questionmark Posted March 16, 2015 Author #76 Share Posted March 16, 2015 there was never a talk of ukraine being admited to eu, only a trade agreement with eu. otoh if ukraine joined nato and usa put its nukes in ukraine, that would be a big rock in putin's eye. which is now, after the annexation and the Russian soldiers on "vacation" in Eastern Ukraine, much more likely than it was 3 years ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Red Devil Posted March 17, 2015 #77 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) All bets are on. I give the Ukraine -0.1% of chances in succeeding to detach themselves from the Bears claws anywhere in the near future. Russia was ready to put its nuclear forces on alert over the crisis in Crimea last year, such was the threat to Russian people there, President Vladimir Putin said in a documentary that aired on state TV on Sunday night. Asked if Russia was prepared to bring its nuclear weapons into play, Putin said: "We were ready to do it. I talked with colleagues and told them that this (Crimea) is our historic territory, Russian people live there, they are in danger, we cannot leave them. link Edited March 17, 2015 by Black Red Devil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerTee Posted March 17, 2015 #78 Share Posted March 17, 2015 So Obama told them he would be able to do things after his election last time. Putin knows he has nothing to fear from us. Very reminiscent of when Carter was President. Communism grew across the world, because the Russians knew Carter would do bubkis. Those that do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. I feel bad for those countries near Russia. I am not one for killing people, but I wish to goodness Putin would have gotten offed instead of his political nemesis. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted March 17, 2015 #79 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hard Talk on BBC NEWS, available on BBC Iplayer. British General and Former deputy Supreme allied Commander Europe Sir Richard Shirreff in a interview, was asked the question could NATO protect the Baltic states and could NATO retake them by force from Russia. the Answer was a resounding NO. Well like I've said all along we are walking a tightrope and face the serious consequence of breaking NATO and possibly the EU. It seems likely that a Russian invasion of the Baltics could directly discredit and ultimately destroy the NATO alliance and potentially the EU as a whole, all of which directly benefit Russia. The seriousness of this will be lost and continued to be lost on most. But never mind. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05p7490/hardtalk-general-sir-richard-shirreff-former-deputy-supreme-allied-commander-nato 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted March 17, 2015 Author #80 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hard Talk on BBC NEWS, available on BBC Iplayer. British General and Former deputy Supreme allied Commander Europe Sir Richard Shirreff in a interview, was asked the question could NATO protect the Baltic states and could NATO retake them by force from Russia. the Answer was a resounding NO. Well like I've said all along we are walking a tightrope and face the serious consequence of breaking NATO and possibly the EU. It seems likely that a Russian invasion of the Baltics could directly discredit and ultimately destroy the NATO alliance and potentially the EU as a whole, all of which directly benefit Russia. The seriousness of this will be lost and continued to be lost on most. But never mind. http://www.bbc.co.uk...-commander-nato The French will be very annoyed to learn that the British took over their role in white flag waving. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted March 17, 2015 #81 Share Posted March 17, 2015 The French will be very annoyed to learn that the British took over their role in white flag waving. I believe that this is one of those 'rotating roles' - like the Presidency of the European Commission. Each member country should hold the role for a set term, so none can feel more or less important than the others. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted March 17, 2015 Author #82 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I believe that this is one of those 'rotating roles' - like the Presidency of the European Commission. Each member country should hold the role for a set term, so none can feel more or less important than the others. Only, since this term, the party that got most votes in the European Elections gets the Prezz job.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted March 17, 2015 #83 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Only, since this term, the party that got most votes in the European Elections gets the Prezz job.... Yeah, it's become like the Eurovision Song Contest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted March 17, 2015 #84 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hard Talk on BBC NEWS, available on BBC Iplayer. British General and Former deputy Supreme allied Commander Europe Sir Richard Shirreff in a interview, was asked the question could NATO protect the Baltic states and could NATO retake them by force from Russia. the Answer was a resounding NO. Well like I've said all along we are walking a tightrope and face the serious consequence of breaking NATO and possibly the EU. It seems likely that a Russian invasion of the Baltics could directly discredit and ultimately destroy the NATO alliance and potentially the EU as a whole, all of which directly benefit Russia. The seriousness of this will be lost and continued to be lost on most. But never mind. http://www.bbc.co.uk...-commander-nato I would very much like to hear what Sir Richard Shirreff said but I can only watch this in the UK (I am in Germany at the moment). I believe, that NATO security is founded on the willingness of its 3 Nuclear equipped Nations to use the final deterrent - but whether that is realistic or not I seriously doubt. Truth is, whilst the USA, UK, and Estonia are prepared to pay the monetary cost of defensive arming the other NATO Alliance members are not. I strongly believe that the nuclear deterrent be reserved for those nations under threat who have developed this technology, after all most of the other non-nuclear nations will not countenance any nuclear weapons on their soil. Why should Nuclear weapons protect those nations that despise them - because protect them is exactly what they do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted March 17, 2015 Author #85 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Yeah, it's become like the Eurovision Song Contest. Only the tunes are worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted March 17, 2015 Author #86 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I would very much like to hear what Sir Richard Shirreff said but I can only watch this in the UK (I am in Germany at the moment). I believe, that NATO security is founded on the willingness of its 3 Nuclear equipped Nations to use the final deterrent - but whether that is realistic or not I seriously doubt. Truth is, whilst the USA, UK, and Estonia are prepared to pay the monetary cost of defensive arming the other NATO Alliance members are not. I strongly believe that the nuclear deterrent be reserved for those nations under threat who have developed this technology, after all most of the other non-nuclear nations will not countenance any nuclear weapons on their soil. Why should Nuclear weapons protect those nations that despise them - because protect them is exactly what they do. If that deterrent ceases to exist a new can of worms is opened: the validity of the non-proliferation agreement. That will open the door for about everybody wanting to build a bomb to have a justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Red Devil Posted March 18, 2015 #87 Share Posted March 18, 2015 If that deterrent ceases to exist a new can of worms is opened: the validity of the non-proliferation agreement. That will open the door for about everybody wanting to build a bomb to have a justification. The way it works is If you want to build a bomb you DONT join the NNPT otherwise you end up having to explain yourself to IAEA inspectors and everybody else who wants a piece of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted March 18, 2015 Author #88 Share Posted March 18, 2015 The way it works is If you want to build a bomb you DONT join the NNPT otherwise you end up having to explain yourself to IAEA inspectors and everybody else who wants a piece of you. Anybody can quit the NNPT at any time giving a 12 month notice. If half the states in the world do that I want to see the government that puts them all on the sanction list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted March 18, 2015 #89 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) The French will be very annoyed to learn that the British took over their role in white flag waving. White flag waving you say, interesting. what are you referring to? Meanwhile, Russia is getting ready to counteract and repel land-sea-air military aggression on its western, northern, southern and eastern borders simultaneously, as massive drills of all military branches are underway across Russia. Motorized infantry, combat aviation and Spetznaz troops have been put on alert in all nine time zones of the Russian Federation, including the Volga region, Urals, Western Siberia, the Far East region and the Pacific, the North Caucasus and along the borders of NATO member states from the Arctic through to the Baltic and Black Sea. Must be costing hundreds - millions of dollars. i bet NATO (USA) spy satellites dont know where to look first. http://rt.com/news/2...nned-readiness/ 16th March. Tactical nuke testing? Edited March 18, 2015 by stevewinn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted March 18, 2015 Author #90 Share Posted March 18, 2015 White flag waving you say, interesting. what are you referring to? If NATO cannot defend Estonia it cannot defend Britain either. That white flag. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted March 18, 2015 #91 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) If NATO cannot defend Estonia it cannot defend Britain either. That white flag. oh, i see. There is a slight difference though the geographic location of the UK gives it a standing chance. Unlike the Baltic countries, and their perilous location. I note Lithuanian as started a program of conscription again. could be too little to late as they say. but to be fair the Baltic's have no chance whatsoever if the worst was to happen. they'd do what NATO intended them to be a tripwire and nothing more. Edited March 18, 2015 by stevewinn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen of Annoy Posted March 18, 2015 #92 Share Posted March 18, 2015 oh, i see. There is a slight difference though the geographic location of the UK gives it a standing chance. Unlike the Baltic countries, and their perilous location. I note Lithuanian as started a program of conscription again. could be too little to late as they say. but to be fair the Baltic's have no chance whatsoever if the worst was to happen. they'd do what NATO intended them to be a tripwire and nothing more. Nope, it’s you who has no chance against nukes from Kaliningrad. They were not brought there for Lithuania, Russia plans to grab Baltic inhabitable. It’s you they’ll irradiate to make a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted March 18, 2015 #93 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Nope, it’s you who has no chance against nukes from Kaliningrad. They were not brought there for Lithuania, Russia plans to grab Baltic inhabitable. It’s you they’ll irradiate to make a point. Well that's why i support our Nuclear Deterrent, knowing that if we're to be blown to kingdom come, The end will arrive for those who fired. thanks to our 365 day a year presence. 45 years of continuous submarine nuclear deterrent patrols. known as operation Relentless - But the scenario you describe is very unlikely to ever happen because of the mutually assured destruction. But Invasion of the Baltic states is very possible and real prospect today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted March 18, 2015 #94 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Nuclear deterrent is fine, but it only really deters the other guy using his own nukes. Is the US really going to use a nuke if Russian invades Finland or Estonia? Nope.... We'll try conventional armaments until Russia is right outside Berlin. I believe a modern day "Invasion of Poland" style attack is a real possibility. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen of Annoy Posted March 18, 2015 #95 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Well that's why i support our Nuclear Deterrent, knowing that if we're to be blown to kingdom come, The end will arrive for those who fired. thanks to our 365 day a year presence. 45 years of continuous submarine nuclear deterrent patrols. known as operation Relentless - But the scenario you describe is very unlikely to ever happen because of the mutually assured destruction. But Invasion of the Baltic states is very possible and real prospect today. The trouble is that all the appeasing in the past made the tsar believe the retaliation would be limited and he is not impressed with casualties it would bring. While firing a nuke or two at the West is his fetish. Eastern Europe is just not the West, in or out NATO, his life will be complete when he blows you up, not some peasants in Budapest or Bucharest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Red Devil Posted March 19, 2015 #96 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Nukes won't fly if Russia invades Estonia. Heavy sanctions and boycots yes but not a nuclear war. They surely will start flying if something gets dropped on England. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted March 19, 2015 #97 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Nukes won't fly if Russia invades Estonia. Heavy sanctions and boycots yes but not a nuclear war. They surely will start flying if something gets dropped on England. Putin should hurry then before the USA elects a Republican President. Obama might just issue a strongly worded statement if he is lucky. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted March 19, 2015 Author #98 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Nukes won't fly if Russia invades Estonia. Heavy sanctions and boycots yes but not a nuclear war. They surely will start flying if something gets dropped on England. I would not speculate on nukes, but as Estonia is a NATO member, any attack on it would put the rest of the organization at war with the aggressor (no matter if Russia or Fiji)... unless, of course, they all start waving a white flag before it happened, like this British general above. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanato Posted March 19, 2015 #99 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Nukes won't fly if Russia invades Estonia. Heavy sanctions and boycots yes but not a nuclear war. They surely will start flying if something gets dropped on England. Nukes? Probably not. F15s f18s f16s euro fighters etc will. And Leopards and rams will prowel for t90s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted March 19, 2015 #100 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) I would not speculate on nukes, but as Estonia is a NATO member, any attack on it would put the rest of the organization at war with the aggressor (no matter if Russia or Fiji)... unless, of course, they all start waving a white flag before it happened, like this British general above. That British General was NATO's Deputy Supreme Commander Europe. If he's stating NATO could not defend the Baltics or retake them, then it highlights what i've said all along. - the credibility of NATO could be questioned and if Putin decided to test it. We could be left with egg on our Face. and it further highlights the stupidity of allowing the Baltic states join NATO in the first place. For NATO to hold any credibility it would have to invoke article 5 and the Alliance would be at War with Russia. - Which raises the questions, Where would such a conflict be fought. - I'll tell you, not in the land of the Giants but the land of the Pygmies. the Baltics would be sacrificed and torn apart as they become the no-mans land between the West and Russia. and seeing how Russian Air Defences already cover the Baltic states good luck trying to gain air supremacy which then makes any ground campaign impossible. Question, Should NATO Defend the Baltic states if Russia Attacks? Public opinion in favour of Rushing to the Defence of the Baltic states. Its rather telling not one of the leading seven European NATO members have public support for the Defence of the Baltic states. Public opinion figures in favour of defending the Baltics. France 40% Germany 27% Italy 37% Spain 37% UK 35% USA 36% Edited March 19, 2015 by stevewinn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now