It's also far away, far from the sea & surrounded by countries not necessarily willing to allow access for foreign armed forces. Bosnia & Kosovo are on the doorstep.
Russia - General Discussion.
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
Fair enough. For me however I feel that there was little political desire or interest to intervene. Rwanda simply wasn't important enough and didn't attract the same poltical interest as Bosnia and Kosovo did. It was after all just another case of Africans having a go at each other. Belgium could have played a part in leading a European effort but it simply lacked the will, especially after a number of troops were hacked to death with others observing from a distance away.
If there was a desire to intervene in Rwanda, a way would have been found to get troops there and sustain them. The French had a presence in various African countries and those could have been used as staging bases. Mobutu's Congo [on the border with Rwanda] was stable and he had fairly good relations with the West [a relic of the Cold War period].
Despite Bosnia and Kosovo being on their doorstep European governments were very divided on Bosnia and Kosovo [the French were known to be Serb friendly to an extent] and simply did not have the will to do more. It took the U.S. to get things moving. In Kosovo there was also the Russian angle.
If there was a desire to intervene in Rwanda, a way would have been found to get troops there and sustain them. The French had a presence in various African countries and those could have been used as staging bases. Mobutu's Congo [on the border with Rwanda] was stable and he had fairly good relations with the West [a relic of the Cold War period].
Despite Bosnia and Kosovo being on their doorstep European governments were very divided on Bosnia and Kosovo [the French were known to be Serb friendly to an extent] and simply did not have the will to do more. It took the U.S. to get things moving. In Kosovo there was also the Russian angle.
Last edited:
The Wall Street Journal just posted an interesting article arguing that invading Ukraine would be a strategic mistake for Russia, hurting it diplomatically, economically, and militarily. Letting Putin back away would give him his best option in this situation.
www.wsj.com
Opinion | The Strategic Case for Risking War in Ukraine
An invasion would be a diplomatic, economic and military mistake for Putin. Let him make it if he must.
www.wsj.com
Which is why Russia would rather not invade and will only do so if it feels it has no other option. Massing troops along the border is pure sabre rattling and also to given them the ability to invade if a decision is made.
Russia playing ‘heavy-metal diplomacy’ with Ukraine | The Strategist
Russian rhetoric on a military confrontation with Ukraine has ratcheted up this week, with President Vladimir Putin and Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu continuing to develop justifications for an invasion. According to some analysts, the pace ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
''But for Russia specialist Mark Galeotti, war is not Putin’s Plan A or even Plan B, although he agrees that the current massing of Russian forces far surpasses the more theatrical build-ups of the past.
‘He’s clearly giving himself the option of military invasion. But this is a high-stakes attempt to intimidate Kyiv and the West to give him what he’s been looking for for the 20-odd years of his presidency.’'''
Russia-US escalation: How did we get here?
The US-Russian tensions over Ukraine reflect the deficiencies of the US strategy in the post-Soviet space.
''In the end, Washington failed to push Putin’s red lines, but instead exposed its own, when Biden conceded in early December that he would not send US troops to protect Ukraine. With that being clearly articulated, Putin launched a counterattack by demanding guarantees from NATO that it would not expand into the former Soviet space. As for Ukraine, it is emerging from this turmoil more vulnerable to Russian aggression than it was at the beginning of the year. ''
''The only thing it has achieved so far is nurturing Putin’s dictatorial regime and continuing to prop it up by providing it with adversarial legitimacy. The Russian leader thrives on confrontation, from which everyone else is losing. The US would be well-advised to engage in some serious soul-searching before proceeding any further.''
I don't think Ukraine actually needs ground support. Feanor could correct me on this, but they seem to have sufficient ground troops and weapons, and are getting plenty of training, Ukraine even has upgraded soviet air defense systems. What they do not have and sorely lack is an air force.
This second statement is in some contradiction to the first one. If the US conceded to not send troops, how is it providing Russia with adversarial legitimacy?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #106
Depends on what you mean by support and who they're fighting. Against Russia Ukraine needs every kind of support. Against the rebels, Ukraine could win, but only if Russia stays out of it. Yes, their airforce is worse than their ground forces. So is their navy.
I think what the writer means is that by West/NATO/U.S pursuing the policy it has, it enables Putin to mantain his narrative of a belligerent and uncompromising West/NATO/U.S, which in turn justifies what Russia has to do and is doing.
Last edited:
The Wall Street Journal is running another article on the topic with references to US and Ukrainian officials. Ukraine has asked for high-tech anti-missile systems and more training from the US, in addition to other undisclosed items. According to the analysis in the article, if Russia was to invade Ukraine, they could use land and sea-based tactical missiles to take out Ukraine's existing anti-airplane missile systems. Then Russian air force would move in to close Ukraine's airspace and strike Ukraine's land forces.
www.wsj.com
More from the article:
Ukraine Wants Military Support to Deter Russia While the U.S. Weighs Response
Ukrainian officials say efforts to stop Moscow would be strengthened if the Biden administration steps up assistance ahead of an attack.
www.wsj.com
Last edited:
Wall Street Journal is running an article on causes of USSR collapse. Author argues that despite beliefs that USSR decomposed due to West's actions, the Soviet Union fell due to internal discord. It was a combination of faith-like beliefs that a new generation of USSR leaders would bring in successful reforms and Gorbachev's failure in his utopian ideals and ineffective approach to reforms that triggered a series of events that led to the fall of the Soviet Union.
www.wsj.com
Why Did the “Evil Empire” Collapse?
The U.S.S.R. disappeared 30 years ago, not because of Western pressure or economic hardship but because of Mikhail Gorbachev’s fatal vision of reform.
www.wsj.com
Last edited:
tequilashooter
New Member
@tequilashooter
Links deleted.
1. Posting of links etc., without original comment by poster is against the rules.
2. TASS, RT, and Pravda are not regarded as reputable, reliable sources.
Ngatimozart.
Links deleted.
1. Posting of links etc., without original comment by poster is against the rules.
2. TASS, RT, and Pravda are not regarded as reputable, reliable sources.
Ngatimozart.
Last edited by a moderator:
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Might want to add some commentary there bud. Just copy-pasting links from the one source tends to make the mods grumpy ;-)
tequilashooter
New Member
so apparently these mods regard any sources from russian sources as unreliable in regards to the russia and west conflict. Just great, ironically sino, russia defense net, india defense net and defensehub(pro-turkish) are the only places where I feel I dont have to worry about stepping on egg shells whenever I make news source posts. F-16.net, this place, secretprojects, AR15.com, spacebattle forum are not even hiding the pro-bias approach, if there is any other forum or place where I can freely post what I want than let me know since we seem to have alot more in common with the North koreans than we like to admit
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I can't speak for the mods, but I imagine @Feanor can provide useful guidance on good Russian sources (he's Russian himself IIRC). FWIW they have a similar stance on sources like Fox, much of the Murdoch Press etc, so I wouldn't be too quick to cry foul.
Not sure I'd want the forum to allow everyone to post anything they wanted - I suspect it would be overrun with junk in short order.
For my part I was trying to help you with the expected posting conventions here - specifically adding commentary to sources rather than just listing them
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #114
Spamming links to Fox News or wikipedia would not be well received either. Unreliable sources can be used, however with caution, and with understanding of their unreliable nature. For example when TASS mentions a Russian naval exercise involving certain ships, it's generally reliable. However when it's opinion pieces on complex political issues, it's far less so. RT is (in my opinion) far worse. The main issue with your post was that you posted a small bucket of links with no commentary or input of your own. The expectation is that you provide a quality contribution to the forum and use sources to support your claims and illustrate your points.
This forum is not a fanboi forum and we do not have a bias. However we are a professional defence forum and as such do have criteria about sources.
As @Feanor has explained RT isn't reliable. It's generally regarded as a propaganda mouthpiece for Vladimir Putin. TASS depending upon the article. Fox News and Sky News Australia because of their blatant political bias, Xinhua CCTV, & Global Times because they are CCP propaganda mouthpieces. Unfortunately the SCMP from Hong Kong has to be regarded as no longer reliable because it's now constrained by CCP / PRC interference and censorship under the PRC National Security Act that has been foisted upon Hong Kong in breach of the 1984 Sino-British Agreement that Determines the Future of Hong Kong.* WRT Wikipedia we don't regard that as a reliable source because its entries are generally not fact checked or peer reviewed.
These criteria about sources apply to everyone regardless of who they are and where they come from. Just to remind people all sources are to be reputable, reliable, and verifiable.
* Source:
Official Publication: Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, 7 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 139 (1984). Available at: Official Publication: Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong
Interesting interview with the supreme commander of the Swedish Armed Forces: Sweden’s top general on watching Russia and responding to an invasion of Ukraine (defensenews.com)
There is a significant intel sharing between Sweden and the US -- of course not at the 5 eyes level, but still significant.
Sweden recently increased combat readiness, as a response to the increased tensions related to Ukraine:
There is a significant intel sharing between Sweden and the US -- of course not at the 5 eyes level, but still significant.
About operating together:
Sweden is increasing the defense budget by 40% over 5 years, and is partly rebuilding capacity that was there during the cold war, but atrophied when Russia had little military activity in the region during the 90s and 00s. It was Georgia 2008, and even more so Ukraine 2014 that caused Sweden to "wake up". However the 40% increase came much later, in 2020, and according to Swedish politicians was triggered by "increased Russian activity in the Baltic Sea": Sweden to increase military spending by 40% as tension with Russia grows | Sweden | The Guardian
Sweden recently increased combat readiness, as a response to the increased tensions related to Ukraine:
Machine translated from Sverige urolig over Ukraina – øker den militære beredskapen – NRK Urix – Utenriksnyheter og -dokumentarer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #117
In the vein of Cold War era stand-offs, a Russian Il-114LL with an undisclosed set of ELINT/SIGINT gear was flying in parallel to a US RC-135V. It's possible that one was trying to gather info off the other. A US E-8 was also around, though not quite so close.
vk.com
VK.com | VK
vk.com
Steinmetz
Active Member
Looks like todays meeting between Sherman and Ryabkov was completely unfruitful. Basically echoing the rhetoric both sides were saying before the meeting took place. It seems clear to me that NATO membership in Ukraine or Georgia is the definite red-line for Russia. I think the question at this point is, if Russia is willing to take a large chunk of Ukraine, including Kiev. It's certain that as time passes by what levers they have behind the scenes will dwindle and the more pro west Ukraine will become. Also are they willing to incur the cost of sanctions if so? I think they'd love to avoid that or at least get a fractured EU response to sanctions. I'm not sure if they're willing to keep things idle. It's obvious Ukraine and Georgia won't be NATO members anytime soon, if ever.
But NATO has no intention of admitting either of them. At the moment, neither qualifies for admission & that's not likely to change in the foreseeable future. So what's the problem?
The last I heard (before the talks began) Russia was making rather extreme demands about the Baltic states, which are members of both NATO & the EU & which have Russian minorities with Russian-financed groups which have been known to do such things as publishing maps of proposed "Russian autonomous regions" comprising a third or more of the national territory & with as many non-Russian as ethnic Russian inhabitants.
The last I heard (before the talks began) Russia was making rather extreme demands about the Baltic states, which are members of both NATO & the EU & which have Russian minorities with Russian-financed groups which have been known to do such things as publishing maps of proposed "Russian autonomous regions" comprising a third or more of the national territory & with as many non-Russian as ethnic Russian inhabitants.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #120
In Russia's perception there's a new cold war, and one of the things they're looking for is some sort of guarantee that further NATO expansion into the former Soviet Union is off the table. Remember, Ukrainian leadership keeps feeding the line of NATO and EU admission to its people. If this is no longer possible, Ukrainian leadership would both themselves have to face, and have to explain to its public, what their plan is moving forward. So far Ukrainian leadership is extremely hostile to Russia. Would they be able to retain this position in the face of denial of NATO membership?
I don't believe this is accurate. The articles proposed by Russia included a point about no NATO expansion into the former USSR. Somewhere along the line this was interpreted by several media outlets as a request to evict the Baltic states from NATO. I don't think this is a correct interpretation, though of course it remains to be seen.