NationStates Jolt Archive

This is turning into a full-blown crisis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4572712.stm
Russian gas supplies to Ukraine will be cut at 0700 GMT on Sunday, state-owned firm Gazprom announced after last-ditch talks failed to settle a price dispute.
The row erupted after Ukraine rejected Russian plans for a 460% price rise.
A bit of background (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4569846.stm)

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/12/33dcbad1-0d6a-4d44-ba52-96182e332d08.html
And the Ukrainians still provide the base for a significant part of the Russian fleet in Sevastopol.

How ugly do you think this issue (clearly about Putin unhappy that the Ukraine is slipping from his fingers and turning West) could get?
And what is the future of the Ukraine?

Surely Putin stepped in to freeze prices ? If they quadrouple the price the Ukraine will just accidentaly stop shipping it to Europe. I just don't know how Russia gets away with petty revenge like this.

It could go as full-blown as a war between Russia and the Ukraine, but I'd expect something more subtle. Like a quiet government take-over of the Ukraine by the Russians, followed by a series of legislations bringing the Ukraine closer and back under the influence of Russia.

But the future is difficult to predict. That's why there are only two professions which do it: meterologists and astrologists.

I think it's Russia now that needs a regime change....

It has already had one *jedi type hand gesture*

If Russia goes to war in the Ukraine, all hell will break loose as NATO will step in.

If Russia goes to war in the Ukraine, all hell will break loose as NATO will step in.

NATO didn't step in in Chechnya. They didn't step in for years and years in the Balkans. I don't forsee NATO stepping in on a Russo-Ukrainian War. As Neu Leonstein mentioned, no one cares. And if no one cares, NATO cares less. Meaning, that NATO doesn't care at all and, were it possible, it would be perfectly happy negatively caring about it.

If Russia goes to war in the Ukraine, all hell will break loose as NATO will step in.

And if Nato steps in, that brings in countries with nukes(France, Britain and US) against Russia, who also has nukes. That'll really fuck up yer new years.

NATO didn't step in in Chechnya.

You have a slight problem with that. That's an independence movement against Russia.

They didn't step in for years and years in the Balkans.

But we did and put a stop to what was going on there.

I don't forsee NATO stepping in on a Russo-Ukrainian War.

I do. WHy? Poland and other former Eastern Europe bloc will ask NATO to do something. NATO will be forced to do something since Ukraine wants to be apart of NATO. It wouldn't look to good to see a potential member of the Organization to go down without NATO doing something. And it is actually NATOs mandate to stop Russian agression (ok it was the USSR but for all purposes Russia) in Europe.

As Neu Leonstein mentioned, no one cares. And if no one cares, NATO cares less. Meaning, that NATO doesn't care at all and, were it possible, it would be perfectly happy negatively caring about it.

I'm sure the situation is being watched very closely especially by NATO. We may not see it but they most certainly are.

And if Nato steps in, that brings in countries with nukes(France, Britain and US) against Russia, who also has nukes. That'll really fuck up yer new years.

I don't see Nukes being used in this Conflict.

In Soviet Russia, gas supply cuts off you!

In Soviet Russia, gas supply cuts off you!
More like Fascist Russia.

You have a slight problem with that. That's an independence movement against Russia.

That depends on who you ask. The Chechans don't consider themselves to be part of Russia. Nor does most of the world, which is why we call them 'Chechans', not 'Chechnyo-Russian Rebel Separatists'.

But we did and put a stop to what was going on there.

After the United States convinced you to. And never mind the fact that most of the NATO forces involved were American, not European.

I do. WHy? Poland and other former Eastern Europe bloc will ask NATO to do something. NATO will be forced to do something since Ukraine wants to be apart of NATO. It wouldn't look to good to see a potential member of the Organization to go down without NATO doing something. And it is actually NATOs mandate to stop Russian agression (ok it was the USSR but for all purposes Russia) in Europe.

The Ukraine is not part of NATO. NATO never has to do anything it doesn't want to. And I don't think they want to take part in a Russo-Ukrainian War.

I'm sure the situation is being watched very closely especially by NATO. We may not see it but they most certainly are.

Yes, so they can reap the greatest rewards from any such campaign. Not to protect the Ukrainians from Russian aggression.

That depends on who you ask. The Chechans don't consider themselves to be part of Russia. Nor does most of the world, which is why we call them 'Chechans', not 'Chechnyo-Russian Rebel Separatists'.

Agreed but technically speaking they are part of Russia.

After the United States convinced you to. And never mind the fact that most of the NATO forces involved were American, not European.

I'm an American dude. DOn't you mean the UN? They had nothing to do with the Yugoslavia thing till AFTER the fact. NATO got involved because the UN Failed to act. That was when NATO stepped in and took care of it.

The Ukraine is not part of NATO. NATO never has to do anything it doesn't want to. And I don't think they want to take part in a Russo-Ukrainian War.

I disagree. I think they would because of the NATO nations that would probably get affected by a Ukraine-Russian War.

Yes, so they can reap the greatest rewards from any such campaign. Not to protect the Ukrainians from Russian aggression.

Again, I'll disagree but only to a point.

Meh. I think it'll be a whole lot of confusion if it comes to war between Russia and Ukraine. After all, the two use virtually identical equipment (T-80 tanks, MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters), weapons (the good ol' AK-47/AK-74, RPG-7), uniforms and tactics (human wave and artillery on top of it). Besides, Ukraine might have a better chance of winning, with most of Russias army fucking up in Chechnya, like they've been doing since they went back in in '96.

In Soviet Russia, gas supply cuts off you!

In Soviet Russia, all of you are belong to bases.

I don't see Nukes being used in this Conflict.

Probably not. But in the scenario in which Nato backs Ukraine, it's still a tricky situation. I'm not a huge fan of two nuclear powers being at war.

NATO didn't step in in Chechnya. They didn't step in for years and years in the Balkans. I don't forsee NATO stepping in on a Russo-Ukrainian War. As Neu Leonstein mentioned, no one cares. And if no one cares, NATO cares less. Meaning, that NATO doesn't care at all and, were it possible, it would be perfectly happy negatively caring about it.


What'll happen is probably the same thing that happened in Chechnya. Putin and the FSB (the new KGB) will set bombs in Russian cities close to the Ukraine, they'll set them off and claim it was Ukrainian terrorists and that the Ukraine needs the strong hand of its brother Russia to keep the peace. Russia steps in and bam, tanks rolling through the Ukraine. Russia wants the former states of the soviet union back this is just its most recent step in its imperialistic game. As long as there is oil over there Russia will want it and its still Russia's sphere of influence no matter how much the west tries to deny it.

Probably not. But in the scenario in which Nato backs Ukraine, it's still a tricky situation. I'm not a huge fan of two nuclear powers being at war.


I don't see NATO stepping in to help anybody. NATO is FUBAR.

I don't see NATO stepping in to help anybody. NATO is FUBAR.

I'm going to call this BS right here.

I'm going to call this BS right here.


Why is that? What do you think the EU is? Its what France has been pushing for since it began its fight against NATO. France and Germany both want out of anything that involves the US, because the US is the superpower and it overshadows Germany and France. Germany and France don't like being the little brothers sitting in the shadows. Also Ukraine desires to be in the EU correct? The EU has this little security army or some nonsense which they think is all great and awe inspiring *giggles slightly* of 60,000 troops. The EU will see any war between Ukraine and Russia as its chance to prove itsself and it will fight vehemently to keep the US out. If war happens I'ld put money on the EU stepping in not NATO.

I'm going to call this BS right here.
I wouldn't say NATO is FUBAR either, but I am starting to question the necessity of its existance. It was formed originally to oppose the Soviet bloc, yes? The thing is that their primary enemy (USSR) doesn't exist anymore...

Why is that? What do you think the EU is? Its what France has been pushing for since it began its fight against NATO. France and Germany both want out of anything that involves the US, because the US is the superpower and it overshadows Germany and France. Germany and France don't like being the little brothers sitting in the shadows. Also Ukraine desires to be in the EU correct? The EU has this little security army or some nonsense which they think is all great and awe inspiring *giggles slightly* of 60,000 troops. The EU will see any war between Ukraine and Russia as its chance to prove itsself and it will fight vehemently to keep the US out. If war happens I'ld put money on the EU stepping in not NATO.

I'll still call your BS! NATO will step in. Why? The NATO nations next to the conflict will push for it. And it'll be done without France. I don't see France doing anything.

I wouldn't say NATO is FUBAR either, but I am starting to question the necessity of its existance. It was formed originally to oppose the Soviet bloc, yes? The thing is that their primary enemy (USSR) doesn't exist anymore...

But if Russia invades the Ukraine..... that'll be seen as Russia trying to get it back.

Not to mention any such invasion by Russia will be seen as Illegal but I don't expect the UN to do anything about it.

I'll still call your BS! NATO will step in. Why? The NATO nations next to the conflict will push for it. And it'll be done without France. I don't see France doing anything.


No, France and Germany control the EU. They'll step in just to show that the EU is capable of handling all affairs in Europe, mostly because France see's itself as a world power *giggles slightly again* and it thinks all of Europe should revolve around it. France and Germany protest something that isn't necesarily a direct threat to the US, and if George W. isn't president anymore we'll see the EU take this one. If George W. is president we might, PERHAPS, see the US and NATO get involved, MAYBE. But even thats doubtful because he'll be looking for a way to repair relations, and what better way then let them have this war?

Not to mention any such invasion by Russia will be seen as Illegal but I don't expect the UN to do anything about it.

I very much doubt NATO's biggest voice will do anything either. Not unless they get some really fat trade concessions out of the whole thing. There being no free lunch and all that.

As for such a war being seen as illegal by NATO, well, I doubt very many voices can be raised using that method of attack without seeming very, very hypocritical. *shrug* But when has that stopped the politicians anyway?

No, France and Germany control the EU. They'll step in just to show that the EU is capable of handling all affairs in Europe, mostly because France see's itself as a world power *giggles slightly again* and it thinks all of Europe should revolve around it.

Ok that last part is 100% true but the rest of your statement is not. France will do nothing because of their contracts.

France and Germany protest something that isn't necesarily a direct threat to the US, and if George W. isn't president anymore we'll see the EU take this one.

I would love to see it and when it does then maybe France will rise abit in my eyes. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

If George W. is president we might, PERHAPS, see the US and NATO get involved, MAYBE.

No maybe about it. The US will more than likely get involved and NATO probably will too. I think your putting to much stock on the EU because they still can't do nothing without the nations parliments agreeing to it.

I very much doubt NATO's biggest voice will do anything either. Not unless they get some really fat trade concessions out of the whole thing. There being no free lunch and all that.

As for such a war being seen as illegal by NATO, well, I doubt very many voices can be raised using that method of attack without seeming very, very hypocritical. *shrug* But when has that stopped the politicians anyway?

What's illegal? Nothing is "illegal" as you say it. National sovereignty's decide what is legal and illegal in their own borders, no one can say whats legal or whats illegal for any one national sovereignty to do. Maybe "acceptable" or something, but even then hell its in the nations best intrest to keep Ukraine in its sphere of influence, if I was Putin I'ld take it back.

I hate to interrupt all this far-fetched speculating, but this isn't going to lead to war.

As for such a war being seen as illegal by NATO, well, I doubt very many voices can be raised using that method of attack without seeming very, very hypocritical. *shrug* But when has that stopped the politicians anyway?

What will be hypocritical about it? Russia's attack would be illegal under International Law just like their invasion of Afghanistan was illegal under International Law.

I hate to interrupt all this far-fetched speculating, but this isn't going to lead to war.

Oh I know but the speculation is fun :D

Yes, so they can reap the greatest rewards from any such campaign.

I believe this deserves the "No Shit Sherlock" award for the day.

Since when has any nation EVER done something SIMPLY OUT OF niceness? There is ALWAYS something to gain from it, or they won't do it.

Ok that last part is 100% true but the rest of your statement is not. France will do nothing because of their contracts.



I would love to see it and when it does then maybe France will rise abit in my eyes. I wouldn't hold my breath though.



No maybe about it. The US will more than likely get involved and NATO probably will too. I think your putting to much stock on the EU because they still can't do nothing without the nations parliments agreeing to it.


I think your underestimating the Europeans desire to deal with things in Europe. Elsewhere I don't think they much care because they have "dirty deals" and such, but its the EU's plan to dominate all of Europe, and Ukraine is part of Europe. The EU's "leading nations" also want to prove to the international community that the EU is legit. I also believe that if Germany and France both vote to go to war with the EU and not NATO that much of the EU will go along with them (Because this is in Europe and not in a foreign arena). And the US is bending over backwards to appease the EU's "leading nations" right now with the whole Iran thing. The EU is screwing around having damn tea parties with the Iyatollah's, while his men are building nuclear weapons.

In conclusion, if this was anywhere else in the world I would agree with you, but since it is inside of Europe and the EU is designed to govern Europe I think the EU will go into any kind of Ukraine conflict and NATO (as an alliance) will stay out.

And this is why state-owned companies are a bad idea...Putin wants to put the squeeze on Ukraine, he gouges them through the government's ownership of Gazprom. This is nothing more than a power grab, because Putin is afraid of the EU closing in on Russia (and derailing his dreams for a new totalitarian state) with its emphasis on civil rights and a free, competitive market. It's also convienent that Yukos was bought by Gazprom for a pittance and now the government's got a monopoly on gas...

What a deal...three months' freeze for a 460% rise in price after that! Damn, I think the Enron guys who screwed over California could learn a thing or two from Putin.

I believe this deserves the "No Shit Sherlock" award for the day.

Since when has any nation EVER done something SIMPLY OUT OF niceness? There is ALWAYS something to gain from it, or they won't do it.

Some people tend to have heretical Optimist tendoncies. I was merely attempting to keep them on the straight and narrow path of the Light of Cynic and Pessimism.

Blessed is Cynic!

To Hell With Russia!!

No, France and Germany control the EU. They'll step in just to show that the EU is capable of handling all affairs in Europe, mostly because France see's itself as a world power *giggles slightly again* and it thinks all of Europe should revolve around it. France and Germany protest something that isn't necesarily a direct threat to the US, and if George W. isn't president anymore we'll see the EU take this one. If George W. is president we might, PERHAPS, see the US and NATO get involved, MAYBE. But even thats doubtful because he'll be looking for a way to repair relations, and what better way then let them have this war?

George W. Bush would have to start pulling Hitlerisms and make up regiments that exist entirely on paper in order to do that, though. Or pull out of Iraq (unlikely).

To Hell With Russia!!

If you think that the UN is going to get involved, your sadly mistaken.

Nice Edit!

George W. Bush would have to start pulling Hitlerisms and make up regiments that exist entirely on paper in order to do that, though. Or pull out of Iraq (unlikely).

We're not as badly stretched out Air and Naval wise. We can do alot using those branches. Not to mention the Marines.

NATO didn't step in in Chechnya. They didn't step in for years and years in the Balkans. I don't forsee NATO stepping in on a Russo-Ukrainian War. As Neu Leonstein mentioned, no one cares. And if no one cares, NATO cares less. Meaning, that NATO doesn't care at all and, were it possible, it would be perfectly happy negatively caring about it.


The difference is Chechnya was an internal affair. NATO had no right to intervene. Might have had moral reasons, but no legal justification. Yes, I know they did in Kosovo, but only after ignoring the Yugoslav civil war for years, And the Serbs were in no position to stop them. This would be a war between two sovereign nations. The possibility of war with Russia might be enough to keep NATO out of Chechnya, but not, I think to keep them from interfering on behalf of a potential member.

We're not as badly stretched out Air and Naval wise. We can do alot using those branches. Not to mention the Marines.

Well, yes. We don't need more than two or three (at the outer limit) carrier groups to launch Naval sorties against targets in Afghanistan and Iraq. And we have what, six? Seven? But between Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan, and Germany, our Marines and Army personnel are pushed pretty thin.

I recall a friend of mine in the service explaining how if Mexico were to invade tomorrow, the US would be pretty much helpless. And that's before we get Canada in the mix....

Well, yes. We don't need more than two or three (at the outer limit) carrier groups to launch Naval sorties against targets in Afghanistan and Iraq. And we have what, six? Seven? But between Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan, and Germany, our Marines and Army personnel are pushed pretty thin.

Not as bad as people are trying to make it out to believe.

I recall a friend of mine in the service explaining how if Mexico were to invade tomorrow, the US would be pretty much helpless. And that's before we get Canada in the mix....

I'll call this utter BS as well.

I'm 1/4 Ukrainian so I automatically take their side. Ukraine was to the USSR what Poland was to Nazi Germany. Ukraine has all this crap on their land, went through a huge famine the Russians engineered and is still dealing with Chernobyl. I say its at least payment for what the Russians did. The Ukrainians do have a point though, if Russia uses their land, they should have a right to get payment for it.

The difference is Chechnya was an internal affair. NATO had no right to intervene. Might have had moral reasons, but no legal justification. Yes, I know they did in Kosovo, but only after ignoring the Yugoslav civil war for years, And the Serbs were in no position to stop them. This would be a war between two sovereign nations. The possibility of war with Russia might be enough to keep NATO out of Chechnya, but not, I think to keep them from interfering on behalf of a potential member.

NATO might threaten action, but nothing would ever come of it, except for possible airstrikes and special forces operations. The Poles might get unhappy, but the only thing NATO would lose would be a potential member. Who wouldn't even be joining for another decade or so.

Assuming the Poles allowed NATO forces in their nation, the Russians would have many, many opprotunities to destroy the NATO forces as they mass in Poland. They could even use it as an excuse to invade Poland and even Germany. And that wouldn't fly over very well.

However, if NATO does get involved, it will make everyone screaming for the death knell of the MBT look like idiots. Again.

Not as bad as people are trying to make it out to believe.

Then how bad is it?

I'll call this utter BS as well.

That's the great thing about America. You can believe whatever you want.

NATO might threaten action, but nothing would ever come of it, except for possible airstrikes and special forces operations. The Poles might get unhappy, but the only thing NATO would lose would be a potential member. Who wouldn't even be joining for another decade or so.

Doesn't matter. Russia invades is going to scare Europe. NATO will act. I'll tell you that right now.

Assuming the Poles allowed NATO forces in their nation,

THey will.

the Russians would have many, many opprotunities to destroy the NATO forces as they mass in Poland.

And that will spark an even bigger war. NATO will most assuredly act if that happened.

They could even use it as an excuse to invade Poland and even Germany. And that wouldn't fly over very well.

And now you see why NATO will act. Your spelling out the case quite nicely thanks :)

However, if NATO does get involved, it will make everyone screaming for the death knell of the MBT look like idiots. Again.

Russia won't push it to war because they can't stand up to the combined might of the NATO forces.

Then how bad is it?

Not as bad as the Press is trying to make it out ot believe.

the great thing about America. You can believe whatever you want.

My father is in the USAF and I have a cousin in the USNR and had one in the Army. The Air Force can do alot of things to control the airways above Ukraine and to protect the Ukrainian People. Couple that with NATO forced from Britian, Germany, Poland, and others, and Russia will have a difficult time in conquoring Ukraine.

Some people tend to have heretical Optimist tendoncies. I was merely attempting to keep them on the straight and narrow path of the Light of Cynic and Pessimism.

Blessed is Cynic!

Hail Cynic!

Doesn't matter. Russia invades is going to scare Europe. NATO will act. I'll tell you that right now.

They might. They might not. Only time will tell, provided the proper prerequisites are meant. If it does happen then you can yell "Toldya so!" at me as loud as you please.

THey will.

Only if Poland sees a threat to itself in this. They might, very publicly, request that NATO send in some troops to aid the Polish army, should the Red Stars invade.

And that will spark an even bigger war. NATO will most assuredly act if that happened.

But that was NATO acting. And the Russians' response would be to bomb the snot out of NATO forces as they mass or try to talk the Euros out of it.

And now you see why NATO will act. Your spelling out the case quite nicely thanks :)

So... what you're saying is that NATO should act because NATO might act in a certain way and the Russians might respond to that action in a certain way?

Russia won't push it to war because they can't stand up to the combined might of the NATO forces.

The Russians would gleefully invade the Ukraine.

Why is that? What do you think the EU is? Its what France has been pushing for since it began its fight against NATO.
Wrong. The first treaties on the way to the EU were IIRC earlier than NATO. The EU is not and never will be a military thing, it is an economic and political entity.

France and Germany both want out of anything that involves the US, because the US is the superpower and it overshadows Germany and France. Germany and France don't like being the little brothers sitting in the shadows.
Wrong. France and Germany want the US to play by the rules. Whenever they do that, you will see that both governments are quite happy to help and work together (see Iran).

Also Ukraine desires to be in the EU correct? The EU has this little security army or some nonsense which they think is all great and awe inspiring *giggles slightly* of 60,000 troops.
Trolling.
And not actually factual either...it's a "rapid response force", which is meant to be used in areas away from Europe in response to international crises.
If the EU wanted to go to war in earnest, it could easily field a million well-equipped, well-trained troops.

The EU will see any war between Ukraine and Russia as its chance to prove itsself and it will fight vehemently to keep the US out. If war happens I'ld put money on the EU stepping in not NATO.
Of course you making a correct statement would require you to have any idea of the security policies of EU-members, which you don't have.

No, France and Germany control the EU. They'll step in just to show that the EU is capable of handling all affairs in Europe, mostly because France see's itself as a world power *giggles slightly again* and it thinks all of Europe should revolve around it.
That time is over. Germany has put its weight towards the UK (not fully, but to some extent), such that there no longer is a ruling core in the EU.

France and Germany protest something that isn't necesarily a direct threat to the US, and if George W. isn't president anymore we'll see the EU take this one.
Again, you have no idea of military doctrines in both nations.

If George W. is president we might, PERHAPS, see the US and NATO get involved, MAYBE. But even thats doubtful because he'll be looking for a way to repair relations, and what better way then let them have this war?
Yeah, because the EU (and especially Germany) are so into going to war?

I think your underestimating the Europeans desire to deal with things in Europe.
I think you are talking out of your arse. Remember Kosovo? What was so different then?

Elsewhere I don't think they much care because they have "dirty deals" and such, but its the EU's plan to dominate all of Europe, and Ukraine is part of Europe.
Yeah. "The EU's plan". :rolleyes:

The EU's "leading nations" also want to prove to the international community that the EU is legit.
They have done that a long time ago. The EU is accepted as an entity in international politics for years, and EU officials get the same honours as officials from nations.

I also believe that if Germany and France both vote to go to war with the EU and not NATO that much of the EU will go along with them (Because this is in Europe and not in a foreign arena).
I wish you would inform yourself. Germany does not go to war. Period.
And France has stated a billion times that they are committed to multilateral action, and to NATO.

And the US is bending over backwards to appease the EU's "leading nations" right now with the whole Iran thing. The EU is screwing around having damn tea parties with the Iyatollah's, while his men are building nuclear weapons.
It would be the President. The Ayatollahs don't actually do politics.
But that's beside the point. The US and the EU sat down together and made a plan:
First the EU tries the peaceful way and the US doesn't interfere and supports where necessary.
If that doesn't work, the US takes "other actions", and the EU supports where necessary.

In conclusion, if this was anywhere else in the world I would agree with you, but since it is inside of Europe and the EU is designed to govern Europe I think the EU will go into any kind of Ukraine conflict and NATO (as an alliance) will stay out.
Except that the EU is not a military entity, and NATO is - the EU's security policy being designed to improve the ability of NATO to deal with international crises.

My father is in the USAF and I have a cousin in the USNR and had one in the Army. The Air Force can do alot of things to control the airways above Ukraine and to protect the Ukrainian People. Couple that with NATO forced from Britian, Germany, Poland, and others, and Russia will have a difficult time in conquoring Ukraine.

Not that the Air Force and Navy can't do a damned fine job of dropping bombs on Russian tanks and troop formations and shooting down Russian MiGs and Su-27s and Bears and so forth, but you'd still need boots on the ground. Even if those boots are belonging to various special forces units. And the folks under SOCOM are definately stretched thin.

First the EU tries the peaceful way and the US doesn't interfere and supports where necessary.
If that doesn't work, the US takes "other actions", and the EU supports where necessary.

Do you realize what you just said? If the US and EU would cooperate like that on everything, no one would dare stand up to them. The good cop/bad cop senario works nearly every time, especially if the US is feared as an Imperialist nation.

EU: Look, if you don't listen to us, the US is going to come in and kick your ass, and we're not going to stop them. In fact, we'll help.
Nation: O.O

Do you realize what you just said? If the US and EU would cooperate like that on everything, no one would dare stand up to them. The good cop/bad cop senario works nearly every time, especially if the US is feared as an Imperialist nation.

EU: Look, if you don't listen to us, the US is going to come in and kick your ass, and we're not going to stop them. In fact, we'll help.
Nation: O.O

US: *Feral growl, Irish baseball bat hefted over one shoulder*
Nation: ;.; I don't wanna die!

...but you'd still need boots on the ground. Even if those boots are belonging to various special forces units. And the folks under SOCOM are definately stretched thin.
If it went against Russia, NATO is set. That's what they trained for, that's what they're equipped for.
There are plenty of boots to be sent, from Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic and so on and so forth.

Not that Putin would want to risk it, I don't think.

US: *Feral growl, Irish baseball bat hefted over one shoulder*
Nation: ;.; I don't wanna die!
EU (With a French accent): Then please do as we ask, and we will all be better off. :p

I'll call this utter BS as well.

I don't know, those Taco-class missiles they have can really pack a punch! Just think of it, Houston covered in hot, spicy Taco sauce. It would be horrible!

Oh and don't forget the Mexican Pinata tanks with their Top-Secret Confetti Armor.

If it went against Russia, NATO is set. That's what they trained for, that's what they're equipped for.
There are plenty of boots to be sent, from Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic and so on and so forth.

Not that Putin would want to risk it, I don't think.

I was referring to American boots on the ground to guide American bombs to the ground. In a non-interventionist intervention. Like Afghanistan. I could easily imagine some NATO nations also contributing specops boys to the fray, but I don't think NATO or the US would roll in with armor, at least not until Russia is beaten back.

I was referring to American boots on the ground to guide American bombs to the ground.
Well, if you wanted that, it could be provided, either by Allies or the US itself. There are plenty enough special forces around, and operations in Afghanistan are not that vital anyways.

In a non-interventionist intervention. Like Afghanistan. I could easily imagine some NATO nations also contributing specops boys to the fray, but I don't think NATO or the US would roll in with armor, at least not until Russia is beaten back.
I'm not sure whether one could do that to Russia without provoking a serious response.
At any rate, if there was a serious war, Russia would only stand a chance by using nukes - the Bundeswehr alone fields more than 2000 MBTs.

Well, if you wanted that, it could be provided, either by Allies or the US itself. There are plenty enough special forces around, and operations in Afghanistan are not that vital anyways.

If someone catches bin Laden, it'll be either them or some random Pakistani farmer.

I'm not sure whether one could do that to Russia without provoking a serious response.
At any rate, if there was a serious war, Russia would only stand a chance by using nukes - the Bundeswehr alone fields more than 2000 MBTs.

I meant in the Ukraine. Russia proper is off-limits.

And I think it would be in NATO's best interests to keep it to a low itensity conflict, with Russian regulars facing off against Ukrainian regulars (with the strange tendoncy of Russian troop formations getting blown up, mysteriously, every once and again).

I doubt Russia can be persuaded to back down? You know why?

This 460% natural gas price rise only brings it into line with the world price. Ukraine has been getting a discount. One hell of a whopping discount. Russia basically said years ago, if you stay close, you get your gas free. Now they have chosen to side with the EU, means they pay the EU price. It's fair, FFS. :rolleyes:

This 460% natural gas price rise only brings it into line with the world price. Ukraine has been getting a discount...
Which of course means that the Ukraine is under no obligation anymore to give the Russians access to Sevastopol for those low, low prices.

Which of course means that the Ukraine is under no obligation anymore to give the Russians access to Sevastopol for those low, low prices.
Meh, works both ways, they can charge each other market rates for everything now. Russia wants a port, it can pay the kind of prices P&O Nedlloyd demanded for theirs recently (can't remember who bought all that, Dubai?). Ukraine wants gas, it can pay what Germany pays. I'm like, whatever. And no-one is going to fire one shot over this, and the EU really won't give a damn.

I doubt Russia can be persuaded to back down? You know why?

This 460% natural gas price rise only brings it into line with the world price. Ukraine has been getting a discount. One hell of a whopping discount. Russia basically said years ago, if you stay close, you get your gas free. Now they have chosen to side with the EU, means they pay the EU price. It's fair, FFS. :rolleyes:

Ding!

I don't see why all these people are complaining. *sigh*

This 460% natural gas price rise only brings it into line with the world price.Not even that. In december on NYMEX prices for natural gas contracts have been at around $14 per MMBtu. 1000 cubic meters are about 36 MMBtu, so the fair price for 1000 cubic meters of natural gas is $14*36=$504
now if Ukraine had been paying $50 for something worth $500, is it any wonder, that Russia wants to put a stop to it? Even with the $230 price, they still get it extremely cheap.
And if Ukraine does not want to pay the higher price, that is cool, because then, the gas will get on the open market, increase the supply and lower the prices there.

Living in close proximity to one of the world's most powerful nations ( which Russia still is, even now ), dictates a bit of prudence and diplomacy. It's a fact of life for all of the former Soviet republics. I don't forsee any involvement by either NATO or the members of NATO as individual States, primarily because of the unacceptable downside: alienating Russia.

What will be hypocritical about it? Russia's attack would be illegal under International Law just like their invasion of Afghanistan was illegal under International Law.

And in what manner was the Russian invasion of Afghanistan illegal hmm?

Living in close proximity to one of the world's most powerful nations ( which Russia still is, even now ), dictates a bit of prudence and diplomacy. It's a fact of life for all of the former Soviet republics. I don't forsee any involvement by either NATO or the members of NATO as individual States, primarily because of the unacceptable downside: alienating Russia.

Finlandization?

What will be hypocritical about it? Russia's attack would be illegal under International Law just like their invasion of Afghanistan was illegal under International Law.

The idea of the United States condemning a Russian invasion of Ukraine as "illegal" sort of smacks of hypocrisy.

Come on people don't be silly Ukraine is not going to be invaded :rolleyes:
But if it was it wouldn't stand a chance...
Unlike most of you guys, I'm from that region

This is turning into a full-blown crisis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4572712.stm

A bit of background (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4569846.stm)

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/12/33dcbad1-0d6a-4d44-ba52-96182e332d08.html
And the Ukrainians still provide the base for a significant part of the Russian fleet in Sevastopol.

How ugly do you think this issue (clearly about Putin unhappy that the Ukraine is slipping from his fingers and turning West) could get?
And what is the future of the Ukraine?
It's not about Ukraine turning West. It's about Ukraine leeching on Russian gas and oil and paying WAY less than the market price. Oil exports are Russia's primary source of income and foreign currency. Unlike other states to whom Russia supplies oil at below market prices willingly, Ukraine leaves them no choice because almost all the pipes leading to Europe go through Ukraine. Technically, Ukraine can cut the Russian exports off at will, or divert all the oil to their own reserves, so they have been dictating the terms of Russia's oil distibution until now. And the Russians, it seems, are pissed off about it and want to rebalance the equation.

Now, Ukraine won't be too bothered for some time. They can meet most of their energy needs through coal, of which they have plenty, and their economy does not depend as much on chemical industry as that of Belarus. The ones in trouble are the European states on the receiving end of the pipe. Russia may give any promises about not cutting off the oil flow to Europe- but if they are seriously determined to cut off oil to Ukraine, they will have no choice but to cut it off for the rest. As long as the oil runs through the pipe, the Ukrainians will have it.

The fact is that Putin simply wants to keep Ukraine in Russia's influence range. And he is trying to achieve that by using the same desperate measures that had been used by soviet communists.

15 years ago Gorbachev cut oil supplies to Lithuania. Then he claimed that the purpose of such step is that "Lithuanians must pay the world market prices". The real meaning was to keep Lithuania closely tied with USSR.

There are transit pipes extended in Ukraine's territory and Ukrainians have an ability to stole needed amount of gas. I'm sure they do this just to involve western Europe in this conflict.

It's not about Ukraine turning West. It's about Ukraine leeching on Russian gas and oil and paying WAY less than the market price.
But the same low prices are paid by a good number of other ex-Soviet Republics, with the only difference being that they still stay close to Russia, while the Ukraine has had this pretty public break in the Orange Revolution.

The ones in trouble are the European states on the receiving end of the pipe. Russia may give any promises about not cutting off the oil flow to Europe- but if they are seriously determined to cut off oil to Ukraine, they will have no choice but to cut it off for the rest. As long as the oil runs through the pipe, the Ukrainians will have it.
All the more reason to quickly finish those Baltic pipelines, I guess. But most of the European oil comes from Norway I believe, so it'll work out I would think.

It's not about Ukraine turning West. It's about Ukraine leeching on Russian gas and oil and paying WAY less than the market price. Oil exports are Russia's primary source of income and foreign currency. Unlike other states to whom Russia supplies oil at below market prices willingly, Ukraine leaves them no choice because almost all the pipes leading to Europe go through Ukraine. Technically, Ukraine can cut the Russian exports off at will, or divert all the oil to their own reserves, so they have been dictating the terms of Russia's oil distibution until now. And the Russians, it seems, are pissed off about it and want to rebalance the equation.

Now, Ukraine won't be too bothered for some time. They can meet most of their energy needs through coal, of which they have plenty, and their economy does not depend as much on chemical industry as that of Belarus. The ones in trouble are the European states on the receiving end of the pipe. Russia may give any promises about not cutting off the oil flow to Europe- but if they are seriously determined to cut off oil to Ukraine, they will have no choice but to cut it off for the rest. As long as the oil runs through the pipe, the Ukrainians will have it.

They're working on a new pipeline through the Baltic.

That's just a nasty ploy because Russia wants to get the Ukraine back :mad:

If matters go worse, I could see two things happening:
- The EU steps in, protecting a potential EU member state from the fangs of Russia.
- The US steps in because it doesn't want Russia to become more powerful again by "eating" the Ukraine.

I'd say the first is more likely.
I don't see the Nato acting there, as the Ukraine isn't a member state, and they don't seem to be concerned with stuff like this anyway :rolleyes:

Finlandization?
Perhaps.

This just in: Putin Offers 3-Month Extension of Ukraine's Gas Subsidy (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/international/europe/01russia.html?th&emc=th)

Not that the Air Force and Navy can't do a damned fine job of dropping bombs on Russian tanks and troop formations and shooting down Russian MiGs and Su-27s and Bears and so forth, but you'd still need boots on the ground. Even if those boots are belonging to various special forces units. And the folks under SOCOM are definately stretched thin.

Southern Command is not incontrol of Europe. That would be the European Command and they work with NATO. We still have troops say in.... GERMANY!!!!!!! Not to mention troops in Italy too and in other nations in Europe. We can deploy them rapidly.

The Air Force is still there as well and they can stall the Russians and the navy and can play merry hell as well.

Any campaign against the Ukraine by Russia would be very costly for the Russians.

That's just a nasty ploy because Russia wants to get the Ukraine back :mad:

If matters go worse, I could see two things happening:
- The EU steps in, protecting a potential EU member state from the fangs of Russia.
- The US steps in because it doesn't want Russia to become more powerful again by "eating" the Ukraine.

I'd say the first is more likely.
I don't see the Nato acting there, as the Ukraine isn't a member state, and they don't seem to be concerned with stuff like this anyway :rolleyes:

The EU stepping in, protecting a potential member state? Don't be ridiculous, that would involve decisive action by a coalition of 25 nations with often contrary national interests. Besides, what are they supposed to protect Ukraine with?

If it went against Russia, NATO is set. That's what they trained for, that's what they're equipped for.
There are plenty of boots to be sent, from Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic and so on and so forth.

Not that Putin would want to risk it, I don't think.

Putin would be a class A nut if he did want to risk it. This time, the vaunted Russian Winter wouldn't even halt a campaign.

This is turning into a full-blown crisis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4572712.stm

A bit of background (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4569846.stm)

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/12/33dcbad1-0d6a-4d44-ba52-96182e332d08.html
And the Ukrainians still provide the base for a significant part of the Russian fleet in Sevastopol.

How ugly do you think this issue (clearly about Putin unhappy that the Ukraine is slipping from his fingers and turning West) could get?
And what is the future of the Ukraine?
Does anyone else get a real sense of history repeating itself? Stalin's 1948 blockade of Berlin, anyone?

And in what manner was the Russian invasion of Afghanistan illegal hmm?

They wanted to expand the USSR into Russia and invaded it to do it. It didn't succeed. It was a war of aggression with no legal justification for an invasion.

The idea of the United States condemning a Russian invasion of Ukraine as "illegal" sort of smacks of hypocrisy.

No it wouldn't. It wouldn't be hypocritical at all. So how does it smack of hypocrisy?

Does anyone else get a real sense of history repeating itself? Stalin's 1948 blockade of Berlin, anyone?

And then there was this thing called the Berlin Airlift and it rendered the blockade worthless.

Somehow, I don't see the samething happening again.

They wanted to expand the USSR into Russia and invaded it to do it. It didn't succeed. It was a war of aggression with no legal justification for an invasion.

It was to create a client state in a strategically important area. Perfectly reasonable and predictable behaviour from a superpower.

It was to create a client state in a strategically important area. Perfectly reasonable and predictable behaviour from a superpower.

Still illegal under the UN Charter in regards to act of aggression just that nothing could be done by the UNSC because the USSR held a VETO which is now in the hands of Russia.

Still illegal under the UN Charter in regards to act of aggression just that nothing could be done by the UNSC because the USSR held a VETO which is now in the hands of Russia.

International law is a load of bull... If nations were allowed to act reasonably freely, international politics would be a lot more predictable and stable.

International law is a load of bull... If nations were allowed to act reasonably freely, international politics would be a lot more predictable and stable.

No doubt you are indeed correct.

Ding!

I don't see why all these people are complaining. *sigh*

It's kinda like affirmative action, really -- once you have benefits, you don't want to give them up, even if it means actually being fair.

International law is a load of bull... If nations were allowed to act reasonably freely, international politics would be a lot more predictable and stable.We had those times. They ended with World War One.

I doubt it will lead to war and I can see the Russian point about not wanting to subsidise a nation that is moving away from them but Putin should be watched very closely. Potentially a very dangerous man to the world

Meh, works both ways, they can charge each other market rates for everything now. Russia wants a port, it can pay the kind of prices P&O Nedlloyd demanded for theirs recently (can't remember who bought all that, Dubai?). Ukraine wants gas, it can pay what Germany pays. I'm like, whatever. And no-one is going to fire one shot over this, and the EU really won't give a damn.Belarus pays no where near as much as the Ukraine would pay. Belarus is also coincidentally ruled by a pro-Russian autocrat...

BBC: GAZPROM'S 2006 TARIFFS PER 1,000 CUBIC METRES OF GAS

Ukraine: US$230 (up from $50)
Belarus: US$47
Armenia and Georgia: US$110
Romania: US$280
Average EU charge: US$240

End of discussion.

As far as I am concerned, most of the former Soviet republics are violating global free trade principles, because they have cosy deals worked out. If those deals come to an end, they can pay the market price like the rest of us.

As for a Russia vs. Ukraine war, don't be ridiculous. There isn't a country in Europe with the heavy lift and logistics capability required for a theatre war, and there hasn't been since the 1980s. Same goes for Russia and Ukraine, they've got better things to do than shell each other.

What will be hypocritical about it? Russia's attack would be illegal under International Law just like their invasion of Afghanistan was illegal under International Law.

lol and US's invasion of Iraq is?

Ukraine is Russia's backyard and big countries generally dislike when you mess in their backyards. Russia's reaction to US sponsored and engineered color-coded revolutions was expected.

lol and US's invasion of Iraq is?

Yea actually it was legal under International Law.

Ukraine is Russia's backyard and big countries generally dislike when you mess in their backyards. Russia's reaction to US sponsored and engineered color-coded revolutions was expected.

US Sponsored? Oh brother. We congratulate a nation when they move to democracy Aryavartha.

Well I have one thing to say about this. If there is a war, Russia would kill anyone. I have served in Russia on an American Military base for 12 years. What happens is that Russia budgets nearly all of its revenue to military. Do not believe this bs that America feeds you about being superior. From experience, I dont think anyone could defeat Russia in a war. Their military, lets just say their soldiers actually like theri country, and feel its atually their duty to defend it. Russia is by far the most patriotic country I've ever been to. Its true Ukraine is pretty much Russia, just more Western style. But, no one has ever inveded and conquered Russia, and it will never happen. Russia is more powerful military wise than any nation in the world. We were even told that on the base while in Russia. Our own generals even admitted that if we ever war with Russia, there is no way in Hell we are going to win. THink what you want, but the USA isnt the big peace-keeper they are cracked up to be.

We had those times. They ended with World War One.

99 years of relative piece? That can't all be bad. And the UN hasn't exactly shown itself to be capable of preventing conflict.

BBC: GAZPROM'S 2006 TARIFFS PER 1,000 CUBIC METRES OF GAS

Ukraine: US$230 (up from $50)
Belarus: US$47
Armenia and Georgia: US$110
Romania: US$280
Average EU charge: US$240
I see the Russians are most pissed on the Romanians. We must be doing something right. :D

I've seen other people talking about war. The situation won't get that bad, but as long as Ukraine will have an independent and pro-West policy, the gas prices will remain high. It's that simple.

Well I have one thing to say about this. If there is a war, Russia would kill anyone. I have served in Russia on an American Military base for 12 years. What happens is that Russia budgets nearly all of its revenue to military. Do not believe this bs that America feeds you about being superior. From experience, I dont think anyone could defeat Russia in a war. Their military, lets just say their soldiers actually like theri country, and feel its atually their duty to defend it. Russia is by far the most patriotic country I've ever been to. Its true Ukraine is pretty much Russia, just more Western style. But, no one has ever inveded and conquered Russia, and it will never happen. Russia is more powerful military wise than any nation in the world. We were even told that on the base while in Russia. Our own generals even admitted that if we ever war with Russia, there is no way in Hell we are going to win. THink what you want, but the USA isnt the big peace-keeper they are cracked up to be.

That part about invading and conquering it is not entirely true. Ever hear of the Cossaks? They've done it though Russia was not necessarily a nation back then.

Also, the US is more technologically advanced than Russia is as is most of Western Europe. If there is a war, it won't be won by the US alone. A coalition of nations (something that you left out since your stuck on the USA) will defeat Russia since we can go through at least 5 different nations.

Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Georgia (if they'll let us) Azerbijan (if they'll let us. Not to mention on the Eastern Side, Japan and from Alaska. Russia isn't as big a juggernaunt as you are trying to proclaim them to be.

Big yes but not unbeatable.

99 years of relative piece? That can't all be bad. And the UN hasn't exactly shown itself to be capable of preventing conflict.Relative peace? Relative to what? War is war, and Europe didn't really have many years during that time when there wasn't a war going on.
And don't bitch about the UN not being able to prevent conflicts. There have been plenty, but people tend not to refer to averted conflicts as conflicts.

99 years of relative piece? That can't all be bad. And the UN hasn't exactly shown itself to be capable of preventing conflict.

Relative Peace my ass. I suggest you take alook at all the conflicts prior to World War One and you'll see that it was anything but peaceful.

And to put things into even greater perspective, the LoN also didn't prevent conflict.

As far as I am concerned, most of the former Soviet republics are violating global free trade principles, because they have cosy deals worked out. If those deals come to an end, they can pay the market price like the rest of us.

Of course, charging tariffs on gas is pretty much a violation of free trade in itself...that gas should ideally be sold at market price and no higher.

LOL, check out FOX News. Not one mention of this one their website. For once, they get the proportion of a story right.

It is meaningless to compare the armed forces of any large nation, because the logistics involved in setting up the fight cannot be accomplished. Neither the US, nor Russia, nor China, nor NATO, have the ability to move a sufficient quantity of men and equipment into position for a theatre war. Look how long it took to mobilise NATO against Serbia in 1999, and they were still pissing themselves over the fact that the airstrikes didn't do shit and the ground war would be urban, against an army with 7 years of urban warfare experience.

Now imagine how long it would take to set up a ground war between two continents. LOL. We have burdened ourselves with so much high-tech, we can't haul the stuff. Only way you could do it is if everyone agreed to use nothing but soft-top trucks and bolt-action rifles, and you still wouldn't get permission to cross most of the surrounding countries.

The world has changed. There will never be a major theatre war.

It is meaningless to compare the armed forces of any large nation, because the logistics involved in setting up the fight cannot be accomplished.

False

Neither the US, nor Russia, nor China, nor NATO, have the ability to move a sufficient quantity of men and equipment into position for a theatre war.

Partially correct. US does have that ability and so does NATO to a certain extent. China does not have that ability and Russia is iffy.

Look how long it took to mobilise NATO against Serbia in 1999, and they were still pissing themselves over the fact that the airstrikes didn't do shit and the ground war would be urban, against an army with 7 years of urban warfare experience.

And yet the US (a part of NATO) was already moving equipment for such a ground war that never materialized.

Now imagine how long it would take to set up a ground war between two continents. LOL. We have burdened ourselves with so much high-tech, we can't haul the stuff.

Hutter Horse crap.

Only way you could do it is if everyone agreed to use nothing but soft-top trucks and bolt-action rifles, and you still wouldn't get permission to cross most of the surrounding countries.

Oh you really are ignorant in these matters and it is showing.

The world has changed. There will never be a major theatre war.

Gulf War I and Gulf War II ring a bell? How about Afghanistan?

LOL, check out FOX News. Not one mention of this one their website. For once, they get the proportion of a story right.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180295,00.html

The world has changed. There will never be a major theatre war.

WW1 was supposed to be the war that ended all wars. It seems highly naive to suggest that there'll never be another theatre war, the military material still exists, and the rise of China will if anything raise, not reduce defence spending.

Gulf War I and Gulf War II ring a bell? How about Afghanistan?
The world vs a small country is not a major war. Iraq is a trivial matter compared to WW1 and WW2. Vietnam, waged across several countries, was more like it. NATO vs Russia would be very different to beating up a bunch of goat farmers acting as individuals.

The world vs a small country is not a major war. Iraq is a trivial matter compared to WW1 and WW2. Vietnam, waged across several countries, was more like it. NATO vs Russia would be very different to beating up a bunch of goat farmers acting as individuals.

It was a theatre war. We needed logistics to move all of that men and material around. It was done quite effectively. Therefor, your arguement in that matter are debunked.

Not only did we do it once, we did it TWICE! Imagine that. Not bad for a nation that has no lifting capacity.

US Sponsored? Oh brother. We congratulate a nation when they move to democracy Aryavartha.

Yes they are US sponsored.

Note that the Russians threw away many "NGO" in the aftermath of the color-coded revolutions.

Please don't give me the democracy rhetoric.

We, the largest democracy, have been suffering from your sponsorship and arming of dictatorships in the region for decades now.

Besides, you would not happen to know of one Mossadegh, would you?

Yes they are US sponsored.

PROVE IT!

Note that the Russians threw away many "NGO" in the aftermath of the color-coded revolutions.

oh brother. Just because they did that doesn't mean jack and you know it. Now your grasping at straws. What are you? A socialist?

Please don't give me the democracy rhetoric.

I'm giving no rhetoric. Your the one spouting rhetoric.

We, the largest democracy, have been suffering from your sponsorship and arming of dictatorships in the region for decades now.

:rolleyes:

If your from Russia, I wouldn't call what you have a democracy.

Besides, you would not happen to know of one Mossadegh, would you?

Nope. Never heard of Mossadegh.

We, the largest democracy, have been suffering from your sponsorship and arming of dictatorships in the region for decades now.
So, presuming the US activelly supported the Orange Revolution (which I really don't know), would you call that 'sponsoring and arming a dictatorship'? I'd say it was exactly the opposite.

PROVE IT!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429104&highlight=revolutions

URL edited
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GF30Dj01.html

A socialist?
"sociaist" means different things to different people.

If your from Russia, I wouldn't call what you have a democracy.

You do not even know which country is the largest democracy. So much for "the US congratules a nation when it moves to democracy". lol.


Nope. Never heard of Mossadegh.

Thought so.

He was a democractically elected leader of Iran who was deposed by the US who installed the Shah.

Again so much for "the US congratulates...."

*snip*

You still haven't proved that it was us sponsered in the Ukraine nor in Georgia, Latvia, Luthiana, Poland, or estonia.

You sound just like a Russian with the way you talk. After looking at your location says India. Population wise, I'll give it to ya however, in legality, that honor really belongs to Russia who is larger area wise to India. The US isn't that far behind Russia.

[QUOTE=Aryavartha]You still haven't proved that it was us sponsered in the Ukraine nor in Georgia, Latvia, Luthiana, Poland, or estonia.

You still have not read the link.

You sound just like a Russian with the way you talk.

I take it as a compliment.
:)


After looking at your location says India. Population wise, I'll give it to ya however, in legality, that honor really belongs to Russia who is larger area wise to India. The US isn't that far behind Russia.

Democracy has to do with population. Not area.

[QUOTE=Corneliu]

You still have not read the link.

I did. It still proves nothing. Its from the Asian Times. And an editorial to boot. From the Global Economy section no less which makes it even more suspect.

[B]Democracy has to do with population. Not area.

Deals with both actually.

[QUOTE=Aryavartha]

I did. It still proves nothing. Its from the Asian Times. And an editorial to boot. From the Global Economy section no less which makes it even more suspect.

What do you want? Receipts of the money channelled through the NGOs?

Sorry I don't have 'em.

What do you want? Receipts of the money channelled through the NGOs?

Sorry I don't have 'em.

I actually want more concrete proof than that. I haven't seen anything else in ANY other paper. Editorials are always suspect period.

I think we are getting away from the point.

If this becomes war, there are two possibilities.

Europe + NATO decide not to do anything. Its a possibility. They get intimidated over a war between nuclear powers.

The second possibility, is that either a coalition of europe, or NATO, gets involved. In which case, Russia is screwed.

Russia simply isn't technologically strong enough, nor economically strong enough, to go against the west. Don't get me wrong, Russia isn't out of the technology game. But its still using T-90's and Su-27's(and I dont believe they have that many T-90's even). Add this to not being able to train its men nearly as well as the more professional armies of the world(France spends more on its military annually than Russia, by itself). I simply think one fully mobilized leader of europe(UK, France, Germany) would be enough to stop the russian forces. If it was germany, it would need air force help from other nations, but other than that. The T-90 is the best russian tank in service, low in numbers, and it doesn't even stand up to european standards(Leo 2a4-6, Leclerc, STRV222, C2E). It would be, in my eyes, a much larger scale gulf war one, maybe taking longer. Russia can probably defend itself mighty well, but its only a regional power these days, and that region doesn't include western europe.

Thought so.

He was a democractically elected leader of Iran who was deposed by the US who installed the Shah.

Again so much for "the US congratulates...."
Speaking of Mossadegh, before being ousted from office he set up a referendum to dissolve the parliament, in which 99% of the votes were for the 'yes' side. Hmmm... I guess he was very popular... or maybe he rigged the vote. And after that he 'asked' the Shah to leave the country. In response, the Shah dismissed him (he had the constitutional right to dismiss the Prime Minister), Mossadegh refused to step down, and then he was ousted with American help.

All in all, I wouldn't call Mossadegh a paramount of democracy. He was more like an would-be dictator.

Note that the Russians threw away many "NGO" in the aftermath of the color-coded revolutions.
That, my friend, indeed doesn't prove much. The Russians have a downright paranoid way of thinking when it comes to this kind of things.

However, I recall reports from The Guardian that the USAID and US State department were involved in funding the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. The National Endowment for Democracy and the Freedom House (both US government funded) were involved in Ukraine throughout the 90-s. However, I would say that the EU was involved in the whole thing much more, they were just better in covering it up.

That, my friend, indeed doesn't prove much. The Russians have a downright paranoid way of thinking when it comes to this kind of things.

However, I recall reports from The Guardian that the USAID and US State department were involved in funding the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. The National Endowment for Democracy and the Freedom House (both US government funded) were involved in Ukraine throughout the 90-s. However, I would say that the EU was involved in the whole thing much more, they were just better in covering it up.

Just because you are paranoid does not mean that nobody is following you.;)

I agree. I did not make value judgements on US intervention and sponsorships of the revolutions. I merely stated what they were. Sponsored and engineered revolutions.

I am tired of this "US is for democracy in the world blah blah". Why don't people realise that there is no morality in foreign policy.

All in all, I wouldn't call Mossadegh a paramount of democracy. He was more like an would-be dictator.

Still he was heck of a sight better than the Shah whose policies led to the revolution.

From experience, I dont think anyone could defeat Russia in a war. Their military, lets just say their soldiers actually like theri country, and feel its atually their duty to defend it.
Nonsense. Not sure what you have seen there in your capacity of a foreigner, but I originally come from Russia and here's what I tell you. Patriotism or not, army draft is feared there like a plague, anyone who can evade it, does. Their army is made up of the lowest social classes and the criminal elements are playing a disproportionate role. The soldiers are under-fed, under-equipped, under-trained and under-everything else. Many don't get to hold a rifle during their entire service. Corruption is overwhelming from top to bottom. One of the main functions of the Russian army is being a source of cheap slave-like labour- working potato fields, building, digging trenches for heating pipes at the request of local municipalities. A typical Russian soldier is a hungry, dirt poor young man, brutally abused on a daily basis by both his peers and his superiors, who of all skills has mastered one- stealing anything that can be sold or eaten. There is no discipline to speak of, and soldiers are taught to never ever take initiative.

Their military might is mostly smoke and mirrors. They are masters of strategic deception, just read Viktor Suvorov's "The Liberator", the episode about the military maneuvers. They have good technology in pre-production stage and semi-decent, relatively well armed special forces- but the main bulk of the army simply isn't battleworthy.


no one has ever inveded and conquered Russia, and it will never happen.
You bet it won't. Who in their right mind would want so many prisoners to feed?


Russia is more powerful military wise than any nation in the world. We were even told that on the base while in Russia. Our own generals even admitted that if we ever war with Russia, there is no way in Hell we are going to win.
Russia can be defeated, rather easily. It cannot be occupied, for reasons of logistics- its a huge, largely undeveloped territory that is a hell to control.

Jeebus, why are you people taunting Russia?

Ukraine choose to break an arrangement from which they had the garantee of price stability until 2009, because after the orange revolution, they got all cocky and "we dont need russia" anymore. The russians were delighted about this, but they only moved until two months ago, basically saying "from now on, Ukraine pays gas at market prices". Yes, because despite it all, Russia was supplying Ukraine with very cheap gas, 50USD per cubic metre or something. The Ukranians got all cocky, played wise guys, but forgot that there were reasons why Leonid Kushma or whatever his name is spelled had motives to be close to Russia. Now that the new Ukranian leadership wants to be more independent from russia, they will have to pay for it. Its though, but life goes on.

What the hell are you expecting Russia to do? Give super cheap gas to a weaker neighbour that doesn't even play like it should?

What the hell are you expecting Russia to do?
I'd expect them not to use natural gas as blackmail against its neighbours, not to support the last dictatorship in Europe... that would be nice.

I'd expect them not to use natural gas as blackmail against its neighbours, not to support the last dictatorship in Europe... that would be nice.

What blackmail? Europe receives gas from Russia at market prices, why should an Ukraine that wishes to be independent from Russia receive cheaper gas from.. the ones they wish to get rid off?

These are negotiations, each country puts on the table what weapons it has. Ukraine for example, calling the review the lease price Russia pays to Ukraine for keeping its Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol. Russia pays about $97 million per year for the lease. Ukrania declared that the lease of the port facilities to Russia is underpriced and called for a complete valuation of inventory of the facilities, which could put the lease at ten times its current value.

Would you say yhat Ukraine is blackmailing Russia?

PS: For Russia to stop supporting Georgia (It is georgia you are refering as the last dictatorship? Russia supports more than one dictatorship), it needs to be come democratic first, which is something that "Czar" Putin will not allow.

What blackmail? Europe receives gas from Russia at market prices, why should an Ukraine that wishes to be independent from Russia receive cheaper gas from.. the ones they wish to get rid off?
Russia uses its natural gas resources as a political balckmail. Do as we want, and you get cheap gas. If you choose an independent policy, then freeze, sucker! A few years ago, when Moldova announced a measure the Russians didn't like, they cut the ammount of gas supplied in half, in the middle of winter, when it was most needed. Needless to say, Moldova changed its policy to suit the Russians.

These are negotiations, each country puts on the table what weapons it has. Ukraine for example, calling the review the lease price Russia pays to Ukraine for keeping its Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol. Russia pays about $97 million per year for the lease. Ukrania declared that the lease of the port facilities to Russia is underpriced and called for a complete valuation of inventory of the facilities, which could put the lease at ten times its current value.

Would you say yhat Ukraine is blackmailing Russia?
Perhaps Ukraine did that after Russia announced they'll increase the gas prices? Anyway, Ukraine is not using Sevastopol as a means of influencing the Russians. At most they're using it as a means of being less influenced by them. ;)

PS: For Russia to stop supporting Georgia (It is georgia you are refering as the last dictatorship? Russia supports more than one dictatorship), it needs to be come democratic first, which is something that "Czar" Putin will not allow.
I was talking about Belarus and Lukashenko. As far as I know, Russia doesn't support Georgia, which is actually in a rather simmilar situation with Ukraine. They've also had a peacefull revolution against the Russian supported authorities just a few years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Revolution

PS: For Russia to stop supporting Georgia (It is georgia you are refering as the last dictatorship? Russia supports more than one dictatorship), it needs to be come democratic first, which is something that "Czar" Putin will not allow.

I think they mean Belarus, which is one of the nations receiving special prices for natural gas from Russia because the local dictator is very close to Putin's regime. Plus, it serves as a nice, loyal buffer state between EU member Poland and the Russian border.

I hope Russia wins-As if they wouldn't
Where you serious about Chad vs whoever last week?

I hope Rusia wins-As if they wouldn't
Where you serious about Chad vs whoever last week?

There was a slight provocation there though I still suspect it.

Russia winning? No I don't forsee it happening if NATO gets involved.

There was a slight provocation there though I still suspect it.

Russia winning? No I don't forsee it happening if NATO gets involved.
No provocation intended and i wasn't aware of Ukraine being in NATO, in fact i don't follow it much as it doesn't affect me much.

I doubt NATO would become seriously involved.

No provocation intended and i wasn't aware of Ukraine being in NATO, in fact i don't follow it much as it doesn't affect me much.

I was talking about Chad Harlesburg.

I doubt NATO would become seriously involved.

I disagree. Russia moving troops into the Ukraine would not sit well with NATO. I don't think they'll sit on the sidelines.

Russia uses its natural gas resources as a political balckmail. Do as we want, and you get cheap gas. If you choose an independent policy, then freeze, sucker! A few years ago, when Moldova announced a measure the Russians didn't like, they cut the ammount of gas supplied in half, in the middle of winter, when it was most needed. Needless to say, Moldova changed its policy to suit the Russians.

Independence as a price. Next year the gas prices to the Baltic countries, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia are going to increase to $110. Since this is still well below the European price, there has been relatively little complaining from all of them. Except the Ukraine. Ukrainian heavy industry - its economic backbone - has horrible energy efficiency, much worse than Russia itself. At prices well above $100 per 1000 cubic meters, most steel and chemical plants are going to be money-losers. That is why when Gazpron offered in previous negotiations $160 for 2006, Ukraine still said no. Ukraine itself, however, produces more than 50% of the gas it consumes. Funny thing, it even exports some gas to Romania - at $265, even above (!) the price of Russian gas to Europe.


Perhaps Ukraine did that after Russia announced they'll increase the gas prices? Anyway, Ukraine is not using Sevastopol as a means of influencing the Russians. At most they're using it as a means of being less influenced by them. ;)


Yes, they did that after Russia moved in to renegotiate the conditions. Trying to play their cards, as weak as they are, however.


I was talking about Belarus and Lukashenko. As far as I know, Russia doesn't support Georgia, which is actually in a rather simmilar situation with Ukraine. They've also had a peacefull revolution against the Russian supported authorities just a few years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Revolution

I shall bash my head against a wall for my mistake, you are right :headbang:

Independence as a price. Next year the gas prices to the Baltic countries, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia are going to increase to $110. Since this is still well below the European price, there has been relatively little complaining from all of them. Except the Ukraine. Ukrainian heavy industry - its economic backbone - has horrible energy efficiency, much worse than Russia itself. At prices well above $100 per 1000 cubic meters, most steel and chemical plants are going to be money-losers. That is why when Gazpron offered in previous negotiations $160 for 2006, Ukraine still said no. Ukraine itself, however, produces more than 50% of the gas it consumes. Funny thing, it even exports some gas to Romania - at $265, even above (!) the price of Russian gas to Europe.
$265<$280, which is the price payed by Romania for the Russian gas (I've said it before, we must be doing something right, since the Russians are so pissed on us :D), so both sides profit from the deal. The fact that the Ukrainian factories are inefficient doesn't mean Russia isn't using its natural gas reserves (the largest in the world, as far as I know) to 'influence' its neighbour's policy. It only means they have more chances of being succesfull. :)

I shall bash my head against a wall for my mistake, you are right :headbang:
I hope you head is alright. :)

I was talking about Chad Harlesburg.



I disagree. Russia moving troops into the Ukraine would not sit well with NATO. I don't think they'll sit on the sidelines.
Oh thanks.

But full scale assaults?
I'll read the link.

Wrong. The first treaties on the way to the EU were IIRC earlier than NATO. The EU is not and never will be a military thing, it is an economic and political entity.


Wrong. France and Germany want the US to play by the rules. Whenever they do that, you will see that both governments are quite happy to help and work together (see Iran).


Trolling.
And not actually factual either...it's a "rapid response force", which is meant to be used in areas away from Europe in response to international crises.
If the EU wanted to go to war in earnest, it could easily field a million well-equipped, well-trained troops.


Of course you making a correct statement would require you to have any idea of the security policies of EU-members, which you don't have.


That time is over. Germany has put its weight towards the UK (not fully, but to some extent), such that there no longer is a ruling core in the EU.


Again, you have no idea of military doctrines in both nations.


Yeah, because the EU (and especially Germany) are so into going to war?


I think you are talking out of your arse. Remember Kosovo? What was so different then?


Yeah. "The EU's plan". :rolleyes:


They have done that a long time ago. The EU is accepted as an entity in international politics for years, and EU officials get the same honours as officials from nations.


I wish you would inform yourself. Germany does not go to war. Period.
And France has stated a billion times that they are committed to multilateral action, and to NATO.


It would be the President. The Ayatollahs don't actually do politics.
But that's beside the point. The US and the EU sat down together and made a plan:
First the EU tries the peaceful way and the US doesn't interfere and supports where necessary.
If that doesn't work, the US takes "other actions", and the EU supports where necessary.


Except that the EU is not a military entity, and NATO is - the EU's security policy being designed to improve the ability of NATO to deal with international crises.


Firstly the EU means to become a military entity. It means to be the governing body of Europe, and in order to be such you have to have a military force.


Kosovo was a conflict in which the leaders of Europe and Bill Clinton wanted to excise the power of the international community over that of the sovereigns in the region.

Its in Europes intrests to go to war in the Ukraine if it is invaded by Russia. It is not in Europes intrests to let Russia become the Russian Empire again.

Firstly the EU means to become a military entity. It means to be the governing body of Europe, and in order to be such you have to have a military force.
And that military force for the time being is integrated into NATO. The defense and security policy of the EU can be found here (http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf).
It is only understandable if there is more integration, seeing recent US moves to not use NATO but instead go it alone. But the EU remains committed for now.

Kosovo was a conflict in which the leaders of Europe and Bill Clinton wanted to excise the power of the international community over that of the sovereigns in the region.
Which would be different from the Ukraine how?

Its in Europes intrests to go to war in the Ukraine if it is invaded by Russia. It is not in Europes intrests to let Russia become the Russian Empire again.
Of course. But knowing that NATO is the perfect tool for dealing with Russia in a state of hightened military tensions, the EU will go to NATO, rather than use its own resources (which are still in development in some areas).

Firstly the EU means to become a military entity. It means to be the governing body of Europe, and in order to be such you have to have a military force.

source?!?!?!

actually the constitution (would have) put paid to any vague remaining hopes of a single european state (had it been voted in), as it clarified that the Union had no sovereignty except that which the member-states were willing to cede to it (which they also had the right to retract). only the belgians and the luxembourgish want a european state any more. (and those few people like me who class themselves as european rather than british ^_^ )


Its in Europes intrests to go to war in the Ukraine if it is invaded by Russia. It is not in Europes intrests to let Russia become the Russian Empire again.

emm, it's on the top of europe's interests to maintain a secure energy supply (which is why there is suddenly an embryonic common energy policy, which many leaders were against for years (not least the british)). i think, from their point of view, defending the ukrainian democracy is secondary to that. though in the long term, the best thing the Union can do is stop buying energy resources from russia, forever... (and dismantle it, region by region.)

don't get me wrong, though - if i was european prime minister i would definitely be sticking up for ukraine right now ^_^

And now coming back to the ground from all that war talk - reality hits home.

Russia did what Russia does, and the Ukraine is without gas. And now apparently some European countries suddenly received less gas, obviously suggesting that the Ukrainians have been siphoning some off.

The Americans are indeed concerned (they don't like price instability even less than most people do), and worry about Russia using resources for blackmail to hold their empire together.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4574630.stm)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_enl_1135960498/img/1.jpg

I wonder what a solution could look like...I can't see them getting together for a compromise at all somehow.

They wanted to expand the USSR into Russia and invaded it to do it. It didn't succeed. It was a war of aggression with no legal justification for an invasion.

Mmhmmm, and the Bay of Pigs and other, more recent debacles are entirely dissimilar hmmm?

And now coming back to the ground from all that war talk - reality hits home.

Russia did what Russia does, and the Ukraine is without gas. And now apparently some European countries suddenly received less gas, obviously suggesting that the Ukrainians have been siphoning some off.

The Americans are indeed concerned (they don't like price instability even less than most people do), and worry about Russia using resources for blackmail to hold their empire together.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4574630.stm)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_enl_1135960498/img/1.jpg

I wonder what a solution could look like...I can't see them getting together for a compromise at all somehow.

I don't think this dispute will get too far.

Personally, I can see it being resolved along the lines of; EU countries continue soft critisism of Russia for their lack of diplomacy. EU gas companies receiving less gas from Russia (via Ukraine) state they will be withholding payment for gas they do not receive and will have to "actively look to importing more gas via sea if Russia is unable to be a reliable supplier". This will put economic pressure on the Russian Federation at a time when it's economy isn't exactly strong and will also raise the prospect that Europe might look to other sources for natural gas to supplement Russian supplies in the future, thus endagering Russia's potential revenue in the future. I expect that European members (and possibly also the USA) of the G8 will start very quietly leaking things such as "is it appropriate for Russia to chair the G8 or even be a member of it, when energy security was one of the key discussion areas for the organisation this year".

After this pressure gets to Moscow, I expect it will offer further talks with Kiev and propose a lower (but still higher than the current price) gas price for Ukraine (along the lines of Georgia, Armenia etc). Behind the scenes, Europe will probably then put pressure on Ukraine to accept this price... and eventually it probably will.

Both sides will claim a victory.

Mmhmmm, and the Bay of Pigs and other, more recent debacles are entirely dissimilar hmmm?

The Bay of Pigs I'll grant on a technicality and only on a technicality.

And now coming back to the ground from all that war talk - reality hits home.

Russia did what Russia does, and the Ukraine is without gas. And now apparently some European countries suddenly received less gas, obviously suggesting that the Ukrainians have been siphoning some off.
Why of course they have. Leeching on the pipe as usual, just like I said.

I don't think this dispute will get too far.

Personally, I can see it being resolved along the lines of; EU countries continue soft critisism of Russia for their lack of diplomacy. EU gas companies receiving less gas from Russia (via Ukraine) state they will be withholding payment for gas they do not receive and will have to "actively look to importing more gas via sea if Russia is unable to be a reliable supplier".
Or just build new gaspipes via sea as Germany is already doing.

Anyway that's the point why I don't care too much about it.

Or just build new gaspipes via sea as Germany is already doing.

so putin can threaten eastern europe with 'petropower' whilst still receiving revenues from western europe... this is what the european union exists to prevent. germany showing off her community spirit, here...

The Bay of Pigs I'll grant on a technicality and only on a technicality.

Somehow, I don't think training a private army, equipping them with your own weaponry and sending them off to take over another nation is not quite a technicality,.

Somehow, I don't think training a private army, equipping them with your own weaponry and sending them off to take over another nation is not quite a technicality,.

Actually it can be since those that we landed were cuban nationals trained by the CIA. We were only supposed to supply the support but Kennedy said no.

so putin can threaten eastern europe with 'petropower' whilst still receiving revenues from western europe... this is what the european union exists to prevent. germany showing off her community spirit, here...
Exist to prevent? You have a rosy picture of EU. The rest of EU countries would do the exact same thing if they had the opportunity. The pipe was supposed to bring gas to other countries too, but perhaps someone in Germany knew what was going to happen (or someone from Gazprom told them) and they managed to change the deal so that they get all the gas from that pipe. (I'm not sure if Latvia is going to get some of it)

Or just build new gaspipes via sea as Germany is already doing.

Anyway that's the point why I don't care too much about it.
Hmm true.

Did they ever consider going via Finland and down to Estonia? Although I guess Moscow and Tallinn are hardly best of friends...

Actually it can be since those that we landed were cuban nationals trained by the CIA. We were only supposed to supply the support but Kennedy said no.

So let me get this straight. The US took in Cuban nationals, trained them to fight, equipped them with weapons, told them to more or less take over Cuba, gave them air support initially and only later pulled out when public opinion turned against them, and that's not an illegal invasion?

How's that any different from hiring mercenaries to invade a country?

Hmm true.

Did they ever consider going via Finland and down to Estonia? Although I guess Moscow and Tallinn are hardly best of friends...
They did. And then further down through Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. All of them would have benefitted from the project. Now only Germany and Russia benefit from it. Well, that's their right.
But, I don't think they should be able to build structures like that on the bottom of the sea without listening to the other Baltic Sea states.

Let's see if I have this right.

Europe, and Germany in particular, made a deal that makes them as dependent on Russian gas as the US is dependent on Middle East oil.

Pet project of Schroeder, who despite claims that there was no conflict of interest, has his hands up to his shoulders in Russian money bags right now.

They're even thinking of building a separate pipeline that bypasses the eastern European states, so that Russia can make money without having to deal with issues with border states.

Why should anyone care? Europeans obviously don't care - they want gas and their leaders get high paying positions at Gazprom in exchange. The US certainly can't tell Europe where to buy their gas, and Russia has all the cards here - gas, willing market, and nuclear weapons.

The only people being screwed are the places like Ukraine. I hear that Russian even bought up all the gas from Turkmenistan for the next few months so that Ukraine has nowhere to buy overland piped gas.

You got it almost right. They are not thinking of building a separate pipeline. They are building it right now.

And don't know about Turkmenistan but nothing surprises me.

Anyway I'm surprised that so many of you are concerned about Ukraine. They didn't want anything to do with Russia but get mad when Russia says that they have to pay as much as everyone else. Why on earth would Russia sell them cheap gas anymore. For charity?

You got it almost right. They are not thinking of building a separate pipeline. They are building it right now.

And don't know about Turkmenistan but nothing surprises me.

Anyway I'm surprised that so many of you are concerned about Ukraine. They didn't want anything to do with Russia but get mad when Russia says that they have to pay as much as everyone else. Why on earth would Russia sell them cheap gas anymore. For charity?
That's true, there is no real reason why Moscow should sell them cheap gas, and I think that the Ukrainians have said this also. I think they just want a gradual price rise over a set period of time rather than one day paying a token amount to the next day paying the amount a more economically developed richer European country would pay.

PS: Wonders how many American readers are thinking this is about gasoline/bensin/petroleum? ;)

That's true, there is no real reason why Moscow should sell them cheap gas, and I think that the Ukrainians have said this also. I think they just want a gradual price rise over a set period of time rather than one day paying a token amount to the next day paying the amount a more economically developed richer European country would pay.

PS: Wonders how many American readers are thinking this is about gasoline/bensin/petroleum? ;)

NO, I know it's natural gas...

You know, a LOT of the posters on this board are continually against the US involvement anywhere in the world, so I say, let's sit this one out. Let the EU handle thier own problems - they keep saying they can, so let 'em! And pull out of all our European bases to - you guys can turn them into theme parks or shopping malls. Hey, an airstrip would make a heck of an outdoor dance floor!
I wish you would inform yourself. Germany does not go to war. Period.

You mean, in the last 60 years, right?
Send 'em in, see if the Leopard II's "speed = protection" theory works against Russian T-90 MBTs.
I'll pop some popcorn, and watch, like we should have done the first time the Kaiser got frisky. ;)
If we need more natural gas, we'll either eat Texas chili, or get it from Mexico.

That's true, there is no real reason why Moscow should sell them cheap gas, and I think that the Ukrainians have said this also. I think they just want a gradual price rise over a set period of time rather than one day paying a token amount to the next day paying the amount a more economically developed richer European country would pay.

PS: Wonders how many American readers are thinking this is about gasoline/bensin/petroleum? ;)
Very true. Yet, they knew it was going to happen sooner or later. I'm quite sure they will find a solution if not this week then at least by the end of the next week. Some people seem to think that this is going to be the start for the next world war. At least.

heh, didn't even realise it before (gas)

Very true. Yet, they knew it was going to happen sooner or later. I'm quite sure they will find a solution if not this week then at least by the end of the next week. Some people seem to think that this is going to be the start for the next world war. At least.

heh, didn't even realise it before (gas)
Not something to start a world war over.

It's interesting that Ukraine saved up two months worth of gas in anticipation of this.

It's also interesting that Russia was OK with selling them gas at a major discount - until they elected someone Putin doesn't like.

It IS interesting that Russia cut the flow by double of what they thought the maximum Ukranian usage would be - which means that not only Ukraine will be short, but others will be short as well.

If we need more natural gas, we'll either eat Texas chili, or get it from Mexico.

I'd love to see you run a car on farts.

It's also interesting that Russia was OK with selling them gas at a major discount - until they elected someone Putin doesn't like.

It IS interesting that Russia cut the flow by double of what they thought the maximum Ukranian usage would be - which means that not only Ukraine will be short, but others will be short as well.
I guess you don't see/read too many news about Russia. That's how they have always acted. (so it's not interesting) Dealing with Russia is an artform.

I haven't seen or read any article where it says that Russia has cut the flow by double. Don't know if it's true or not. Anyway, it's not going to cause any damage to other countries.

I guess you don't see/read too many news about Russia. That's how they have always acted. (so it's not interesting) Dealing with Russia is an artform.

I haven't seen or read any article where it says that Russia has cut the flow by double. Don't know if it's true or not. Anyway, it's not going to cause any damage to other countries.

BBC World Service. I listen every day.

BBC World Service. I listen every day.
ok. It's back to normal now (except in Ukraine of course)

I'd love to see you run a car on farts.
Now that would truely be a world changing invention! Bring a whole new meaning to a "gas" station!;)

I guess you don't see/read too many news about Russia. That's how they have always acted. (so it's not interesting) Dealing with Russia is an artform.

It's called international politics. It's how most if not all semi-powerful nations are. Everyone who has the capabilty does it.

It's called international politics. It's how most if not all semi-powerful nations are. Everyone who has the capabilty does it.
Exactly. Many countries just do it in a bit more discreet way...


Anyway, Update:

Ukraine and Russia reach gas deal

Russia says gas supplies to Europe have now been fully restored
Russian and Ukrainian officials have reached an agreement in their dispute over the price of gas.
Under the deal, it appears Russian gas will be mixed with cheaper supplies from Central Asia and Ukraine will buy gas for US$95 for 1,000 cubic metres.

Russia had switched off the gas supply to Ukraine after Kiev refused to agree a fourfold hike in the price.

The row led to a disruption of imports across Europe, but correspondents say the threat to supplies is now over.

"We have reached a final agreement. It is successful for Gazprom and we are satisfied," the head of Russian energy company Gazprom told reporters.

"This agreement will ensure stable supplies to Europe."

Stealing claims

Delegates from Ukrainian state energy company Naftogaz held talks with Gazprom executives to try to resolve the dispute, which led to several states reporting shortfalls in the gas flow on Monday.

Gazprom stopped exporting gas to Ukraine on Sunday, after Ukraine refused to accept a rise in price from $50 to $230 for 1,000 cubic metres, but left enough in the pipeline for other customers.

Gazprom had accused Kiev of stealing gas intended for Europe.

Kiev denied any wrongdoing and said it was being punished for its attempts to become more independent from Moscow and develop stronger ties with the West.


BBC News

I read about 4 first pages and reply to the yabbling about Russia attacking Ukraine, Poland, Germany and whatnot, if NATO or EU or anyone tries to stop it.

Bollocks.

Russian army is shit at the moment. It is in deep shit with the Chechnya alone, not to mention Ukraine's army fighting for their country's independence. Russian equipment isn't any better than the Ukrainian equivalent, but the motivation of their personell couldn't be anywhere near that of the Ukrainians would be.

Russian army is no tool of offensive warfare at the moment, hardly enough to protect its long borders not to mention expanding them.

(not totally serious just awaiting reactions) Well. Let us (NATO / EU) attack Russia, together with the Ukraine. We could invade Belarus at the same time as they are the last dictatorship in Europe anyway. Poland can move its borders further east to include the Polish minorities in what we now call Belarus. Finland can claim what they lost in WWII. We will force Russia to give up all their valuable land and hire the Americans to supply to bulk of the occupation force, after all everyone knows Americans are nice occupiers.

Russia is divided and it will probably lie about it strength just like it did in the Cold War. Let us complete what our French and German friends tried.

(<--- did I write this?)

(not totally serious just awaiting reactions) Well. Let us (NATO / EU) attack Russia, together with the Ukraine. We could invade Belarus at the same time as they are the last dictatorship in Europe anyway. Poland can move its borders further east to include the Polish minorities in what we now call Belarus. Finland can claim what they lost in WWII. We will force Russia to give up all their valuable land and hire the Americans to supply to bulk of the occupation force, after all everyone knows Americans are nice occupiers.

Russia is divided and it will probably lie about it strength just like it did in the Cold War. Let us complete what our French and German friends tried.

(<--- did I write this?)

Does that mean the Poles will give back Silesia and Danzig back to Germany??:p

How's that any different from hiring mercenaries to invade a country?

Which Mercs are you talking about? The USSR invaded Afghanistan illegally.

I'm talking about moving Poland eastwards, I don't trust the Germans to get their hands on any more territory, Germans like to invade a country every 50 years and I'm surprised they didn't invade my country yet. So Polish Western border wil remain unchanged. Belarus will become an American puppet, Americans like puppets, this site is pretty American and people whine about puppets in these forums like it are they boy/girlfriends.

Besides Belarus and Russia I think Bulgarians are pretty dangerous. There was this one time, a guy asked me to mention ten reasonable facts about Bulgaria, and I totally failed.

Though, I dont think (or better say "I don't know") whether Bulgaria has anything in their soil which makes them worth attacking. We could irritate them by...

There must be some way to annoy them.