UKC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26710855

Well, I'm not sure how much time I have for Dannatt, but you have to wonder at whether "we" (the UK) are making a huge mistake by cutting the numbers of our armed forces at a time when Russia is making expansionist sounds and other countries in the region are unstable. Are we now so sure there won't be another general war across a continent, or wider?

Is it the problem of other EU countries eg, Germany, to bolster their armies/defences, or do we look back at history and acknowledge that won't be enough and we also need to be prepared? A continent wide war is unlikely to be the slow moving affair of the early part of the 20th century and we won't have time to mobilise and re-arm (as we did before) if the worst happens. Or should we be prepared to simply sit on the side-lines, and at what risk?

Looking at how pathetic the EU response has been to this crisis, Russia has (whether deliberately or not) already found the EU (and to an extent the US) to be weak and may be tempted to roll the dice. Of course, if that happens now, there's no time to reverse the cuts, but that isn't a good reason not to sit up and do something now in advance of the next crisis to come along.

I'm a big believer in learning lessons from history but we seem to be happy to make the same old mistakes. Maybe there's even a generational thing going on at the moment; with younger heads being buried in the sand for various reasons.

I'm sure many will disagree and I'm interested how attitudes may, or may not, be changing.

In reply to Skyfall:
Russia has no plans for a war with anyone. It knew it could take Crimea and its new nobody would/could do anything about it. Think about it, they have taken over a region about the size of Wales 'defeated' a revival army and now established stable control. Total death toll, I think 2, one on either side. (far less than when the protesters over ran the government forces and took over Ukraine)


They are not dumb, they saw an opportunity to quickly and easily take back a good chunk of land and so they did. There is light years of difference between that and opening up a full scale armed invasion against a country with an army ready to defined it's self.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

You know that for a certainty?

I agree in one sense as that's more or less how I read the Russian position. However, are you that sure you are willing to take such a big gamble? And what if something flares up and/or Russia sees a weakness and decides to take an "opportunity" which goes badly wrong? How do you think WW1 (in particular) and 2 started?

What worries me is that everyone just assumes this is actually all Russia wants now, and continues to want, and assumes nothing will go wrong. I'd have said such a simplistic view as you seem to be taking could lead to a bad miscalculation.

The UK and many other countries are gambling all future wars are "small" and we can effectively choose whether to participate or stand on the sidelines. I would hope the Ukraine incident (if that's all it is) might cause a re-think.

In reply to Skyfall:

NATO figures show that total NATO defence spending in 2013 was just over a trillion US dollars, Russia spent about 90 billion.

Who do you think would win?

In reply to geordiepie:

I don't think you can "win" such a war.

In reply to the OP, I have some sympathy with not cutting UK forces further but the idea that 3000 extra troops will make any difference seems unlikely. I would have thought the lesson to draw is more about the benefits of the NATO and EU cooperation, to ensure a united front and to avoid divide and rule type tactics from Russia.

In reply to geordiepie:

The cockroaches. Everyone bigger than a few inches and living above ground will be a loser.

In reply to geordiepie:

neither side

i think that's the point being missed... if the UK thought it was about to be over-run don't you think those funny subs in faslane would get used?

otherwise what's the point of them?

And despite what some people seem to want us to believe, the Russians aren't stupid.

In reply to Skyfall:

My head tells me that Putin would not risk an invasion of "mainland" Ukraine, but there are worrying signs. People in Russia seem to be becoming more and more nationalistic (judging by my VK (Russian FB) page), Putin's stock seems to be high with ordinary Russians and friends in Donetsk tell me that the pro-Russia demonstrators there are bussed-in from Russia, so I do worry that they are being sent to provoke, with any response giving Putin the excuse he needs to invade to "protect" ethic Russians (whatever that exactly means).

So in answer to your question, the world looks a lot less safe of a place than it did a couple of months ago, and while you don't need to wave or use your big stick, it's rather nice to have it.

I'm certainly glad that we have a nuclear deterrent.

In reply to rallymania:

>if the UK thought it was about to be over-run don't you think those funny subs in faslane would get used?

The UK or any of the major EU countries would not be in danger of getting overrun. It's not the 1980's....Russia does not have the capability to overrun Europe.


Indeed not. We'll probably see a few more opportunistic land grabs from them over the next few years but that's a long way from the all out war the OP hypothesized.

In reply to geordiepie:


I guess 80-90% of the NATO figure is US spending though? NATO member spending is always controversial because countries like Italy spend about the same as the UK on "defence spending" but actually the majority of that goes on paying pensions. UK/US always moaning that other partners don't spend what they promised with membership.

In reply to TobyA:

Certainly the bulk is the US but even taking that into account plus the point about what actually counts as defence spending, there is still a huge gulf. It's only in the last few years Russia overtook the UK in the military spending stakes.

I do think there's this notion that Russia is still a huge military power but this just isn't the case any more.

In reply to Skyfall:

Slightly off subject but I can't help smiling each time I see people referring to "defence" spending... as far as NATO has been concerned of late it should be called "offence" spending IMO. If we really stick to defence I think the British army is already quite big enough.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I liked it best when it was called the War Department - spinning the message - I dont think so.

In reply to geordiepie:



No one.

In reply to MG:

I agree that an extra 3000 soldiers stationed in Germany is probably immaterial. I think the point is what do we actually have at our disposal. Cutting it to a purely defence force (as per Bruce) would make it nigh on impossible to 'assist' in a wider European conflict in a meaningful way at short notice. I think history tells us that is very dangerous.

I'm intrigued that just about everyone on this thread is focussing on Russia's perceived current intentions, which is I think beside the point. The point is history tells us the unexpected happens and we have an unstable position right now. If something big kicked off now, you'd look back with hindsight (maybe/hopefully) and, as with ww1, it might be obvious the signs were there. Right now, I think we're ignoring that v real possibility.

In reply to geordiepie:


That's a little over 10 times as much, and I suspect you can buy more than 10 BMPs/BTRs for the price of a Warrior or Bradley, so it may not be such a disparity.


Nobody, but it would be very bloody, even without going nuclear/chemical. Russia isn't the Warsaw Pact 30 years ago, but what will it be like 30 years hence? The problem is we always gear up for the last war. Not long ago it was trained for Europe, equipped for the jungle and fighting in the desert. Now we're all geared up to fight Terry Taliban as the 3rd Shock Army Mk 2 arrives on the scene. There will be a lot of threats, old and new, hoving into view in the future, so we do need to retain a defence capability, even if we don't think we need it today.

In reply to Skyfall:


I'm with you.

Just what are NATOs current intentions? Are they on the table? Why are we seeking to build up forces on the Eastern border? What is our agenda? Why do we maintain a standing NATO army that could pulverise the Russian forces if we have no evil intent?

Questions; questions.

But maybe we should go back to basics. Since WW2 who has A; invaded most other sovereign countries. B; Killed the most people in other countries through that invasion and C; Established regimes in other countries that have subsequently failed?

Is it Russia?

Answers probably won't fit in to a post card.

In reply to andyathome:


What exactly is that?


Indeed.



I think they are in with a fair chance of getting the medal for "C" at least.

In reply to TobyA:

1. That will be the number of troops in standing armies that are under the command of NATO. Preparation for war.
2. You neglect A, B and maybe have it wrong about C.

Cheers.

In reply to Skyfall:

Your're assuming that a)war is not a continual and evolving process - a function of all human activity b) we are still living in an age when filling the eastern border of europe with large number of troops will stop Ivan rolling over the plains. c) if b) then how are Dannatt's 3000 going to make any difference? d) Russia's annexation of the Crimea wasn't part of NATO strategy.

D

In reply to andyathome:


I don't know if you have spoken to soldiers who were in NATO joint ops in Kosovo or Afghanistan, because the idea of 'NATO command' even in those sort of limited operations is something of a nice idea rather than a reality, with direct orders from theatre command being questioned and those in the field calling back to Ottawa/Copenhagen/Berlin/etc. to 'check' the order. Perhaps in 60s and 70s a NATO division seriously was a division, but there is little evidence that any sort of unified response would happen now even in an Article V situation. And it's well worth reading Article V itself - "such action as it deems necessary", means that no member state is committed to taking military action under art. V.

I'm sure people of the Baltic states would really like the idea that there are "standing armies that are under NATO command" waiting to roll across Germany and Poland should pressure start to build on them and their Russian speaking regions, but it's far from current reality.

In reply to TobyA:

James Blunt stopped WW3 when he ignored an order from NATO command

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I saw that Top Gear too! In fact in security studies circles it was always Mike Jackson who was given that role, with his "I'm not starting f***ing world war III for you" comment to Wes Clark. How this devolved down to Captain Blunt I'm not sure.

In reply to Skyfall:

Dannat has a point.

'Speak softly and carry a big stick.'

It was never communism that was the problem. It was always the Russians. Look at the start of WW1, look at the treatment of Finland, look at the Middle Eastern ambitions that led to the Crimean War and compare that with recent decades in the same region. And that's in addition to casting a dark shadow over European liberty and prosperity for over four decades. More chips on each shoulder than the proverbial well-balanced Australian but not as friendly.

The purse is empty. The bl00dy Yanks, who are almost as bad, have led us a merry dance round the Middle East for two decades and cost us a fortune, and for what. There is a good chance that ten years from now we will see no discernible effect.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


With the current cuts the entire British Army will be able to fit easily into the 90000 seater Wembley Stadium.
Not even sure if they'd be able to defend against Chelsea away.

In reply to Jim Fraser:
The Russians, the Chinese, the US to be fair. They have all had their moments.

For me, however, the Ukraine incident is proof that Russia cannot be relied upon to play along with rational Western style politics and will act in the style it wants. In essence, we've assumed that capitalism won the day and that Russia's behaviour would slowly align with Western countries. I think we can see now that isn't the case and that Russia is still an exponent of hard power. In fact, there have been growing signs of a resurgent Russian military in recent years (eg. increased war games on the borders of various countries, not just Ukraine, and deliberate military air intrusions into UK and other airspace).

Only months ago, there was a lot being said about there being no realistic chance of another continent wide or world war. In the face of recent events, I think it would be a brave man who would say that now. It wouldn't take much of miscalculation from one side or the other for the Ukraine to erupt into something a lot bigger. There is absolutely nothing, in practical terms, to stop Russia invading the Ukraine (eg. where is the Nato no-fly zone over the Ukraine?) and, from there, it wouldn't take a lot for it to spill over into other territories eg. Moldova. Of course, even if that doesn't happen (which it "probably" won't), we can't assume that the Ukraine will be the only incident of this nature in coming decades.

China is another thing entirely, although something in which the UK probably has little part to play. However, Russia and the Eastern European states are on our doorstep and are something we should take seriously.

Arguably, Europe is a more dangerous place now than during the Cold War with MAD. I suspect that the prospect of a conventional war isn't so frightening and a newly expansionist Russia might look at a weak EU (with little US backing nowadays) and feel emboldened enough to want to at least take back parts of Eastern Europe which it effectively lost with the end of the Cold War and the demise of the USSR in 1991. Now Russia have been kicked out of the G8 (back to the G7) and Cold War 2 is being mentioned. Five or ten years ago, I doubt I would have said such a thing but it does worry me now.

In reply to Skyfall:


Exactly.





The Poles are not going back. the Slovaks are not going back. ...

Slav solidarity has a few traditional cracks in it which NATO helps paper over.

In Hungary, and other corners of Central and Eastern Europe, the Right is dangerous troublesome in that the Russians love nothing better than invoking the Soviet-Fascist struggle of WW2.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Errr, is that why Jobbik MPs have been going to Moscow to meet with Alexandr Dugin and turning their backs on their far right colleagues in Urkraine?

In reply to Skyfall:


So you think that Russia has been totally unreasonable and had no justification in feeling worried as NATO pushed it's frontiers nearer and nearer to Russia, even as far as destabilising the country which housed their principal warm water naval base? That they should forget that they were invaded three times in the last century by more or less that same countries which form NATO today and who are simultaneously taking out any allies they might have had any kind of support from... pushing towards Syria and Iran, intervening in Iraq.

Even after looking at these movements on a world map you think they are totally wrong to see any kind of directional moves in all this? Pure coincidence that all the moves go towards Russia?

Once again, it's all very well saying ill of others but can you really not even momentarily try to see things from the point of view of the other?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Try telling that to those in Estonia,Latvia etc. They all appear nervous over Russia.Hardly surprising given recent post WWII history.

In reply to geordiepie:


Nobody.
jk

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Ok Bruce, to "some" extent I agree with you. Viewed from the Russian perspective, this will no doubt all look rather different (even if no one has invaded a part of Russia and in fact it is the other way around). I have looked at it from that perspective, and more than momentarily as you put it. Fine.

However, how about answering the main question. Given Russia clearly is taking action or, in your mind, reacting to something.... Wouldn't you say that the position in Eastern Europe is in a pretty uncertain state right now and the best way to avoid that would be for both sides to start treating the situation seriously? From the EU perspective, that has to mean having a co-ordinated and credible defence, which it barely has right now.

Letting these things just "happen" is how wars start. No one is advocating a war with Russia, but letting Russia think it can invade a country on the edge of the EU without repercussion is very dangerous. As you well know, if the Ukraine military had decided to stand their ground and fight in Crimea, we would already be looking at a proper shooting war. Who knows where that would end. It might still go that way if Russia decides to enter Eastern Ukraine, Moldova or one of the other ex USSR states.

Or we could all sit on our hands and let Russia do exactly what it wants whenever it wants to grab some more territory for whatever purpose (naval ports, resources, whatever).

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Russia has always had a border with NATO, since its founding. Indeed when it was the Soviet Union it had two borders with NATO. The idea that it is having to deal with NATO 'getting closer' is silly, we've always been neighbours.

And Russia's client states through the Cold War (which, of course, at various times it invaded to make sure they didn't get any ideas of their own) were also it's buffer in central Europe between it and NATO. You can sort of see (well, you probably won't) why Poland, Eastern Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia etc. etc. might want to be part of an alliance that they hope guarantees they won't be subject to Russian imperialist hegemony once again. But like "Stop the War" http://stopwar.org.uk/news/if-we-have-to-pick-a-side-over-crimea-let-it-be-... we know you're only interested in imperialism done by the west.

In reply to neilh:


The way ethnic Russians are mistreated there you mean? I'm not sure they need to worry but for many of them WW2 would be best forgotten, some of the worst ant-semitic atrocities were carried out in the Baltic states by Nazi collaborators while they were under German occupation. I can't remember which one it was who had the infamous butcher (literally that was his job) who slew a large number of Jews on the town square with his meat cleaver without his fellow countrymen doing anything to stop him. The Soviet army stopped him though.

In reply to Skyfall:


I don't think that accurately describes what happened there, either in Ukraine or Crimea. Just because our press keeps talking of Russia "annexing" Crimea that we should be mug enough to believe them. A trap was set but they avoided walking into it, reacting just enough and swiftly enough to prevent bloodshed. I think they will continue on this line.


As we have been doing over the last few decades? Again I think that any objective study of history over the last couple of decades can only lead to the conclusion that the aggressor has mostly been from the West, that NATO having nothing left to do officially with the fall of the Soviet Union and to all extents and purposes communism too has recycled itself into a spearhead for Western interests, a way of staying in a job I suppose. Organisations have a way of doing that, they create their own dynamic, their reason to exist.

In reply to TobyA:


So you discern another imperialism active in the world today, do you? Please remind me how many Russian military bases are there throughout the world outside their borders and how many Western ones? You could also add Chinese bases to the list while you're about it, it won't require much work!

None so blind etc.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


And Stalin had killed half a million people in his great purge, many of them Jews.

Don't make out Russia to be an innocent party Bruce. Russia entered WW2 on the side of Germany and with the aim of taking as much land itself as possible and, whilst expecting to have to fight Germany eventually, was caught out by the speed by which Germany turned against it. Russia was playing expansionist games as much as anyone but was unprepared for what followed. Russia merrily expanded into Eastern Europe post WW2. Understandable buffer zone or not, that's what happened.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


So how would you describe what happened? "Annexing" is quite mild really. As I say, lucky it hasn't turn into a real shooting war (yet).


Er, a trap set for Russia? Please do explain.... (I'm sure you can and I'm intrigued).


In what way has NATO been aggressive towards Russia? Please do answer this one.

In reply to Skyfall:


You could say that the Ukrainian government was overthrown and a semi-autonomous part of Ukraine chose to join Russia rather than be governed by those who overthrew the democratically elected government.

It's interesting (to me, anyway) that our press seems to ignore what happened before Russia got involved.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well who just invaded and annexed a region of neighbouring sovereign state?

But of course you again want to start a fight to avoid admitting your factual errors - that Russia has always had a border with NATO.

In reply to Skyfall:




Surely not.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Next you will be trying to say the Russians should be allowed to annex japan because of the atrocities the Japanese committed 60 plus years ago.

In reply to Skyfall:


I don't think luck has much to do with it.

The trap? Much the same one as in Afghanistan, but once burnt twice shy. The equilibrium that had been reached in Ukraine, quite a vital bit of land for Russia and one which contained their main naval base since 1954 when it was transferred from Russia proper to Ukraine but all within the same state, the USSR, had been maintained throughout the "Orange revolution" and the regimes that followed but the violent overthrow of the last one and the circumstances, the extreme nationalist components (did you know that some of them, the one who was just killed for example, actually fought the Russian Army in Chechnya?) threatened this equilibrium. It was only based on a lease and the good will of whoever was in power in Ukraine so the Russian military must have been a bit rattled and could well have been tempted to intervene in support of the ousted, but legally and fairly elected, President. That was the trap.

But they saw it coming and moved before the Kiev thugs (I mean the ones we all saw on the telly) could move to Crimea. A bloodless coup was carried out by locals with efficient but discreet help from the Russian troops quite likely. This was legalised by a referendum that the observers present said was fair (the official EU observers refused to participate on a pretext which allows those who want to to refute the validity of the referendum but I don't think anyone denies what the majority of Crimeans wanted).


You are joking, right? That's what it was set up for, have you never heard of the Cold War?

In reply to TobyA:


Of course it has, I've been saying that it is continually pushing it further for years. Are you another one who is unaware what NATO was set up for?

In reply to neilh:


Sorry, I can't see that anything I've said suggests this. All that has happened at present is a part of Ukraine, historically Russian, has decided to use it's right of self determination (as recognised by the United Nations) to leave a country that has been in a state of anarchy for months and has recently driven out the democratically elected President and return to the one they always felt more part of. How does this relate to your sentence?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Tell that to the Biafrans or indeed the Chechens. But the Crimean Tatars will be glad to hear that you and the UN will support their succession from Russia in the coming months.

In reply to TobyA:
youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE&

Somehow this hasn't really dated much.

In reply to TobyA:

If the "Crimean Tatars" did try to organise a referendum you'd be first in line crowing about it. By the way, you haven't reacted to the video of
extreme right MPs roughing up the TV boss and forcing him to resign yet, must have slipped your mind. How could they have done this if they don't exist as you have been telling us for days?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Don't lie Bruce. What I've always said is that what happened in Ukraine was not, as -oddly- both the Kremlin and you describe it, a neo-nazi coup. The Crimean Tatars have no more right to secede with out negotiation and the agreement of the democratically elected government of Ukraine than the ethnic Russians of Crimea do.

Your hypocrisy is as ever amusing. You've typed probably thousands of words over the years bemoaning Scottish nationalism; denying the modern, social democratic, pro-European nature of much of the Scottish nationalist movement because according to you "nationalists" are all right wing thugs. You can't accept there is a huge diversity of nationalist forces in Ukraine from far right to far left, instead just calling them all fascists. But then you swoon all over Putin, an autocratic strongman who does little beyond stir up a combative, generally xenophobic and often rather anti-semitic nationalism in Russia and close your eyes to the ugly side of Russian nationalism. And he's not anywhere close to being a communist - rather the opposite as he rules over a rapaciously capitalist and often exploitative system, so why do you admire his system so much? There's no politics there surely? Just because he hates the West? Or is it just the strong man with the shirt off thing works for you?

In reply to Thread:

"Air France says a plane carrying 495 passengers and 22 crew was diverted on its way from Shanghai to Paris after Russia announced at short notice that part of its airspace was closed for a military exercise.

The company said flight AF111 was forced to land in Hamburg, Germany, early Wednesday to refuel because the plane had too little fuel on board to complete the flight following its detour.

Hamburg Airport confirmed that the plane landed shortly after 6 a.m. (0500 GMT) and was able to take off for Paris again after an hour and a half.

It wasn't immediately clear if Russia's military exercise was linked to the increased troop activity on its western border with Ukraine."


I would rather be diverted to Hamburg than the South Indian Ocean...but more seriously...is this type of activity more common than we would normally know about, but because of the tensions this makes the news?

In reply to TobyA:

Nice one Toby.

In reply to TobyA:


Just take this one line from your post, as it is typical of your attitude. Where have I said I admired Putin? Where have I said I admired his regime? Of course it is no longer a communist regime, that's what happened when the Soviet Union, itself a rather distorted and unattractive sort of communism - many say it wasn't communist at all - became a capitalist democracy and everyone cheered, you included. So if I was a communist, again you seem convinced of this, which I have said many times I'm not anymore, I am not a member of any political party, I would not admire the present regime in Russia, which isn't communist. On practically all this you either pretend, or do have such a simplistic view of things that it beggars belief.

This is true for more or less all of your post - I "swoon all over Putin" do I? That's news to me. The problem is that for you, and most of your kind, there is no room at all for a balanced position, it's "my hemisphere, right or wrong". Because I believe that Russia, China, Palestine, Syria and so one have the right to be listened too, understood and sometimes given a bit of consideration this is so out of the world for you that you feel the need to type paragraphs of tripe about my adoration of men with their shirts off.... What I don't get is your motivations, what do you hope to get out of this? It can't be that you really are rather dumb, surely? So tell us, what's in it for you?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Falls off chair laughing……….

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



Well I was flying in to Zaragoza a few years back on Ryanair when we got into a pretty steep climb and bank. The pilot apologised and explained that the Spanish air force (who shared the airport) were conducting an exercise locally that no-one knew about and suggested that the phone lines would be going blue between O'Leary and the Spanish.

In reply to Postmanpat:

My irony meter has just exploded as well.

In reply to Skyfall:

There really is a lot of pretty crap interpersonal point scoring going on here isn't there? That maybe doesn't advance the basic question of the OP?
But at the risk of laying myself open to more interpersonal point scoring I would again invite answers to the questions I asked earlier.

'Since WW2 who has A; invaded most other sovereign countries. B; Killed the most people in other countries through that invasion and C; Established regimes in other countries that have subsequently failed?'

TobyA at least engaged with them by suggesting that 'Russia' was the answer to 'C'.

But where is the real threat to world peace? Can we identify the real 'wolves' of the global political arena? From my perspective what is happening currently in Crimea/Ukraine is pretty small beer compared to the
death count in many other countries over the last few years. 'Shock and awe'? This seems pretty peaceable to me.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Of course they do, but I wouldn't extend that "consideration" to using your military to take over and annex parts of neighbouring countries, as you do.

And is intimidating your neighbours with continual reminders of your military power showing consideration? Should Russia not give its neighbours some consideration by not, for example, on a regular basis sending its military planes into the airspace of those neighbours?

The thing is you seem to "understand" and give "consideration" to the leaders of Russia, Syria and China - never the people they rule over often with minimal consent.

I'm quite aware you're not a communist, or it would seem a socialist or a social-democrat really either. That's why I find your politics to hard to fathom, you don't really seem to believe in much beyond that those who stand against the US are probably in the right.

And Brucey, my old mucker, I didn't say it was men with their shirts off in general, just strongmen with their shirts off. Come on... http://www.awsm.com/img/2010/vladimir-putin-riding-bear.jpg just makes you wanna go grrrrrrr.... doesn't it?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Of course it has because it hasn't been calibrated since the sun set on the British Empire. You'd probably be better off buying a new one as yours must run on 110 volts.

In reply to andyathome:


Do you really want answers to these questions or do you just think people will presume "the US" is the answer and move on?

If you really want answers I'm sure it will soon get horribly complicated. For instance, the Congolese civil war is generally considered to have caused the most deaths in the modern era but most of those are indirect. Hence Rwanda is one of the most active external powers in that conflict, but how do you divide up the deaths in Congo and apportion the blame to countries that had troops fighting inside? Do you say Pakistan "invaded" Bangladesh when the Pak army took control after the 71 elections? Are they responsible for hundreds of thousands - some say millions - who died as a result? Anyway, Uppsala University keeps what I think is considered the best records trying to quantify the size of conflicts around the world http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/UCDP/

In reply to TobyA:


What was one of the first things NATO did to "reassure" it's fans? Send an AWAKS to fly around tracking anything that moved. You've chosen a poor example here.

But seriously, why do you do it, why do you support the bastards?

In reply to TobyA:

Toby,

No presumptions, pal. Is your answer to all three of my questions actually 'the US'? Or do you have alternative answers?

I accept that the conflicts in Rwanda and Congo and Bangladesh are devastating in terms of deaths (as is the rising death count in Iraq and Afghanistan) but that isn't really what we are talking about here, is it?

See the terms of my questions. We are talking about the risk of invasion by one country of another - and the possibility of global (read European - as that's all we are really interested in isn't it?)war.

If you are going to conduct any sort of risk assessment you look at the visible hazards and you look at the reported incidents and the 'near misses'. I look at the invasions and the incursions that are reported and draw up my own risk assessment.

So my basic position is that I don't see this situation in Crimea/Ukraine as major threat to my safety. End of.

And I'm uncomfortable that the Russians are being painted in such black colours when 'we' are guilty of far worse incursions and crimes over the last twenty years.

Andy

In reply to TobyA:

P.S. You and Bruce have WAY too much time on your hands. Can't you get out and do something productive instead of spending all your time having a bitch fight on here?

In reply to andyathome:

I'm retired and between bursts of physical work I turn my computer on. I don't know what Toby's excuse is. Toby is symbolic for me, he summarises a whole load of people who, for reasons I only half understand, defend the status quo of power and wealth while himself not benefiting directly from this, as far as I can gather, so I really do wonder why he supports the bastards. He could do some good in the world and yet he defends those who bomb, kill and generally do bad... he must have a reason but I can't see what it is.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


It's AWACS because it is an acronym Bruce. If you read up on what AWACS systems do, you'd see that they fly high enough to be able to look over the horizon - i.e. they don't need to contravene other countries airspace to see into it. You obviously don't know anything of the continual Russian probing of it's neighbours air defence systems with airspace violation, but I know you're not really interested in the experience of small countries bordering Russia.

In reply to andyathome:

Andy, European security was a central part of my PhD work and then job for over ten years so I have a long interest in it and have researched, read, and thought a lot about these issues. I agree with you that the Crimean annexation is of no threat to you or me directly, but the Russian government is actively destabilizing the security architecture that has meant over the last 25 years that most of us in Europe live safe and increasingly prosperous lives. And they're not doing much for the people of Russia either.

There's also a roadsign to St. Petersburg as I pull onto the ring road when I'm taking my kids to school (it's only a couple of hours to the border from here), so Russia's policy feel quite 'close'. My kids will also be conscripted when they finish school too (unless we move to the UK). Conscription definitely makes people feel a bit more connected to what the neighbour is doing.

In reply to TobyA:


Whether they cross the borders doesn't really matter, the fact is, as you admit yourself, they are spying across borders, which is the point. To criticize others for doing what you do has a name, it's called "hypocrisy".

Anyway, you seem to be forgetting the drones that are buzzing about all over the world, are they Russian too? and what really matters the satellite systems, the ones that are looking for wreckage in the S Indian Ocean are also keeping a much more vigilant eye over other places... When your Israeli chums blow up a bit of a Palestinian street and all those in it in their "fight against terrorism" - they did it again a few days ago to the bored inattention of all (except the Palestinians) - which satellite network gave them the information?

It's absolutely amazing that you could be as bold as brass in pretending that it's the Russians who are spying on the world more than the Yanks!

While on the subject of hypocrisy, there's one who beats even you hands down:

"Once again, he said, Europe was confronted by those who believe that bigger nations can bully smaller ones, that might is right.

.../...

... With time, he said, Russia would realise that "brute force" cannot win."

And all present applauded him!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26762055

In reply to Skyfall:

I don't suppose Putin is the slightest bit bothered whether the UK has an army of 1 million men, or 100,000 men.

On the other hand he is probably a little concerned that we have the nuclear capability of re-arranging the topography of Moscow and St Petersberg.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Of course it does. You don't seem to be able to get this, but air space violations aren't spying (they do that the same way everyone else does, hence the leaked phone calls of Ashton and the Estonian FM for instance), they're are trying to intimidate and to probe air defence systems of neighbours just like holding military maneuvers close to the border.

In reply to TobyA:


And NATO hasn't?

Get real Toby, you say above you've been studying this for many years but if you really believe what you type you must have spent them asleep next to the radiator at the back... mind you it's cold in Finland, I suppose.


PS. To appraise the real danger from Russia, in WW3 terms as some seem to fear on ukc just look at these figures I noticed when looking at who was in the G8:

Population (2012), Million, %, GDP(2012) Billion USD, %

World, 6612, 100.0, 72690, 100.0

G8, 868, 12.65, 36523, 50.2

United States, 302, 4.51, 16245, 22.3
Russia, 142, 2.02, 2030, 2.8
Japan, 128, 1.81, 5960, 8.2
Germany, 82, 1.13, 3425, 4.7
France, 64, 0.93, 2611, 3.6
UK, 63, 0.90, 2418, 3.3
Italy, 61, 0.86, 2013, 2.8
Canada, 33, 0.49, 1821, 2.5

So a country with 2% of the population and 3% of the GDP can really pose a military threat for even the G7 countries with 10.63 % of population and 47% GDP? Not counting nuclear weapons, which they would never use as this would be suicidal and ignoring the technical superiority of US military technology. There's absolutely no way Russia would take on the West, and I find it hard to believe that you would think it would (if your really do, that is).

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but your analysis doesn't figure in the willingness of the respective governments to sacrifice their people, the political will to fight or the receptiveness of the general public to war. Or indeed the government's ability to manipulate their citizens into believing war to be necessary or desirable.

I would suggest that these factors would skew things more in the Russian's favour.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Violate Russian airspace? I've not heard of it happening - I think it would be considered quite dangerous. I googled "violations of Russian airspace" but ironically the first page at least is news stories of Russian military planes violating Finnish, Norwegian, British, Japanese, Ukranian and even Columbian (!?) airspace. No stories of Russia having its airspace violated though. Maybe the those terrible "Yanks" learnt a lesson after Garry Powers eh?


What does "take on the West" mean? Russia has been taking on bits of the west quite successfully for a decade. Georgia, Kosovo, Syria, Ukraine, Snowden etc. etc.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Is that it? You think that nations continue to exist by totting up the resources they have and once they have accumulated enough canon fodder and GDP, kapow, they take out any countries smaller than themselves?

Even Ghengis Khan didn't think like that.

In reply to TobyA:

They invaded North Wales? Surely Pete's Eats repelled them. That and the cold...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Things have changed since Ghengis Khan! Russia is not the Soviet Union it is only big geographically and I don't see many allies that would help it. Anyone who thinks a country with such a small economy - less than Germany, Britain, France - would actually take any steps that would lead to war with NATO must think that Russians are all lunatics. I don't think they are, which may be where we differ.

All it is doing is defending what it can of the ruins of the USSR, Crimea was a defensive move, face to the risk that the Ukraine would totally leave it's sphere of influence and the fear that it's main warm water naval base could fall into the hands of NATO. There's no way they could accept that without reacting.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Ironically I think that it was probably inevitable - and even 'right' - that the Crimea reverted to Russia, if that's what the majority wanted - IIRC it was ceded to the Ukraine as a bit of a political sop when such gestures didn't mean very much.

More irony still: I don't suppose anyone in the West feels very much different. It was the manner that it was done was destabilising.

And do you know what? In the 21st C we accommodate stuff like this: ' fear that it's main warm water naval base could fall into the hands of NATO'. Er, what on earth does that mean. Even if the majority of the Crimea wanted to be part of the Ukraine - which patently they don't, though sorry about that you minorities who were forced there under gunpoint by Stalin - then there would be ways of accommodating a requirement to access a warm water port. Geopolitics is full of negotiated examples, just look at a map of Croatia/Slovenia.

In reply to TobyA:

So the U2 scandal was a one off affair, maybe you're too young to remember it? - never repeated? Now it's mostly done by satellites, more efficient and too high to be banned apparently.


Referring more to the military manoeuvers, but the stationing of missiles and listening stations can hardly be seen as a friendly gesture either. You still haven't answered about military bases throughout the world, having trouble adding them all up? You could also tote up military interventions... a book called "Rogue State" would help you out.

How an intelligent person can not notice the way Western forces, notably US ones, totally surround Russia and China, is beyond me... especially if you have studied the subject for years as you mentioned just now. Since the fall of the Soviet Union can you point out what efforts Russia has made to surround the USA or any other NATO country, just to get an idea of whether this is all balanced, tit for tat, as you appear to be saying?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


That's not what Obama just said, I gave a BBC link above, and no EU governments appear to be saying it either Hollande and Cameron appear to be trying to outdo each other in bellicose utterings. Maybe you should tip them off too, I doubt the read UKC.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Huh? I mentioned Gary Powers in my last post. Do you actually read before typing out your next post of whataboutery?

Russia "surrounds" plenty of NATO countries just because it is neighbours with them. But often at times of tension elsewhere it brings forces up close to the borders of those neighbours. This happened yesterday on Finland's eastern border for instance: http://bit.ly/QkhhDQ and similar has been happening close to the Baltic states.

In reply to Skyfall:

There are rumours in Ukraine that Russia will invade at the weekend.

I really hope not.

In reply to TobyA:
Yes, I noticed Gary Powers but I didn't remember the name of the pilot - I remember when the story came out but that was over 50 years ago, were you even born? I don't always look things up before posting. So now we have established you now admit that the USA have organised spy missions over the USSR, and looking it up I easily found that other cross border missions continued from Iran until the Shah was kicked out... scratching around a bit there have doubtless been other incidents although satellites and drones have now taken over... In what way is this different in principle?


That's a weird sentence, it "surrounds" them because it is "neighbours with them"... in other words in your parallel reality France "surrounds" Belgium because it is their neighbour? What nonsense! Look at NATO and it's members, from Finland to Turkey, an unbroken wall of countries all pledged to common military activities, all holding regular "exercises", and attacking countries as and when they receive the orders. The encircling is continued across the Middle East by military bases and Arab allies, weakened by Iran, but they are working on that, and also by China, even if the did have listening posts in E China for a while and they are working on Tibet, but soon taken up again by S Korea, Taiwan and Japan, then Alaska, Canada and then back to Europe. That's surrounding, having a common border isn't.

Regular common "exercises" with S Korea just to keep the world on its toes, and the constant pressure, Eastwards in Europe, Northwards in the Middles East - failed intervention in Syria, pressure and constant threat of attack against Iran, intervention in Iraq, intervention in Afghanistan, pressure on Tibet (after a failed CIA intervention), pressure on N Korea, failed intervention in Indochina. And you say Russia is unreasonable to be worried and mobilised? Mind boggling.

Concerning Finland, maybe if they were less openly aggressive towards Russia, as they were towards their own communists a century ago (they simply massacred them), then the Soviet Union, then in WW2 (allied with the nazis) and since in NATO then their neighbour might view them in a more friendly way, to the benefit of both the Finnish and the Russian peoples?

In reply to Submit to Gravity:



That is just such an absolutely brilliant 'British' post.

'War imminent? Gosh, that's a rotter!'

'Missiles on their way here right now? Blast. I'll miss test match special'.

In reply to Skyfall:

Bruce. You may be about to get your throat cut.

Toby. Sinun vuorosi.

In reply to andyathome:




It was said with feeling, albeit with British understatement.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Don't think so, we had a row yesterday but Alice has calmed down a bit now. Do you have inside information?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Do you really need to be told that Finland isn't in NATO? You not heard of the Helsinki Final Acts, of Finlandisation? BTW, Sweden isn't in NATO either.


Are you high dude?

In reply to TobyA:
Ok, so Finland isn't in but as you brought up the question of Russian exercises nearby I assumed it was, but coming back to what I was saying about the encircling of Russia, here's a map of NATO countries, you seem to have found about the only ones that aren't in the club:

http://www.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...

See that solid wall of blue, all members of an organisation set up to fight them? If I was Russian I'd feel encircled, wouldn't you? An honest answer would be appreciated.


No, don't drink or smoke, what bits of that sentence are not exact (apart from NATO membership)?

If you could avoid the "dude" word I'd appreciate it, save it for your yankee pals.

In reply to TobyA:

I was puzzled by Finland not being in as I thought I'd seen something about Finland and NATO and it seems that they are not in but half in by the "Partnership for Peace" (you couldn't make up the names they give themselves!) and have sent troops to help in NATO operations:

"Finland

Finland participates in nearly all sub-areas of the Partnership for Peace programme, and has provided peacekeeping forces to both the Afghanistan and Kosovo missions. However, a 2005 poll indicated that the public was strongly against NATO membership.[77] The possibility of Finland's membership in NATO was one of the most important issues debated in relation to the Finnish presidential election of 2006."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

More details from the horse's mouth:

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49594.htm

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You do know that Russia is also a member of PfP don't you? I mentioned it last week I'm sure.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Oh yeah; your map shows that the Russian 'mainland' has a border with NATO with Norway (50 kms maybe?), Estonia and Latvia. Then the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad* has borders with Lithuania and Poland. That's it. I haven't done the maths but I would imagine it is about 5 percent of the Russian border is with NATO states.


You said:


Nothing in that paragraph is really true, but you can read a history book - you know that.

*Fun thought experiment, if German special forces took over Kaliningrad and organised a referendum there would a yes vote make it part of Germany again? The UN General Assembly seems to say no http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26776416

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Not a great one for Finnish history, are we Bruce.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Yes, Bruce. They feel encircled and threatened. It is an undeniable truth.


Is that because we're all out to get them? Well, no, it is not actually.

The reason they feel encircled and threatened is because they are too dumb and too corrupt to develop normal relations with the rest of the world. It has always been that way. They have a chip on their shoulder the size of Ukraine and Kazakhstan and Karelia put together. They have the mentality of a big fat 9 year old bully in a school playground throwing his weight about.



If I was Russia, how would I feel?

Like I was stupid and had just done something that had condemned my country to decades of unnecessary diplomatic and economic isolation and rejection, with all that this means for the hundreds of millions of long-suffering people living there. But then I'm not Russia, so all of that is invisible to them.

In reply to TobyA:


And? The USSR had it's buffer zone from WW2 onwards, accepted by the other Allies at the time given the sacrifices that the Soviet people made to defeat fascism but this was mostly lost with the collapse of the communist system. You might like to check out the assurances that were given to the new Russian capitalist state at the time that NATO wouldn't head East and take advantage of the weakness of Russia, promises that were broken and obviously didn't help Russia to feel safe, to say the least, anymore than the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO did. You say that some countries bordering are worried by Russia because they fill threatened by a risk of aggression, how do you think Russians felt when Serbia was bombed into submission by NATO?


On the contrary it's all true, as you must know as we have established that you can read. Check out Wikipedia if your Finnish friends have been misinforming you.

You could also look at the last night's UN resolution vote, more than half the world didn't support it despite the press crowing that would seem to imply the opposite. Of course the opinion of some countries is considered as unimportant by some, China, Brazil, India, Pakistan etc, what do they matter?

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Care to elaborate? Cryptic remarks don't exactly advance a discussion.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Nothing like a good old bit of racism/xenophobia when all else fails, is there? Do they eat babies too?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


My understanding is that the German foreign minister at the time has since said assurances were given verbally, but the Americans have always said they never made such promises and no historian has been able to find any documents that suggests this either. If you've seen different, I would be genuinely interested to read it, so yes please - where can I check this out?


No it's not Bruce. You clearly know next nothing to about Finnish history; it was only last week that you seemed to have discovered that Finland had a civil war! I know you don't like me, so why not just call me names? I'm not Finnish, so trying to insult Finland based on your bizarre reading of Wikipedia as a way to try and annoy me is faintly ridiculous. I actually agree that many Finns could really do with being exposed to a more critical reading of their national history, just like most Brits could. Amusingly, if you went for a beer in a pub in Helsinki you'd probably find loads of people completely agree with your suspicion of NATO and the US - it's the mainstream view here - and a readiness to always compromise with Russia no matter what is a strong theme also. Of course you'd perhaps have to resist the urge to tell everyone they were Nazis and had always been aggressive to Russia (because you read it in Wikipedia)!

Some of these guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taistoism are still even in Parliment and keep a flame burning that I suspect you would fully support.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Check out the reality of Russian relations with the rest of the world and their internal politics across the centuries. Artistic or engineering achievement counts for little against a history of cruelty, repression and paranoia.

In reply to TobyA:


Listen to the radio, watch the telly, your really should try to follow these things more regularly if you want to keep up with things. I heard it mentioned a couple of times on the numerous TV discussions, the sort with 4 or 5 "experts" who discuss different subjects in the news. For example on "le Cinq", a state TV channel there's a regular program shown twice a day, late afternoon then a repeat at 10.30 in the evening, called "C'est dans l'air", there's also one on A2, again state TV called "Mots croissés" once a week. Maybe you should invest in a satellite dish if there's nothing similar in Finland?


Come on didumms, grow up a bit, aren't you used to people disagreeing with you?* If you don't like being replied to as I do you could try stop calling me "tanky" and deliberately misunderstanding what I post... the crack about Finnish history, for example. I should hope you know more about Finnish history than I do, you live there, but it's not that hard to read it up. Even without reading most people knew what they did in WW2, I didn't know about the massacres of "Reds" in WW1 but it's hardly to the favour of those who did it, is it?

Now then, as you are always setting me "mission impossible", as if I'm going to spend hopurs trawling internet just for you pleasure, here's a simple one for you, as asked alreay, apart from NATO membership, what was wrong in my resumé of the less pleasant sides of Finnish history in the 20th century? For memory I wrote:


*It's not even true, I don't dislike you as a person, how could I we've never met, I dislike the propaganda you spread, and also the methods you use, avoiding the main issues and looking for the fault in a, or several posts, to create red herrings - not just for me, you do it to others... it's spin not honest discussion on honest difference of opinion... as is your gambit of asking for "proof" for things which are not always provable and also trying to force people to waste hours or face being badgered again and again. It's a slimey, propagandist method and one wonders why you stoop to such antics on a general discussion forum.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Couldn't the same be said of the USA? McCarthy, KKK etc?

You could have added anti-Semitism and I couldn't have denied it but in France too anti-Semitism was common a century ago - the "affair Dreyfus". Nobody's perfect, including our own countries but Russia has been through hard times and is pulling through, if we gave them a helping hand and stopped bugging them don't you think a lot of the "paranoia" would disappear like the snow on the steppes in springtime? Is there no paranoia to be seen in the threads on Scottish independence on ukc? Nobody's perfect.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I used to think like you, if only everyone would give Russia a fair crack of the whip, they've had such a tough history and so on. But then I grew up.

'Russia has been through hard times and is pulling through' er no its not, it's exploiting extraordinary natural resources in a profligate way and destroying the environment, it is retreating daily from the rule of law, both international and national (Pussy Riot, anyone?) and is ruled by a scheming megalomaniac who has amassed an extraordinary personal fortune while in power. It is such a successful country that all the rich flee to the west as soon as they're able and the remainder are left to drink themselves to early deaths.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I hope I never do then.


Coming from someone from a country who just sent somebody to prison for pissing on a stone when drunk that's amusing... Does "grown up" mean hypocritical and blinkered then, I didn't know that.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Hmm, if you google 'urinating on war memorial'
you'll find it happens quite often and £100 fine is the norm. But don't let that get in the way of you equating what happens here what happens in Worker's Paradise Mk II.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

But it did happen in Britain, the "criminal" went to prison, there were threads on it here, it might have happened more than once, I don't remember and it's the same for the Pussy Riot, except that wasn't just a lone drunk being daft it was a deliberate political act, premeditated and well publicized. The Russian legal system over-reacted, just as the British one did but your reaction is different. In one you are forgiving in the other condemning, whereas you should look at both in their context.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce, how do you feel about the tendency for anyone who poses a political threat to Putin, either through popularity or the exposure of corruption, to end up in prison?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well he didn't. But other than that, spot on.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/26/student-urinated-war-memorial-sen...

In reply to TobyA:


Finally I thought I'd have a look, googled "OTAN promesses a Russie gorbachov" and the 2nd and third hits answered your query, the first in a internet book by Catherine Durandin, "OTAN, histoire et fin ?" on a site called diploweb.com, the other an article in Courier Internationale called "CRIMÉE Les Russes bernés par l'Otan" which might not be to your liking but both confirm the promise and give dates and place:

'February 9, James Baker, U.S. Secretary of State [George Bush] had assured the reformer [Soviet Union] Mikhail Gorbachev in the room Catherine II historical site of the Kremlin, the Western alliance "extend" not an inch "its influence eastward if Moscow agreed that the unified Germany enter into NATO."'

The second quotes Clintons book in which he cites a conversation with Yeltsin in the same tones, and further down says that Roland Dumas confirmed this version:

"It is even better understood in 1990, James Baker had told Gorbachev that NATO would not expand. Roland Dumas, Minister of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly confirmed this promise, a promise not kept."

Both articles are interesting in there own right, although I doubt you'll agree, but that's not the point, it doesn't seem that hard to find, two out of the first three are on the subject, others followed but that will do me.

In reply to MG:

Was he the only one? Anyway the sentence was passed, it's the thought that counts - funny no one here picked up he'd been let off. I don't know if Britain being better than Russia as far as it's sentencing is concerned is a relief though!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


When did i ever let THEM off the hook?



Yes, yes, yes. Judaism in France is not unfamiliar to me.


They've had 20 years to start straightening their act out. That's a lot of springtimes. Don't tell me it's not long enough. I have seen what other central and eastern Europeans have achieved in the same period.

In reply to Skyfall:

Its all cock waving pish... Governments shuffle us all around like were chess Pieces in their sick boardGame... but were not are we... be human, reject authority, think for yourself. Live, Love, reject, be yourself.

In reply to Choss:



Which is a privilege you have only in societies which allow it…….think about it…..

In reply to Postmanpat:

Thats right pat, only rebel as much as your govt tells you you can and no Further. let them break your legs and then say thank you when they offer you crutches!

You think about it!... or think for yourself

In reply to Choss:


Lol. Turn on, tune in, drop out. The ultimate mantra of selfish individualism.