also maintain a nuclear arsenal regardless of how many thousands of pointless nukes the Russians have in theiir arsenal.


The US currently has around 200 operational F-22s, btw.... I would expect the vast majority of them to be maintained or at least ready to fly on short notice. Who even knows the combat capability of the Russian airforce? I wouldn't be over confident if I were a Russian.  They can throw out huge numbers of aircraft on paper, but if they don't have the spare parts to get them into the air then in reality they're pretty much useless except as targets.

Ukraine is not in NATO and there's no legal basis for US or NATO military action, especially against Russian forces, in the current US political climate. By the time NATO would react, it would be moot;  Ukraine or at least E Ukraine will be back in Russian control and if we did act, as said in Vietnam, we'd have to destroy it to save it.  Any NATO base from which NATO air combatants originated would become a valid Russian target.  And that's how the shit hits the fan.

[Yorkshire pud]

I had a good friend who left school with me and joined the Royal Navy (80's) and remember this was the height of the cold war, the trigger finger was very very close on several occasions. He told me that NATO and the SU was a comparison between a single live match and a box of dead ones. Apologies if it's been mentioned; but discipline is a big factor too. NATO troops are by and large (But not exclusively) professional volunteers. Few countries in NATO have conscription. Nonetheless, they're all very well trained, some better than others, with very closely guarded selection processes to get the best soldiers in their particular regiment or troop. The Russians are prone to drunkenness and just basic lack of discipline.

[Kelt]

Ukraine is not in NATO and there's no legal basis for US or NATO military action, especially against Russian forces, in the current US political climate. By the time NATO would react, it would be moot;  Ukraine or at least E Ukraine will be back in Russian control and if we did act, as said in Vietnam, we'd have to destroy it to save it.  Any NATO base from which NATO air combatants originated would become a valid Russian target.  And that's how the shit hits the fan.

Since when was legal basis of concern to the West when the West wants something?

I'll point you to resolution 1441, which did not mandate any kind of military attack on Iraq.

Realising this, the United States and Great Britain were going to put military action to a vote in the UN... right up until it became clear that the US and GB would lose that vote. So they then went to plan B and said 'fuck all this legality shit... GERONIMO!' and invaded anyway.   

Legal basis, as shown by Tony and George (Bush, not Noory), is for fags... and in no way an impediment to getting what you want.

Now I happen to agree with you that Ukraine, in the sense of treaties and culture, is none of our concern; but then again stuff like the Anschluss (see Crimea), the Sudetenland, or sticking Sheriff's badges on Jews, had little to do with the western powers either.  Sooner or later these things have a nasty habit of becoming our responsibility, though.

I'm not saying that NATO, either America or Western Europe, should start bombing Russian columns, I'm just saying a period of getting our shit together might be a good idea, just in case Eastern Ukraine, or Ukraine, or elsewhere, isn't quite enough to satisfy Putin's altruistic need to 'protect ethnic Russians' in countries that aren't Russia.

[VtaGeezer]

Legal basis, as shown by Tony and George (Bush, not Noory), is for fags...

Or for US politicians in the November election.  Ukraine little strategic importance to the West and there are no wealthy Ukrainian lobby groups greasing the Congress.  There will no military action by NATO over Ukraine.

[Kelt]

Or for US politicians in the November election.  Ukraine little strategic importance to the West and there are no wealthy Ukrainian lobby groups greasing the Congress.  There will no military action by NATO over Ukraine.

As things stand, and all things being equal, I agree with that.

However... it became apparent, in the aftermath of the shooting down of a passenger jet, that this is a situation where the chief antagonists have next to no control over the situation except for on a general and broad scale. 

The odd massacre of civilians here, the stray missile landing on a NATO member state there, those kinds of things have a habit of escalating a situation, and what had been a jolly romp through leafy lanes in the cupola of a T-72 becomes punitive military responses met with responses met with responses met with responses.