Discussion in 'World Events' started by Saint, Jan 20, 2022.
I heard that Russia got EMP weapon can destroy tanks and fighters in split seconds.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Most military equipment is hardened against emp i believe
If you need it explained to you, you’ll never understand.
It's a context thing. If we read RS's post↑ as a projected characterization, it is what it is and makes its point. If we read it as a literal statement of belief, the appearance of bigotry is pretty obvious. As that appearance of bigotry seems to defy RS's tendencies, I read the post as a projected characterization.
Stylistically, though, it's a bit ragged and not as obvious as RS would hope. We run into this from time to time at Sciforums, when an author thinks they're being clever but forgets they're at Sciforums.
so your just trolling emotionally
you want me to assume all your own prejudices & then set them upon myself to limit my own free speech
but im not going to
there is no illusion or mystery about the differences between Christianity & Islamic religion being at war with each other for thousands of years .
you want to pretend that doesn't exist & you wish to pretend there is no difference between cultures
why do you seek to profit from claiming that all culture is the same
there is also differences inside both of those religions which are very active
from speech to rally's to out right terrorism
there is also no secret in the massive amount of ethnic cleansing narratives that go on in many different countrys
many countrys have refugees who are fleeing to avoid religious persecution & murder & torture.
The funny part about that line is that the problem isn't "Islam", but capitalism. It's not a matter of pretending there is no difference 'twixt cultures; rather, the commonalities of humanity are expressed and, over time conditioned, diversely per circumstantial demand.
Nato cannot and will not protect Ukraine.
Nato afraid of war.
That remains to be seen.
Surely everyone should be afraid of war, shouldn't they? Even the Russians will fear the backlash of any military aggression on their part, which is why they haven't just brazenly invaded already, or taken over all of their former states. They are treading a fine line of trying to get what they want without provoking a war. But I am almost certain that both sides are afraid of war. Whether that fear will be sufficient to ensure it doesn't happen, time will tell.
Ukraine not part of NATO. So not NATO job plotect it.
What NATO do plotect member countries. Dat why tloops go dere, not Ukraine.
Got it, Glasshopper? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think that they can in the sense that they have the military capability to send forces into Ukraine, engage and probably defeat any Russian forces they encounter there.
The issue would be the cost (in lives, in military capabilities expended, and potentially in the risk of nuclear escalation).
I'm not sure what they will do. Any military response will fall primarily on the United States, since western Europe has more or less outsourced its defense to the US at US expense. The US and the Europeans are blustering madly and the drums of war are beating loudly in the western media, but when it gets down to it, I don't think that NATO will send forces into Ukraine even if Russia invades (which isn't a sure thing by any means).
War isn't something to be taken lightly. Especially with a near-peer adversary with nuclear weapons. Given the potential cost of war, does protection of Ukraine represent such a vital interest that would justify assuming the cost? NATO's stated purpose is collective self-defense of its members. Ukraine isn't a NATO member, whether officially or unofficially (NATO in all but name. It's Russia's goal to ensure that never happens.) Ukraine's future relationship with NATO isn't such a vital interest to NATO as to justify war.
I suppose that Chinese media is talking war in your part of the world. If the US, Europe and Russia all got into a war, guess who the results of the war would benefit in relative terms? (Assuming the war didn't devolve into a full-scale nuclear exchange.) If the war was large, all of China's global rivals would be beaten down (like the Europeans after World War II), allowing China to assume its manifest destiny. Or if the war was more limited and less destructive, but was accompanied by the "crushing sanctions" that Biden loves to talk about, Russia would be pushed away from the West and into the arms of China, which would be of benefit to China too. Russia would stop banking in London and move its business to Hong Kong, furthering Chinese ambitions to become a global financial power. And if Russia attacks and the US and Europe don't enter the war, then China will probably try to portray them to the world as weak and untrustworthy allies (unlike strong China). China would almost certainly use it against Taiwan, saying 'If they won't protect Ukraine, what makes you think they will protect you??'
China probably thinks that if war breaks out, they win however things turn out. So sure, China will be beating the drums of war all around the world.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
which closely followed the voting in 2010
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Is partitioning of Ukraine on the table?
I expect that if the Russians invade, it will be on Russian military planners' tables.
One thing that few people seem to know is that in all of European history, there has never really been a Ukrainian state until 1990. In earlier times, Ukraine west of Kyiv was part of Catholic Poland (with a corner in the Carpathians in the far southwest part of Austria-Hungary). East of Kyiv it was part of Russia. That has left its mark on Ukrainian culture which is far more Westernized in western Ukraine and far more Russianized in the east. As your maps show, Ukrainian politics illustrate that. Gradually Russia expanded at the expense of Poland and ended up with all of Ukraine in the 18th and 19th centuries (the Partition of Poland between Russia, Prussia and Austria).
One of the Russian options would be to take Kyiv and install a Russian-friendly 'puppet' government there. But that wouldn't gain them much because the current Ukrainian government would flee to Lviv or into exile in Poland and would still claim legitimacy. And if Russia tried to occupy all of Ukraine, they would find themselves occupying some strongly Ukrainian nationalist areas in Kyiv and west to Poland, where they might face considerable popular hostility and likely partisan resistance.
So that's why I think that it might be more likely for them to drive from northeast (they have a Guards Tank Army near Kursk) to southwest at the Moldovan border, basically seizing everything south and east of that line. Essentially the blue areas of your map, leaving the current Ukraine government with most of the pink areas. I also would expect them to take the largely rural pink area east of Kyiv to the Russian border. That way the remaining pink areas could join NATO and would no longer border Russia and Russia would get strategic depth, which is a big part of their military doctrine. Buffer areas between Russia's heartland and their enemies is a big part of their thinking. Historically Russia has been more backward than its enemies to the west, but its huge size helped make up for that (as Napoleon and then Hitler learned). They would also get the Black Sea coast and most of Ukraine's industrial areas.
There would still be Ukrainian nationalist resistance in some of the areas they take, but much of southeast Ukraine is historically aligned with Russia, much of it Russian speaking. So it's likely that they will encounter considerable support as well, at least in the bluer areas. Many people in these areas will likely welcome Russia much as Crimea did.
At least that's what Moscow probably hopes, assuming that all this actually comes to war (which is unknown at this point).
To break the looming impasse:
Is it possible that a solution could be for Ukraine to declare itself or be declared as a neutral, demilitarized zone as the buffer the Russians seem to be so desperate to have against NATO?
??? Isn't that what Russia have effectively requested/demanded - i.e. assurances that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO?
Not the same as formal neutrality.
Of course neutrality is normally a voluntary choice and the suggestion seems to be that it be imposed on Ukraine by Russia and USA (or the UN?)
It would certainly be a diminution of statehood unless Ukraine was allowed the option of quitting the deal (giving notice?)
It feels like an injustice since Russia might be considered to be a failed autocracy (even as it has ,like everyone legitimate security concerns) imposing its wishes on a fledgling democratic state.
Yes, I think that's Russia's fundamental (and to them non-negotiable) demand. NATO's response, as I understand it, has been to say that Ukraine's NATO membership is a matter between Ukraine and NATO, and Russia has no say in it. Certainly that's defensible on principle, Ukraine is a sovereign country after all, and its alliances are its own choice. But it does create a situation that will very likely lead to war.
The best solution might be for NATO to back off a bit and to treat Ukraine much like Finland during the Cold War. Neutral, not threatening to next door Russia, no NATO presence. Yet Finland was very Westernized and Scandinavian culturally. So Ukraine could adopt a position where it represents no military threat to Russia, where it forms a buffer between Russia and NATO, and forms part of Russia's defensive depth. Leaving Ukraine free to move more towards western Europe culturally (which will probably be controversial in eastern Ukraine which might prefer to steer closer to Russia, given the internal cultural divisions).
Ideally Ukraine could play that to its advantage, serving as a bridge between the EU and Russia, with a foot on both sides so to speak.
I don’t think that’s going to fly in Ukraine. The euromaiden protests happened because a leader was cozying up to Russia and the Ukrainians(ethnicity not nationality) didn’t want that. The Ukrainians have spent the last 700 years catering to the whims of Polish kings, Lithuanian grand dukes, and Russian tsars and kleptocrats. They are long since tired of being treated as an extension of another country. I believe there is a good chance if the choice is war or being a Russian client state the Ukrainians will choose war.
I assume that Putin's first goal is the land route to Crimea.
Keeping Ukraine out of NATO is needed for future land graps.
Heard Putin also wants the Baltic states out of NATO.
Separate names with a comma.