Eastern Europe is a key space between Germany and Russia.
Stability and prosperity of this space is essential for peace in Europe.
So much gas, oil, traffic, goods, people and services travels from Russia to Germany.
London never wanted a unified, strong and cooperating Europe. The core of their foreign policy for last 2 centuries is in destroying any economical and political alliance between Berlin and Moscow. It is time that this two great powers of Europe, the two greatest European nation-states in the history of our continent, find strength and wisdom for keeping peace, stability and prosperity in the region.
@wittmann:
Thank you for that Marc.
I am surprised Russia only has 2500 tanks. Seems a small number. Suppose I am imagining, counting, the tanks in former republics of the Soviet Union(including the Ukraine).
Am also remembering tank numbers from 44/45.
Tanks are becoming as outdated as battleships.
These days they are only good in enforced no-fly-zones, and against civilians/crowd mobs or militia style infantry.
And even then, the infamous RPG, or sniper rifle looking to pop a commander, is lurking in every urban corner.
Tank Terror is no more.
Yeah, tank is good in some occasions, but his greatest moments are behind him.
Tanks are becoming as outdated as battleships. These days they are only good in enforced no-fly-zones, and against civilians/crowd mobs or militia style infantry. And even then, the infamous RPG, or sniper rifle looking to pop a commander, is lurking in every urban corner. Tank Terror is no more.
Tank effectiveness has always been and remains dependent on environment. They’re at their best in open, flat environments (like deserts) where they can operate like ships at sea; they’re at their worst in congested environments (like cities) where tanks need to operate under close support from nimble infantrymen.
@CWO:
Tank effectiveness has always been and remains dependent on environment. They’re at their best in open, flat environments (like deserts) where they can operate like ships at sea; they’re at their worst in congested environments (like cities) where tanks need to operate under close support from nimble infantrymen.
I would argue against this… and echo what Garg was saying.
Tank effectiveness does remain dependent on environment, but the old effectiveness is different from the new effectiveness. In the days of prop driven aircraft, when weather was a factor and the airplane posed less of a threat, tanks rule the battlefield depending on the day and associated air cover.
Nowadays, any properly equipped plane, helicopter or drone can be a tank-killer (in any weather). Being out in the open on flat terrain is essentially a death sentence for a tank. That is where the tank’s weapons may be most effective, but the tank itself no longer is… partially because enemy tanks will not be out in the open to fight any more.
With the absence of large scale tank battles and much warfare becoming urbanized, the design of the tank will have to adapt to remain a potent threat. Though, that may not even be possible. They are still relatively effective vehicles against civilian crowds and poorly armed militants; now their primary use. When was the last time we saw major tank vs. tank action? The Gulf War? I can’t find exact figures, but I would imagine that aircraft destroyed at least as many, if not more, Iraqi tanks than coalition tanks did.
Besides that, virtually the only modern tanks in the world are developed and deployed by our allies: Germany, Britain, Brazil, France, Israel… Certainly Russia and China would be capable if they put their resources to it.
Eastern Europe is a key space between Germany and Russia.
Stability and prosperity of this space is essential for peace in Europe.
So much gas, oil, traffic, goods, people and services travels from Russia to Germany.
London never wanted a unified, strong and cooperating Europe. The core of their foreign policy for last 2 centuries is in destroying any economical and political alliance between Berlin and Moscow. It is time that this two great powers of Europe, the two greatest European nation-states in the history of our continent, find strength and wisdom for keeping peace, stability and prosperity in the region.
Britain is part of the EU and so is Germany. If it affects Germany it will affect the rest of the EU too. Why should they not be involved. Britain being legitimately concerned is not meddling.
The Americans have about as much business mucking around in Ukraine as the western powers had in the 1850s.�
Well, we have treaty obligations. If Ukraine falls or is allowed to be divided by military action, how long before NATO countries like Poland and Hungary feel Russia breathing down their neck?
Your treaty obligations do not require you to meddle in the internal politics in Ukraine. America should stay out of Russia’s business.
Eastern Europe is a key space between Germany and Russia.
Stability and prosperity of this space is essential for peace in Europe.
So much gas, oil, traffic, goods, people and services travels from Russia to Germany.
London never wanted a unified, strong and cooperating Europe. The core of their foreign policy for last 2 centuries is in destroying any economical and political alliance between Berlin and Moscow. It is time that this two great powers of Europe, the two greatest European nation-states in the history of our continent, find strength and wisdom for keeping peace, stability and prosperity in the region.
Britain is part of the EU and so is Germany. If it affects Germany it will affect the rest of the EU too. Why should they not be involved. Britain being legitimately concerned is not meddling.
We in Europe like to say that Britain is and is not a part of the EU. They are a member state, but often behaving like they are not. They are constantly blocking some further development of the EU project, and they are also thinking to have a referendum about leaving the EU. All tough it is not realistic they will hold, it who knows.
They do not have euro as a currency.
They are not part of the Shengen agreement.
They are constantly for more than a century, blocking any path that leads to a unified and strong Europe. It is their nightmare, since that in that case, they loose their primate. Everything moves east then. They are slowly loosing ground, but still holding.
The Americans have about as much business mucking around in Ukraine as the western powers had in the 1850s.�
Well, we have treaty obligations. If Ukraine falls or is allowed to be divided by military action, how long before NATO countries like Poland and Hungary feel Russia breathing down their neck?
Your treaty obligations do not require you to meddle in the internal politics in Ukraine. America should stay out of Russia’s business.
Shouldn’t it be Russia staying out of Ukraines business? Since when is that “their business?” Does this mean Russia needs to shut the crap up about Syria since that’s clearly “our business?”
@rjpeters70:
So, Ukraine is Russia’s business? What other countries are Russia’s business? Lithuania? Belarus? Kazakhstan? Poland?
You are right, Ukraine is USA’s business … like Scotland is Japanese business, Catalonia is Australian one, and Mexico is Russian.
How do you isolate the largest country on the planet. They can be self-sufficient if they want to.
Sure, they will be self-sufficient to survive. As a part of the global economy Russia and Putin’s regime will face serious problems and Europe as well. Russia is #1 natural gas supplier in Europe, for example.
The deal would be that Ukraine enters EU, but not NATO. If the deal is broken by Ukraine entering NATO, Crimea should have the option to leave Ukraine.
Won’t work. Once you in (NATO), no way away. Also, USA broke the publicly given promise that they stop NATO expansion behind Germany.
I honestly don’t know a solution.
Russia gives ultimatum to Ukrainian forces in Crimea: Clear out within 11 hours or face ‘military storm,’
That is lie coming from the neo-nazi in Kiev. I’m surprised Yahoo kept it the top news for a day.
London never wanted a unified, strong and cooperating Europe. The core of their foreign policy for last 2 centuries is in destroying any economical and political alliance between Berlin and Moscow.
Agree. London is #1 geopolitical opponent for both in Europe for many many years.
“We have no permanent friends. We have no permanent enemies. We just have permanent interests.” Winston Churchill.
Economy drives politicks and vice versa. No interest for London in good business connections between Rus and Ger.
To be honest, Syria isn’t american Business.
Neither is Ukraine.
As for the Russian invasion. Thats a Ukrainian problem.
Here’s the bottom line. Russia wouldn’t be invading if the Ukrainians managed their government responsibly, ethically, and morally.
Instead, for decades, Ukrainian leadership has been busy lining its own pockets, and screwing the little people, who time and time again, elect the same corrupt leadership.
Then instead of helping, the whole world is in the Ukraine looking to get a slice of the action, an ear to the power, and a finger on the strings.
USA, Russia, england, Europe, africa, Asia, it Doesnt matter. Its all bad for Ukraine. The best move is not to play.
To be honest, Syria isn’t american Business.
Neither is Ukraine.
As for the Russian invasion. Thats a Ukrainian problem.
Here’s the bottom line. Russia wouldn’t be invading if the Ukrainians managed their government responsibly, ethically, and morally.
Instead, for decades, Ukrainian leadership has been busy lining its own pockets, and screwing the little people, who time and time again, elect the same corrupt leadership.
Then instead of helping, the whole world is in the Ukraine looking to get a slice of the action, an ear to the power, and a finger on the strings.
USA, Russia, england, Europe, africa, Asia, it Doesnt matter. Its all bad for Ukraine. The best move is not to play.
Normally, I don’t go in for all the dredging up of WWII politics to make a point, but I have to say, you sound like Neville Chamberlain.
I think the question must be asked: If we do nothing now in order to preserve peace, what will we have to do in a few years when Putin thinks he can flex his muscle elsewhere?
That being said, I think people are forgetting that the U.S. and Russia still have thousands of nuclear weapons pointing at each other, even if they are less inclined to use them as they were in the Cold War. I don’t really think military action is the best possible option, but it would be a major geopolitical blunder here to just sit back and let Russia violate another nation’s sovereignty.
I look at this situation like this: the US would do the same as Russia if Cuba was in major chaos and Guantanamo Bay thought to be under threat.
This is a Black Sea and Eastern Europe problem, not a US problem.
@ABWorsham:
I look at this situation like this: the US would do the same as Russia if Cuba was in major chaos and Guantanamo Bay thought to be under threat.
I think that is a decent analogy, though not entirely the same situation. Guantanamo does not have an American civilian population that wants to be part of the country. I think all of Cuba wants us gone.
Let’s look at it this way. US invaded Iraq under false pretense. They never received any sanctions for it what so ever. Now Russia invades Crimea for which they actually have better reasons then the Americans had back then. Does the western civilization really have the right to call for sanctions now? Best solution. Ask the people of each part of Ukraine what they really want. Most likely western Ukraine will want to be part of the EU. The most eastern part will desire stronger ties with Russia and the middle area will be somewhere in between.
@Nozdormu:
Let’s look at it this way. US invaded Iraq under false pretense. They never received any sanctions for it what so ever. Now Russia invades Crimea for which they actually have better reasons then the Americans had back then. Does the western civilization really have the right to call for sanctions now? Best solution. Ask the people of each part of Ukraine what they really want. Most likely western Ukraine will want to be part of the EU. The most eastern part will desire stronger ties with Russia and the middle area will be somewhere in between. Â Â
Well said.
@Nozdormu:
Let’s look at it this way. US invaded Iraq under false pretense. They never received any sanctions for it what so ever. Now Russia invades Crimea for which they actually have better reasons then the Americans had back then. Does the western civilization really have the right to call for sanctions now? Best solution. Ask the people of each part of Ukraine what they really want. Most likely western Ukraine will want to be part of the EU. The most eastern part will desire stronger ties with Russia and the middle area will be somewhere in between. � �
I agree, somewhat. The most peaceable (not to mention cheapest) solution would be to find out what the people of Ukraine want. If the Crimea wants to secede and join Russia, that is their deal. Russia “invading” and occupying Ukrainian territory leaves a sour (very 1938 Germany-Sudetenland) taste in the mouth. And while I early on thought of this as being the Chamberlain moment, I am not sure there is enough aggression to justify any outside action yet. I don’t know if that is appeasement or just international prudence.
The most peaceable (not to mention cheapest) solution would be to find out what the people of Ukraine want.
Sounds reasonable enough in theory, but the problem is that “the people of Ukraine” is a tricky concept. The west, north and centre of the country are primarily ethnic Ukrainian in population, but the further east and south you go the more the proportion of ethnic Russians rises. In the Crimea, the focal point of the dispute, ethnic Ukrainians make up only about 10% of the population. Countries with marked ethnic / religious / linguistic fracture lines within their borders have a long historical track record of instability, ranging in intensity from chronic (albeit peaceful) social tensions at the low end of the scale to vicious civil wars at the high end of the scale. Belgium would be an example of the first type of situation; Rwanda and the Sudan would be examples of the the second type of situation. These conflicts are bad enough when they’re purely internal, but they become more dangerous when a major outside power has interests in the region, and still more dangerous when two or more opposing major powers have such interests.
@CWO:
The most peaceable (not to mention cheapest) solution would be to find out what the people of Ukraine want.
Sounds reasonable enough in theory, but the problem is that “the people of Ukraine” is a tricky concept.� The west, north and centre of the country are primarily ethnic Ukrainian in population, but the further east and south you go the more the proportion of ethnic Russians rises.� In the Crimea, the focal point of the dispute, ethnic Ukrainians make up only about 10% of the population.� Countries with marked ethnic / religious / linguistic fracture lines within their borders have a long historical track record of instability, ranging in intensity from chronic (albeit peaceful) social tensions at the low end of the scale to vicious civil wars at the high end of the scale.� Belgium would be an example of the first type of situation; Rwanda and the Sudan would be examples of the the second type of situation.� These conflicts are bad enough when they’re purely internal, but they become more dangerous when a major outside power has interests in the region, and still more dangerous when two or more opposing major powers have such interests.�
Yes, I certainly understand. I knew it was not quite that simple, but what I meant was that if it can be kept a primarily Ukrainian affair (choose their own destiny), all the better. With the Russians being as disposed as they are and as large as they are, it is inevitable that they will influence the process. To some degree they should if the Crimea is to be absorbed, but again, it smacks of 1938.
