Russia Massing in Rostov

[Thanato]

Russia's army is massing troops and hundreds of pieces of weaponry including mobile rocket launchers, tanks and artillery at a makeshift base near the border with Ukraine, a Reuters reporter saw this week.

Many of the vehicles have number plates and identifying marks removed while many of the servicemen had taken insignia off their fatigues. As such, they match the appearance of some of the forces spotted in eastern Ukraine, which Kiev and its Western allies allege are covert Russian detachments.

The scene at the base on the Kuzminsky firing range, around 50 km (30 miles) from the border, offers some of the clearest evidence to date of what appeared to be a concerted Russian military build-up in the area.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/27/us-ukraine-crisis-russia-military-idUSKBN0OC2K820150527

[Mr.United_Nations]

i know Russia is doing a huge exercise soon

[bmk1245]

Heh, Putin just signed decree making army losses (during peace time) a state secret...

[+and-then]

He's probably decided to finish the job in Ukraine. I hope they bleed for it. If they don't then more countries will be at risk because he can see he has about 20 months of uninterrupted running room in Europe. How's that legacy looking, (spits) Obama?

[kartikg]

Good job Putin put Ukraine out of it's misery .

[Mr.United_Nations]

Good job Putin put Ukraine out of it's misery .

kick Russia up it ****

[Thanato]

If Russia launched an attack on the Ukraine, an overt invasion. Ukraine would be over run with in a month perhaps two depending on the commitment of troops by Russia.

However this would be met with a strong response by NATO, which most likely would counter attack. Russia would attack NATO nations and the War would be reminiscent of the First World War but with no trench system. Neither side would want to commit to the waves and large scale attacks of the First and Second world war because they would result in massive casualties. The War would be a war of words with a static front line. Each side would build up their forces but NATO would have numeric advantage in Europe.

China would take advantage of this and cement its hold in the pacific, probably by force. However I do not believe it would turn into a pacific war involving the United States, unless there was an attack on Taiwan or Japan.

[stevewinn]

If Russia moves on Ukraine it should be a United Nations issue, Not NATO. no problem with NATO securing NATO member borders but to get involved in Ukraine who is NOT a NATO member would be madness. NATO is and Never has been or ever will be about dying in mutual sympathy.

The Swedish Island of Gotland which is strategically important if Russia was to move on Ukraine proper. - Russia as warned Sweden not to militarise Gotland further. with News Sweden is to increase the number of troops stationed and possibly mine the Island. - If Russia invaded Gotland what would be the response? Sweden isnt a NATO member. and would NATO or EU risk war over the Island they couldn't retake by force anyway? Russia really is holding all the cards. they are dominating the ground.

[+and-then]

If Russia moves on Ukraine it should be a United Nations issue, Not NATO. no problem with NATO securing NATO member borders but to get involved in Ukraine who is NOT a NATO member would be madness. NATO is and Never has been or ever will be about dying in mutual sympathy.

The Swedish Island of Gotland which is strategically important if Russia was to move on Ukraine proper. - Russia as warned Sweden not to militarise Gotland further. with News Sweden is to increase the number of troops stationed and possibly mine the Island. - If Russia invaded Gotland what would be the response? Sweden isnt a NATO member. and would NATO or EU risk war over the Island they couldn't retake by force anyway? Russia really is holding all the cards. they are dominating the ground.

I understand the logic of not going to war for a non NATO member but at what point would you think it necessary? Putin realizes that Obama has gelded American power by choice and he also knows that NATO is a joke sans that power. He's more afraid of economic repercussions than any military challenge. And short of nukes he really isn't in a position to be so bold. His forces would be routed in relatively short order. Yes, there'd be a great loss of life, but the Russian armed forces aren't modernized enough, yet. AND they'd be facing an enemy that has done nothing but fight for a decade.

[odas]

He's probably decided to finish the job in Ukraine. I hope they bleed for it. If they don't then more countries will be at risk because he can see he has about 20 months of uninterrupted running room in Europe. How's that legacy looking, (spits) Obama?

For God's sake. Obama? Really?. Putin is reaping the seeds set by GWB. While GWB was going after Chaney's money, while GWB was radicalizing muslims around the globe, while GWB was creating enemies all over the world, the Big Bear was sitting back, planning, scheduling and now executing all of it.

Anyway, AT, you are not helping. Now it is time for unity among all the freedom loving people against the ruskies, isis, all radicals (yes including the muslim haters). I can see a blood bath again in the Balkans, Baltics, eastern Europe.......

If we are not united we do not stand a chance against Russia.

[stevewinn]

I understand the logic of not going to war for a non NATO member but at what point would you think it necessary? Putin realizes that Obama has gelded American power by choice and he also knows that NATO is a joke sans that power. He's more afraid of economic repercussions than any military challenge. And short of nukes he really isn't in a position to be so bold. His forces would be routed in relatively short order. Yes, there'd be a great loss of life, but the Russian armed forces aren't modernized enough, yet. AND they'd be facing an enemy that has done nothing but fight for a decade.

I'd go through the United Nations first and foremost. the internationally community speaking as one, otherwise if we go the NATO route we play into Putin's hands he will just play to his people that its the evil NATO alliance threatening Russia and galvanising support at home, If its the UN he cant play that hand.

The problem the West has is we have too many leaders with individual interest trying to find a consensus in response to Russia's actions, whereas Russia is operating alone, quick and decisive, by the time we've come up with a response Russia as moved three or four moves on the chessboard. The West can draw red lines but that damages credibility when Russia simply steps over them.

As for Russian equipment and NATO today. NATO might have been fighting in Afghanistan for longer than a decade. But think back to the start of Afghanistan conflict, how most of our cold war equipment was useless, evident by all the New equipment we had to purchase design and manufacture for that war.

For Balance look at the Falklands War 1982. all our equipment was based around fighting Russia during the cold war. submarine hunting in the Atlantic and mechanised divisions storming the plains of Europe. then Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and we was ill prepared to fight that type of war. suffering loses in the process.

NATO is not balanced to fight Russia. 10+ years fighting an insurgency campaign in Afghanistan is a helluva lot different to fighting a conventional conflict in the form of a GLOBAL POWER with at least 120,000 troops trained to NATO standard. and the means to defend itself. and based in Northern Europe.

The United Kingdom as twice bankrupted itself fighting for the greater good in Europe, the Second world war finished us in truth as a global superpower. What we got out of Victory, - Germany got out of defeat. We cant defeat Russia alone, and neither can we as a collective as NATO. Russia is going to have to throw the first punch before any of us are forced into action. the best we could hope for is containment of Russia by the West.

[+Hammerclaw]

Considering how much of Russia's Naval infrastructure was invested in Crimea, previous Republican administrations tacitly accepted Russian hegemony in the Ukraine to avoid precisely the sort of crisis the Obama administration's medling in it's internal affairs precipitated. It's subsequent idealistic holier-than-thou responses have been counter to the national interests of all parties involved and have further exacerbated an already tense situation. It serves no useful purpose to foster an adversarial relationship with Russia and emboldens Russian ultra-nationalist aspirations. I detest the term "cowboy diplomacy" but it is an accurate description of the U.S, State Department's amateurish bunglings under the present Administration.

[GreatFenris]

If Russia moves on Ukraine it should be a United Nations issue, Not NATO. no problem with NATO securing NATO member borders but to get involved in Ukraine who is NOT a NATO member would be madness. NATO is and Never has been or ever will be about dying in mutual sympathy.

The Swedish Island of Gotland which is strategically important if Russia was to move on Ukraine proper. - Russia as warned Sweden not to militarise Gotland further. with News Sweden is to increase the number of troops stationed and possibly mine the Island. - If Russia invaded Gotland what would be the response? Sweden isnt a NATO member. and would NATO or EU risk war over the Island they couldn't retake by force anyway? Russia really is holding all the cards. they are dominating the ground.

Our island, our right to reinforce it. You such a big fan of Putin and the right that you would deny a sovereign nation it's right to place troops within it's own borders, far away from any contested strips of land?

Only good thing in all of this is that maybe, the Swedish opinion will shift to pro-nato.

[stevewinn]

Our island, our right to reinforce it. You such a big fan of Putin and the right that you would deny a sovereign nation it's right to place troops within it's own borders, far away from any contested strips of land?

Only good thing in all of this is that maybe, the Swedish opinion will shift to pro-nato.

Im not a big fan of Putin, and i have said nothing about Sweden's right to defend its territory. just for once read what i wrote.

[Herr Falukorv]

Our island, our right to reinforce it. You such a big fan of Putin and the right that you would deny a sovereign nation it's right to place troops within it's own borders, far away from any contested strips of land?

Only good thing in all of this is that maybe, the Swedish opinion will shift to pro-nato.

All our money goes to the immigration budget instead of our defence budget.

Our once rather large army (considering we are a small populated country) are now ridicoulus.

In the mid-70s the army consisted of a large number of field units, local defense units and militia.

We had about 50 independent infantry, armored, artillery and anti-aircraft (robot) - battalions .

24 infantry and and 6 armor brigades.

Local forces consisted of about 100 battalions and 400-500 independent companies.

Total Army could mobilize about 600 000 of which the home guard almost contributed with 100 000

Today we have 19,951 Soldiers 22,000 Guardsmen and 12,000 reservist

[GreatFenris]

Im not a big fan of Putin, and i have said nothing about Sweden's right to defend its territory. just for once read what i wrote.

Sorry, misunderstood what you wrote. My apologies*bows*

All our money goes to the immigration budget instead of our defence budget.

Our once rather large army (considering we are a small populated country) are now ridicoulus.

In the mid-70s the army consisted of a large number of field units, local defense units and militia.

We had about 50 independent infantry, armored, artillery and anti-aircraft (robot) - battalions .

24 infantry and and 6 armor brigades.

Local forces consisted of about 100 battalions and 400-500 independent companies.

Total Army could mobilize about 600 000 of which the home guard almost contributed with 100 000

Today we have 19,951 Soldiers 22,000 Guardsmen and 12,000 reservist

Oh great Cthulhu, here as well? No, all our money doesn't go to immigration, though the immigration department sucks up a tonne of money because they're criminally stupid and comically inept. However draining money from our armed forces is something every government would do, no matter the colour of their politics as it's an easy way. Add to that the face-palming stupidity of the military brass in spending money and you have a recipe for disaster. Also, we should not focus so much on making our own high-end weapon systems, but rather buy existing ones form the West.

[Herr Falukorv]

ehhh sigh

Of course I didn't mean all our money but huge amounts are while the defense gets the leftovers.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Immigration doesnt really get that much at all tbh

[GreatFenris]

ehhh sigh

Of course I didn't mean all our money but huge amounts are while the defense gets the leftovers.

You try to draw the direct connection Immigrants-Funds normally earmarked for the Armed Forces. Which is incorrect. The AF loose funds to everything else. Except now when they're getting the big boost of 10 billion. (as a sidenote, healthcare got a boost of...Two hundred million, naiton-wide.)

Yes, Immigration gets lots, but it's a very complicated Give-Take situation.