Brexit, for once some facts.

[flecc]

Do remember that Russia, in its USSR incarnation, didn't do anything to achieve buffer zone between East and West Germanies. If a buffer zone were so important, they could have ensured there was one by having an agreed no-reunification withdrawal from EG.

Like Zlatan you are completely misreading the situation.

When the USSR collapsed and countries left it, Russia was left with NATO countries almost entirely separated fromthem, and Russia was trying to unite with Europe via Gorbachov's perestroika.

But the USA rebuffed them and continued to try to expand NATO back to it's borders again, aggressive as ever. That is what they rightly object to, wanting to retain the buffer on principle as much as anything.
.

 

[oyster]

Ukraine may rid us of him and his politics of strong men for good.

Another so-called strong man will always rise.

 

[Danidl]

The planned battle ground was central Europe. Had the cold War turned hot the battles would not have been fought in Russia. Nato (a defensive alliance) strategy (originally) was to fight a retreating fight to coast. Advent of being able to take out massed ranks of MBTs by helicopter changed that doctrine. NATO realised they could halt advance with modern weaponry, even tactical Nuclear if needed.

I have previously posted about a conversation I had with a West German Major ... The expectation was a USSR massive tank attack would roll across from Luneburg though Saxony on these plains. The NATO response when the UKs tanks had failed , was to nuke Northern Germany, from the UK., And wait for US troops to arrive by air and deploy into their tanks and artillery located in storage in Southern Germany and France.

 

[Zlatan]

I have previously posted about a conversation I had with a West German Major ... The expectation was a USSR massive tank attack would roll across from Luneburg though Saxony on these plains. The NATO response when the UKs tanks had failed , was to nuke Northern Germany, from the UK., And wait for US troops to arrive by air and deploy into their tanks and artillery located in storage in Southern Germany and France.

Yep, I, ve read that as a possible scenario. The big change came with advent of attack Helicopters being able to hide beneath tree level,, pop up, get fixes on massive numbers of tanks, drop back down and release self aiming munitions.. Each helicopter could take out 50 tanks.. Changed strategy as that became apparent. (some ex nato chief was explaining on Bloomberg a few weeks ago)

 

[Woosh]

Like Zlatan you are completely misreading the situation.

When the USSR collapsed and countries left it, Russia was left with NATO countries almost entirely separated fromthem, and Russia was trying to unite with Europe via Gorbachov's perestroika.

But the USA rebuffed them and continued to try to expand NATO back to it's borders again, aggressive as ever. That is what they rightly object to, wanting to retain the buffer on principle as much as anything.
.

Russia is one country with way more nuclear weapons than what is necessary for deterrence. The way forward is mutual reduction of those weapons, not invading another country.

 

[flecc]

Putin has always counted on European countries' reluctance to engage into a war with Russia. Had he been more successful in Ukraine, he may expand Russia's military power even more.
Ukraine may rid us of him and his politics of strong men for good.

That doesn't mean he would dare attack a NATO country, or even an EU one. Neither he nor Russia intended expansion any more since the USSR ended. They knew it wasn't practical, hence Putin exploring the possibility of EU membership over 20 years ago.

The completely open border between full EU member Finland and Russia from the end of the USSR to the closure for Covid further proves what I post, that Russia intended peace and unity.

During that long period tens of thousands of Russians holidayed in Finland every year and Finland is unhappy that since the Covid closure it's costing them a million euros a day in lost revenue. That hurts for a country of only 5.5 million.

Nor was it one way, the Finns always drove across the border in large numbers to take advantage of Russia's low prices and while there filled their tanks with Russia's abundant very cheap petrol and diesel.

That is the sort of happy relationship all Europe could have had with Russia, but all of you cannot see those truths because you have been so indoctrinated with over 70 years of US anti-Russian propaganda, that motivated by their enduring hatred of any left wing politics.
.

 

[Zlatan]

That doesn't mean he would dare attack a NATO country, or even an EU one. Neither he nor Russia intended expansion any more since the USSR ended. They knew it wasn't practical, hence Putin exploring the possibility of EU mebership over 20 years ago.

The completely open border between full EU member Finland and Russia from the end of the USSR to the closure for Covid further proves what I post, that Russia intended peace and unity.

During that long period tens of thousands of Russians holidayed in Finland every year and Finland is unhappy that since the Covid closure it's costing them a million euros a day in lost revenue. That hurts for a country of only 5.5 million.

Nor was it one way, the Finns always drove across the border in large numbers to take advantage of Russia's low prices and while there filled their tanks with Russia's abundant very cheap petrol and diesel.

That is the sort of happy relationship all Europe could have had with Russia, but all of you cannot see those truths because you have been so indoctrinated with over 70 years of US anti-Russian propaganda, that motivated by their enduring hatred of any left wing politics.
.

Well Russia /Putin has just reinforced all those stereo types with his atrocities, thermobaric bombs and nuclear threats.

 

[flecc]

I have previously posted about a conversation I had with a West German Major ... The expectation was a USSR massive tank attack would roll across from Luneburg though Saxony on these plains. The NATO response when the UKs tanks had failed , was to nuke Northern Germany, from the UK., And wait for US troops to arrive by air and deploy into their tanks and artillery located in storage in Southern Germany and France.

Sums up the whole attitude of so many in this thread, still stuck in the cold war mentality of the USA and unable to realise how much and how many times the world has changed since then.

Russia is no longer a threat to us at present or even in our lifetime, only to those who appear to threaten them. Nor is China.

Long term both of them might be a threat of sorts, since both now share the ambition of the world becoming single party democratic communist in the mould of China's system.

But that is very long term, since the method is "hearts and minds" and not the impossibility they recognise of conquering the whole world by force. All expressed very clearly by Xi Jinping in his major address to the National People's Congress.
.

 

[Danidl]

That doesn't mean he would dare attack a NATO country, or even an EU one. Neither he nor Russia intended expansion any more since the USSR ended. They knew it wasn't practical, hence Putin exploring the possibility of EU membership over 20 years ago.

The completely open border between full EU member Finland and Russia from the end of the USSR to the closure for Covid further proves what I post, that Russia intended peace and unity.

During that long period tens of thousands of Russians holidayed in Finland every year and Finland is unhappy that since the Covid closure it's costing them a million euros a day in lost revenue. That hurts for a country of only 5.5 million.

Nor was it one way, the Finns always drove across the border in large numbers to take advantage of Russia's low prices and while there filled their tanks with Russia's abundant very cheap petrol and diesel.

That is the sort of happy relationship all Europe could have had with Russia, but all of you cannot see those truths because you have been so indoctrinated with over 70 years of US anti-Russian propaganda, that motivated by their enduring hatred of any left wing politics.
.

No flecc... . Yes there was always a concern in the USA about Reds under the Bed, and traditionally it was driven by the Republican GoP . ..and going back to the Wobblies and trade unionism. But the Trump era really flipped the GoP position. And its now the Democrats who were traditionally a little softer on Russia who now making the running.
Europe was always more open to Russian and even Communist engagement. The openness of the Germans to Russian energy was a combination of hoping to create friendship via trade . The Italians had always a flirtation with Communism . One could argue that the UK was excessively sweet on Russian wealth. But the underlying assumption was that make trade not war. All the cooperation and EU Russian initiatives were all part of that.
I don't pretend to know whether Putin acts alone or is a front for even other people , but it does seem that the ambition is more power. . Finland has had to curb its desires to not aggravate Moscow, Georgia was physically reprimanded in 2008. And Ukraine was forced into a ongoing bleeding conflict for the last decade.

 

[flecc]

No flecc... . Yes there was always a concern in the USA about Reds under the Bed, and traditionally it was driven by the Republican GoP . ..and going back to the Wobblies and trade unionism. But the Trump era really flipped the GoP position. And its now the Democrats who were traditionally a little softer on Russia who now making the running.
Europe was always more open to Russian and even Communist engagement. The openness of the Germans to Russian energy was a combination of hoping to create friendship via trade . The Italians had always a flirtation with Communism . One could argue that the UK was excessively sweet on Russian wealth. But the underlying assumption was that make trade not war. All the cooperation and EU Russian initiatives were all part of that.
I don't pretend to know whether Putin acts alone or is a front for even other people , but it does seem that the ambition is more power. . Finland has had to curb its desires to not aggravate Moscow, Georgia was physically reprimanded in 2008. And Ukraine was forced into a ongoing bleeding conflict for the last decade.

Agreed until until your last paragraph. Finland has not had to curb any desires to not aggravate Moscow. They never had any past desire to join NATO, always wanting to stay neutral. They also became full EU members in 1995 with no objection or dissent from Russia then or ever since.

Georgia and Ukraine could have had exactly the same peaceful and profitable relationship with Russia that Finland has enjoyed for decades, but both opted to listen to the USA long ago and be tempted by their blandishments. Countries cannot choose their neighbours and being a good neighbour carries certain responsibilities, which both chose to ignore. Hence they suffered the consequences of becoming a potentially threatening neighbour. All optional and entirely unnecessary, had some common sense been applied.
.

 

[Woosh]

How can Ukraine threaten Russia ever since it gave up its nuclear weapons and join the nonproliferation treaty? The only possible threat is not military, it's its relatively free society which is absent under Putin.

 

[Zlatan]

No flecc... . Yes there was always a concern in the USA about Reds under the Bed, and traditionally it was driven by the Republican GoP . ..and going back to the Wobblies and trade unionism. But the Trump era really flipped the GoP position. And its now the Democrats who were traditionally a little softer on Russia who now making the running.
Europe was always more open to Russian and even Communist engagement. The openness of the Germans to Russian energy was a combination of hoping to create friendship via trade . The Italians had always a flirtation with Communism . One could argue that the UK was excessively sweet on Russian wealth. But the underlying assumption was that make trade not war. All the cooperation and EU Russian initiatives were all part of that.
I don't pretend to know whether Putin acts alone or is a front for even other people , but it does seem that the ambition is more power. . Finland has had to curb its desires to not aggravate Moscow, Georgia was physically reprimanded in 2008. And Ukraine was forced into a ongoing bleeding conflict for the last decade.

I almost feel as sorry for Russian people as Ukrainians. I don't understand Flecc's position at all. Russians are in grip of a ruthless violent regime headed by Putin. The number of times they have shown their animosity towards both West and any kind of alternative view is countless. Navalny speaks out, gets poisoned and imprisoned. Some woman speaks out and ends up in a suit case, butchered by her boyfriend. How convenient. Putin poisons dissenters with Novichok on British soil, killing a UK resident in their utter uselessness, and for some odd reason it's still the fault of US.
Time to wake up Flecc. Putin is along similar lines to Hitler, luckily his regime is so corrupt they, d rather spend cash on billion dollar yachts than arms, but then again they know they have their nuclear threat to fall back on. Other aspect of that is that even when Cold War was at its height the USSR saw their arsenal as a deterrent. Putin openly sees and speaks of it as a threat.
They have exhibited all the hall marks of complete bullies. Invade Ukraine, a weaker, poorer country, and threatened equal adverseries with nuclear war if anyone dare help the country getting anihalated. We should have called his bluff, gone in and kicked him out completely. He has no business in Ukraine at all. Its a Sovereign independent nation. Or perhaps UK should demand Australia and Canada back in the fold.

Russia reasserts right to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine

Senior politician Dmitry Medvedev says Moscow’s nuclear doctrine does not require enemy state to use such weapons first

www.theguardian.com

So Russia losing in Ukraine becomes part of Russia's struggle to maintain independence,so are they justifying nuclear war heads again Ukraine? In defence of Mother Russia??

 

[flecc]

How can Ukraine threaten Russia ever since it gave up its nuclear weapons and join the nonproliferation treaty? The only possible threat is not military, it's its relatively free society which is absent under Putin.

The threat is as I've posted so many times, the threat, real or perceived, of them joining NATO, an organisation specifically set up to be opposition to Russia.

The belief of all my opposition in here is that Putin's Russia is intent on expansion, and they persist with this in spite of already being proven wrong:

Wrong because they'd have kept Georgia if that were true.

Wrong because they'd have taken Finland long ago since it's not a NATO country and has a very small population similar to Georgia's so easily beaten.

Wrong because they'd have taken the small countries of Azerbaijan and Armenia on their border to expand southwards as well as eastwards.

And will be proven wrong for the fourth time as Russia leaves Ukraine shortly, as they always intended. As many of you have said, Russia could never hold Ukraine and they know that better than any of you. Their business in Ukraine was simply to establish the land link to the Crimea to safeguard their southern fleet, while reminding Ukraine that considering NATO membership can carry a harsh cost. Just as they went into Georgia for the same warning purpose.
.

 

[Woosh]

The threat is as I've posted so many times, the threat, real or perceived, of them joining NATO, an organisation specifically set up to be opposition to Russia.

NATO won't start a war and Putin should not try to take the sea of Azov by force but by negotiation.
There is now a real possibility that Putin will be dead and gone before both sides agree to who will control the sea of Azov.

 

[flecc]

NATO won't start a war and Putin should not try to take the sea of Azov by force but by negotiation.
There is now a real possibility that Putin will be dead and gone before both sides agree to who will control the sea of Azov.

It's about perception, seen through Russian eyes NATO is a real threat. Since way back in the early Czarist days, Russia has always been paranoid about attack from the West and there's been volumes written about it.

It's commonly been surmised that the vast flat plains of the Russian steppes to the west and south give rise to the both their feeling of vulnerability and the fortress like buildings they erect in cities like Moscow. We feel threatened by their attitudes while they feel persecuted by our responses.

That is their very different reality and it's why I place so much emphasis on understanding, with empathy where appropriate. These could and would have avoided any of these wars.

That same empathy is necessary with regard to the vulnerability of their fleets. The Northern fleet is impeded by the White and Barent seas being frozen over much of the year and from St Petersburg is confined by the Baltic sea and the narrow bottleneck between Denmark, a NATO country, and Sweden.

Their Southern fleet is trapped in the Black Sea with only the narrow Bosphorus exit between the two NATO countries of Turkey and Greece. And lets face it, their fears are not unjustified, as Turkey's threat to prevent their ships passing showed.

How would the USA feel and react if their fleets were similarly trapped by nature, confined and their access controlled by countries belonging to an opposing organisation?
.

 

[Zlatan]

How would the USA feel and react if their fleets were similarly trapped by nature, confined and their access controlled by countries belonging to an opposing organisation?
.

They would perhaps invade Canada. I doubt it tho.

 

[Danidl]

Agreed until until your last paragraph. Finland has not had to curb any desires to not aggravate Moscow. They never had any past desire to join NATO, always wanting to stay neutral. They also became full EU members in 1995 with no objection or dissent from Russia then or ever since.

Georgia and Ukraine could have had exactly the same peaceful and profitable relationship with Russia that Finland has enjoyed for decades, but both opted to listen to the USA long ago and be tempted by their blandishments. Countries cannot choose their neighbours and being a good neighbour carries certain responsibilities, which both chose to ignore. Hence they suffered the consequences of becoming a potentially threatening neighbour. All optional and entirely unnecessary, had some common sense been applied.
.

My understanding is that that view is not shared by Finland. I had not been referring to NATO membership.

 

[flecc]

My understanding is that that view is not shared by Finland. I had not been referring to NATO membership.

Then I have no idea what you are referring to with either. Clearly the Finns and Russians were very happy with the cross border travel and economic relationship they enjoyed for over two decades until Covid restrictions intervened to close the border.
.

 

[Zlatan]

Then I have no idea what you are referring to with either. Clearly the Finns and Russians were very happy with the cross border travel and economic relationship they enjoyed for over two decades until Covid restrictions intervened to close the border.
.

Finnish President on Russia: How do you react to behaviour from another planet?

Sauli Niinistö spoke at an international summit on Saturday focused on forging a diplomatic way forward on the Ukraine crisis.

yle.fi

Seems Finnish President doesn't agree with you flecc. But you won't read article or believe points made.

 

[Danidl]

Then I have no idea what you are referring to with either. Clearly the Finns and Russians were very happy with the cross border travel and economic relationship they enjoyed for over two decades until Covid restrictions intervened to close the border.
.

There are there is plenty of references on line. Finland engaged in an uneasy subservient relationship with the much larger USSR and later The Russian Federation . They were required to pay reparations after WW2 .. despite the fact that it was they that had been attacked by the USSR. They were never Nazi , but were tarred with the same brush because Russia attacked.and Germany supplied munitions. Some of those reparations were a land grab by the USSR.
There were and are " understandings" that certain politians and political parties would not be given portfolios in Government ,even in colitions, even if their voting strength justified it . Now Finland leaped in and got its EU membership when Russia's eyes were elsewhere. And of course they continued to recognise that NATO would be a step too far.
Perhaps you are not aware of the sensitivities of a small country adjacent to one of the major power blocks and all the compromises, and self censorship which is necessary to keep up the illusion of friendship. Ireland's relationship with the UK is not as fraught , but even so it has its moments . References to "Finlandisaton" , are well documented.
I would not have bothered to respond, except for your insistence that Finland is "happy " with the arrangement. As the song says that which "cannot be cured must be endured".