DISCUSSION - Eastern European Crises

Status
Not open for further replies.

Obreid

Power Poster
Interesting

annnnddd.....there is this

It’s a puzzle isn’t it.
 

expat42451

Active member
Yes it is. For further reflection

with a diagram of where European gas comes from........ and this


and this

A complex situation no?
 

Obreid

Power Poster
Yes it is. For further reflection

with a diagram of where European gas comes from........ and this


and this

A complex situation no?
I read a report Germany is looking at decommissioning some of their nuclear plants
 

expat42451

Active member
Occasionally there appears a vague hand behind a lot of this.....green movement, reset &c&c, very general labels that are thrown around a lot. It is for me at least somewhat clarifying when this gets to be too convoluted--to go back and read some of Major General Smedley Butler's work....and then try to see things from a follow the money perspective. His noted literary work is here-

I do not have the advantage a lot of you have here -- the perspective borne of prior military service. For reflection particularly with --aside from the question of Ukraine's sovereignty--the seeming struggle to control energy supplies to much of Europe- the movie The International permits, I believe, a very real glimpse into levers of financial control that many times involve military forces of opposing sides.
Regards
 

Obreid

Power Poster
I read a report Germany is looking at decommissioning some of their nuclear plants
You know it’s true nato has continually expanded but one has to ask the question why?
It’s not like their seizing territory by force. In almost every case they’ve been asked to allow the old East. Lock nations to join.
Sure there is economic incentives for them to do this. But is providing economic incentives to a nation the same as conquering them? It’s said the deals are lop sided in favor of the west.
Yet more continue to request admission or special agreements.
Who’s fault is that?
The very sins of Ukraine that Russia complains about “corruption and oligarchs” are the same issues Russia has. Make no mistake there are corruption issues in Ukraine. But would Ukraine being more closely aligned and in trade with Poland possibly bring about more constructive change. Or would change and reduction of corruption come if Ukraine was under Russia’s influence?

One of first things any nation must secure is secure and stable boarders.
That was one of the principal topics of the Budapest agreement after status of their nuclear arsenal.
At this time Russia has and continues to threaten Ukraine’s boarders and that is exactly why the remaining eastern block nations are seeking alliance with NATO.
For Russia to complain about this yet not ask themselves, why, is incredibly short sided or dishonest.
It leads me to believe Putin wants the Cold War reputation when the Cold War paradigm is broken as far as the soviet federation.
The soviets lost but still try and act like they did them.
Grabbing territory sponsoring nations like Belarus it the old playbook.
 

expat42451

Active member
Occasionally there appears a vague hand behind a lot of this.....green movement, reset &c&c, very general labels that are thrown around a lot. It is for me at least somewhat clarifying when this gets to be too convoluted--to go back and read some of Major General Smedley Butler's work....and then try to see things from a follow the money perspective. His noted literary work is here-

I do not have the advantage a lot of you have here -- the perspective borne of prior military service. For reflection particularly with --aside from the question of Ukraine's sovereignty--the seeming struggle to control energy supplies to much of Europe- the movie The International permits, I believe, a very real glimpse into levers of financial control that many times involve military forces of opposing sides.
Regards

You know it’s true nato has continually expanded but one has to ask the question why?
It’s not like their seizing territory by force. In almost every case they’ve been asked to allow the old East. Lock nations to join.
Sure there is economic incentives for them to do this. But is providing economic incentives to a nation the same as conquering them? It’s said the deals are lop sided in favor of the west.
Yet more continue to request admission or special agreements.
Who’s fault is that?
The very sins of Ukraine that Russia complains about “corruption and oligarchs” are the same issues Russia has. Make no mistake there are corruption issues in Ukraine. But would Ukraine being more closely aligned and in trade with Poland possibly bring about more constructive change. Or would change and reduction of corruption come if Ukraine was under Russia’s influence?

One of first things any nation must secure is secure and stable boarders.
That was one of the principal topics of the Budapest agreement after status of their nuclear arsenal.
At this time Russia has and continues to threaten Ukraine’s boarders and that is exactly why the remaining eastern block nations are seeking alliance with NATO.
For Russia to complain about this yet not ask themselves, why, is incredibly short sided or dishonest.
It leads me to believe Putin wants the Cold War reputation when the Cold War paradigm is broken as far as the soviet federation.
The soviets lost but still try and act like they did them.
Grabbing territory sponsoring nations like Belarus it the old playbook.
Good post. Good insight. One must ask.... who controls Putin. In my mind I ask in the same breath, who controls Xi... and who are the hidden hands controlling the Executive and Legislative branches of the US government...because at least in the case of the US it isnt the voters. I like you wonder what if there had been a different direction taken in the early 90's and what prosperity and peace might have resulted from that, what might have been possible....instead we see where we are now.

I am loath to post this here because we try to perceive reality and facts rather than fantasy.... but this clip to me was inspiring for what thats worth.....

Regards
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
SLBMs launched from subs stationed off our coasts will take about 8 minutes to reach the coasts, but they will not be able to hit the silos in the center of the country that quickly. Traditional nuclear strategy is force/counterforce attacks focused on military targets first. Value/countervalue targets (civilian population centers) are usually not the primary targets in the initial exchange, with the possible exception of Washington DC.
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
War is so instantaneous now. Tbh by the time we know Russian & NATO forces are striking each other is the moment we get a air raid warning. Not to freak anyone out. But during WWII it took 6 months to move 300k troops. That's down to a day or two now. Same goes for all the new fantasy gizmos. Only takes 5 minutes for Russia to hit any side of the US coast. War is instant now. By the time shit hits the fan it will be way to late for any side to dial it down.
War might be more instantaneous now, but so is global communications. Right now my biggest focus is monitoring Tweets coming out of Ukraine by people on the ground in Ukraine. I will know within 60 to 90 seconds of a major development in the AO, which will take me another 60 to 90 seconds to post here.

Your comparing 21st century weapons technology to WWII but not allowing for similar technology advancements in communications technology.

My Twitter feed from Ukraine is literally refreshing itself every 60 seconds on a dedicated monitor.
 
D

DucknCover

Guest
(civilian population centers) are usually not the primary targets in the initial exchange
Well they may target some holes in the ground, but they know that they cannot destroy them completly.
I don't believe that they will waste their precious missiles on a chance to counter a retaliation that could be delivered else way.
A hole in the ground will stay what it is, it has no potential, even underground cities will not replace all the losses.
I don't see a surviving few push the button to their doom, they will surrender.
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
War is so instantaneous now.
No, thankfully it is not. Zamunda (to pick a random fake country) is not going to wake up on Tuesday and decide to go to war. There are many steps along the way. It always begins diplomatically. We can see that.

Now true, the decision to fire the first shot can be made without warning. But no one is going to be surprised that the first shot is fired.

Only takes 5 minutes for Russia to hit any side of the US coast. War is instant now. By the time shit hits the fan it will be way to late for any side to dial it down.
Russia always was able to hit the US coast in five minutes. (I think it was actually six.)

Difference is now they can do it from further away.

With hypersonic weapons, the film First Strike becomes more of a reality. (For those who don't know, the film hypothesizes a Pearl Habor-type nuclear attack against the US which eliminates the US ability to retaliate.)

There is no chance of either side willingly going to war with each other. But rather a mistake blowing up quickly to a war. War is so instant now a simple human mistake can end everything as we know it in minutes or seconds.
You're right. On both accounts.
 

willrod1989

Active member
This is in response to the US ordering Russians home from US soil.
Again, it looks like a lot of posturing to me. If Russia makes a grab for the southeast, NATO appears to be setting the stage for economic sanctions. This all follows the old familiar pattern right now: increase tensions, extract political concessions, and then de-escalate.

Putin wants to make sure that Ukraine doesn't become their Cuba. As long as we don't deploy missiles there, I doubt anything serious is going to happen.
 

DarkNoon

Power Poster

Obreid

Power Poster
You're right. On both accounts.
Of course few would willingly go to war,
But in international relations and diplomacy what constitutes an accident?
Accidental can’t be limited to bad satellite data indicating ghost missile launch or warships accidentally being fired on.
Accidents and missteps can happen over the intermediate time frame with wrong signals being sent diplomaticly or in troop movements that lead an adversary to change their short to long term strategic goals.
Russia has correctly or incorrectly interpreted NATO and the US goals in Eastern Europe as a unfettered expansion to the east and their boarders. So here we are.
I don’t believe 15 or 20 years ago there was any real interest in NATO expanding to Russia’s boarders.
But somewhere along the way something changed.
You can call it inadvertent long term unfolding failure to communicate.
It evolved over time and at some point one or the other nations purposely choose to change their foreign and military policies and abilities.
 

MichaelH

Active member
With hypersonic weapons, the film First Strike becomes more of a reality. (For those who don't know, the film hypothesizes a Pearl Habor-type nuclear attack against the US which eliminates the US ability to retaliate.)
That one is damn chilling too. I assume everyone here has seen The Day After. Some of the launch sequence in that movie was clipped straight from First Strike.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top