What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?

[Muzh]

If it was so democratic and the Russians were so convinced that the population supported them, why the rush? They could have waited until the end of May. Gave people a chance to discuss the options. Heck, they could have given the option of keeping the status quo. Then, they could have invited legitimate international observers by the busload to confirm that the elections were conducted fairly and openly...

Heh
 
Misha, noticed how your statement was totally ignored?
 
Could it be that it made some sense? 
 

[Larry1]

I had read that the Russian army had been undergoing a modernization of its equipment.  This article goes into some of the details of this modernization that could enhance its chances of success should it invade Eastern Ukraine:

Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear

Elite Russian troops are displaying a new arsenal of body armor, individual weapons, armor-piercing ammunition and collar radios — a menu of essential gear that gives them a big tactical advantage against a lesser-equipped Ukrainian army. If President Vladimir Putin orders an invasion, the new-generation body armor, in particular, would provide exceptional protection against small arms if Russian troops go street by street to capture Kiev and other cities.

“If the Russians are coming across mechanized, with airborne and infantry units wearing their body armor, it basically means the Ukrainian rifles have no ability to penetrate the body armor worn by the Russian troops, meaning you’re talking about having to shoot somebody six, seven, eight times, in the chest,” Mr. Traudt said. “They’re going to get bumped, but there’s no lethality involved.”

... In all, Russian fighters, including Mr. Putin’s hired guns of ex-military commandos who wear civilian clothes, have displayed a new inventory of rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers and rocket-propelled grenades. The Russians claim the RPG can kill a tank.

... the better-equipped Russian soldier is bad news for the smaller and budget-strapped Ukraine military, which numbers about 160,000.

[The Obama administration] has rejected Ukrainian requests for lethal, and most nonlethal, military gear, except packaged food, blankets, sleeping bags, helmets and generators...

Ukraine has become a U.S. ally by sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet its military is having trouble persuading the Obama administration to provide any aid, even bedding.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/20/tactical-advantage-russian-military-shows-off-impr/

[Gator]

Larry,

You need to look only at Russia's invasion of Georgia territory in 2008 for an answer. 

[Gator]

 
Misha, noticed how your statement was totally ignored?
 
Could it be that it made some sense? 

This is a moot point. Russia has Crimea and will never give it back.  Besides, I believe even in a UN-sanctioned referendum,  the majority of Crimean citizens would have voted for secession.


Let that not stop us from discussing it, especially as it has implications for eastern Ukraine.  Misha's quote does make sense in challenging BC's claim that the secession of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was "a democratic process regardless whether or not it is recognized by others."   


This begs the bigger question of whether Crimea's constitution as an Autonomous Republic gave it the right to hold a referendum about secession.   If not, the process was not democratic and instead was a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

I tried to study the matter and found no conclusive evidence.  Seemingly, the right of secession first should have been addressed by the World Court even though it has no compulsory jurisdiction.  That would have been a democratic process.  Instead, we had the Russian pragmatic process.

A quote from the Guardian says it best:  "What makes a secessionist claim successful in the eyes of the international community – indeed, in the eyes of the people fighting for secession – is the existence of a historical grievance over territory. No such legal claim can be made surrounding Crimea."

This precedent is logically spilling over into eastern Ukraine.  Self-autonomy is being discussed.  Will a referendum be proposed there?  Will the ambiguity of the borders of Ukraine with FSU republics of Moldova, Belarus and Russia be an issue?   Or will the big bully just simply take it covertly?

[GQBlues]

Difference is GQBlues..English troops,wearing no insigna,but leaping out of British attack Helicopters, won't go into Scotland wearing ski-masks and carrying AK-47'S to make sure the Scots vote to stay with Great Britain in their referendum...so we won't be invading their country and rigging the votes at gunpoint...with Cameron saying "we have no troops in Scotland" ..spot the difference ?...

Considering the legacy of the good kingdom, you really need to get a good bit of objectivity, CB. Familiarize yourself with the Suez crisis and tell us if YOU spot any difference. LOL

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/suez

Scotland have its own 'oil' and with a whopping 2013 250 billion GDP, that's one region the good kingdom cannot afford to lose.

The strife in the middle east today, the turmoil that haunts Africa today, are direct results of the hegemony and land-grabbing habits of the decadent west. Rome may have crumbled eons ago but its legacy and habit still prevails today.

Do you honestly believe the Arab Spring were perpetuated by altruistic need of its respective population to be 'free'? We've been tampering instability in these regions since even before the colonial years. Take a step back and watch all the recent events and you'll see Ukraine is no different than any of the Arab/African/Balkan shifts we've recently lay witness to. The lone difference is, with Ukraine today - Russia actively reacted.

...As for the Falklands I suggest you check your facts...the British have claimed sovereignity since 1690..before the Argies came on the scene ,and have exercised defacto sovereignity since 1833..without gifting them to Argentina,so exactly where is the recent invasion and land-grab by the Brits ?...

First, if you're going all the way back to the middle ages, then allow me to remind you Kiev belongs to Russia, OK?

LOL. Regarding the south seas, I always knew the facts, CB. So do Argentina. You should too. Just because the UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and facts and reality by the little guys don't mean sh!t, doesn't mean we have to buy into the lies and hypocrisy, no?

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/08/14/falklands-included-in-argentina-s-un-continental-shelf-committee-presentation

http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/resources/south_atlantic/

Now you can claim they colonized this mass of a land waste (though the Portuguese may disagree with you about it ) but the more you might want to argue the point, the more you'll be proving mine. Just because I laid claim unto anything in your home, or that belongs to you, simply because I can and you're too weak to defend it, doesn't mean it's legit, no? Yup...just like what's going on in Ukraine today.

There's no geographical reason for the UK to have sovereign rights over the Falklands. NONE. It's just a simple, good ol' fashioned land-grab/hegemony, CB. The same type of hegemony and land-grabbing modus operandi the likes of you are bitching about Russia's action in Ukraine today, man.

...The reality is Argentina tried a Russia style heist and failed....

No. The reality really is, when you lose all sense of objectivity, and merely think from the knee (jerk reactions), more times than not, like BillyB, you start shooting from the hip. Had Argentina been a source of the MOB dirty barrel, I can almost guarantee you you'd be screaming the return of what REALISTICALLY belongs to them. LOL. That's just human nature, man.

Bottom line, if you need to bitch about someone that you feel is creating instability and unrest in Ukraine, I suggest looking first at yourself and your government. I know I have and had no problem seeing that to be the truth.

The problem of corruption in Ukraine need to start with the people itself. Corruption is a way of life with its people. It's comical to have people talk about how evil and corrupt its politicians are. You've been there and you can't honestly tell me that corruption is NOT prevalent at its very basic social core. You may not like what and how Russia *governed* Ukraine all these years, but it'll behoove the Ukrainians to solicit the opinions of Arabs and Africans alike how THEY liked being governed by the west all these years.

Marrying the devil you know instead of the devil you don't, sometimes have its advantages.

Now, I will agree with you that what Russia is doing is NOT cool. But neglecting/ignoring the actual cause of this crisis is where we differ.

FWIW. I like the Brits above all others. You were always the ones to stand with the US despite all...good, bad or indifference.

[Misha]

First, if you're going all the way back to the middle ages, then allow me to remind you Kiev belongs to Russia, OK?

If we were to go all the way back to let's say the year 1000AD, we would have to raze Moscow as the city did not exist during the height of Kievan Rus and it only got its first prince much later. Finally, Russia would rightfully belong to Ukraine (Kyiv) where the Grand Prince would reside 

[GQBlues]

If we were to go all the way back to let's say the year 1000AD, we would have to raze Moscow as the city did not exist during the height of Kievan Rus and it only got its first prince much later. Finally, Russia would rightfully belong to Ukraine (Kyiv) where the Grand Prince would reside 

Dammit no. 

There never was such a country/state/kingdom/nation as 'Ukraine' until the beginning of the 20th century. Post-Russian revolution.

Kiev was technically a territory belonging to the eldest brother Kyi, who for all intent and purposes was *Russian* (he was sexy, too so I think he's likely part-Filipino. At least a 1/4) - hence Kievan (Kyi - Rus).

So there you have it. Ukraine rightfully belongs to Russia. All of it.

btw- I wish Sandro would rewrite history a little better. Why they called this period 'medieval ages' considering it's technically wrong to call it the 'middle ages' when the period in question was during the 1100-1400s. Hardly the middle of the millennium.

[Muzh]

Dammit no. 

There never was such a country/state/kingdom/nation as 'Ukraine' until the beginning of the 20th century. Kiev was technically a territory belonging to the eldest brother Kyi, who for all intent and purposes was *Russian* (he was sexy, too so I think he's likely part-Filipino. At least a 1/4) - hence Kievan (Kyi - Rus).

So there you have it. Ukraine rightfully belongs to Russia. All of it.

btw- I wish Sandro would rewrite history a little better. Why they called this period 'medieval ages' considering it's technically wrong to call it the 'middle ages' when the period in question was during the 1100-1400s. Hardly the middle of the millennium.

LMAO
 
Part Filipino??
 
You too much baby.
 
Besides thre was no Russia. It was Moscovy.

[GQBlues]

LMAO
 
Part Filipino??...

  There's no doubt, man 

3/4 Wladimir Klitschko, 1/4 Manny Pacquiao..

Bwalla! Brad Pitt!
 

[CanadaMan]

Heh
 
Misha, noticed how your statement was totally ignored?
 
Could it be that it made some sense? 

Or how about a more positive spin such as....

Heh Misha, good post!   

It's much more pleasant to read and much less
assumptive.

[missAmeno]

Dammit no. 

There never was such a country/state/kingdom/nation as 'Ukraine' until the beginning of the 20th century. Post-Russian revolution.

Kiev was technically a territory belonging to the eldest brother Kyi, who for all intent and purposes was *Russian* (he was sexy, too so I think he's likely part-Filipino. At least a 1/4) - hence Kievan (Kyi - Rus).

So there you have it. Ukraine rightfully belongs to Russia. All of it.

btw- I wish Sandro would rewrite history a little better. Why they called this period 'medieval ages' considering it's technically wrong to call it the 'middle ages' when the period in question was during the 1100-1400s. Hardly the middle of the millennium.

GQB, could you please clarify if it is pure attempt of a joke or absolute lack of knowledge about history of Russia, Ukraine and Київська Русь?

[GQBlues]

GQB, could you please clarify if it is pure attempt of a joke or absolute lack of knowledge about history of Russia, Ukraine and Київська Русь?

MissA, usually when a post if preceded by  a *  * sort of gives you an idea about the gist of the post.

The bottom line is, Ukraine, the country *we* know today, didn't become a country/nation/republic until the early 1900s. So, what is a country? You'd be amazed at the many definition of the word but one of the more constant definition will be 'with distinct territorial boundaries and/or political geography'.

Now, if you'd like to go back to when the land rose above the seas and thawed after the ice age and was eventually inhabited by humans, well then the question is, will they be comprised of, and ruled by, or governed by: Slavs (Cossacks), Goths, Tatars, Avars, Slovyans, Persians, Poles, Lithuanians, Greeks, Mongols, Huns, or maybe even Filipinos - you never know, right?), etc...? 

Are they represented by Ukraine's people today....not exactly, no?

So when all is said and done, all that really matters TODAY is this: Ukraine is under siege. Siege by its own people, siege by capitalistic/imperial political forces outside its borders, siege by its leaders and siege by the untruth. No?

Ukraine, it seems, by itself, can't even *decide* its own fate - not by its own constitution - not by itself still - yet longs for full *independence*. It couldn't shortly after 1919, and it couldn't shortly after 1991. It couldn't under Tymoschenko and it couldn't during Yanukovych. But Ukraine had a chance very recently. Unfortunately, it proved it still couldn't after all these years. Unless of course you'd like to discount the Russian population nationalized by Ukraine. Because if you do, then the *will of the majority of the Ukrainian people* means very little indeed.

Thus, it finds itself right back from when the ice first started melting...

[Misha]

The bottom line is, Ukraine, the country *we* know today, didn't become a country/nation/republic until the early 1900s.

How is this relevant? Poland was only reconstituted as a state in 1918. Following this logic, Great Britain should never have gone to war against Nazi Germany. Even Germany did not exist anywhere close to the country *we* know today until 1871 and Italy 1870 IIRC but Sandro will certainly correct me if I am wrong If we follow this logic, we should at least decide on some form of cut-off date as to better decide how we will spin history to redraw political maps 

Ukraine is under siege. Siege by its own people

That is the Russian spin on things, but most ethnic Ukrainians don't see Russians as their "own" people. MissA will certainly be able to address this in greater detail. If we are to follow this logic, this would mean that the United States could invade Canada and Great Britain as they are the same "people" for the most part as all could claim to trace their political lineages to England.

[GQBlues]

How is this relevant? Poland was only reconstituted as a state in 1918. Following this logic, Great Britain should never have gone to war against Nazi Germany. Even Germany did not exist anywhere close to the country *we* know today until 1871 and Italy 1870 IIRC but Sandro will certainly correct me if I am wrong If we follow this logic, we should at least decide on some form of cut-off date as to better decide how we will spin history to redraw political maps  ...

That's exactly the point (such I reiterated with my post to MissA above), Misha. So when is the period of relevance for Ukraine in your opinion? 1921? 1991? Today?

....That is the Russian spin on things, but most ethnic Ukrainians don't see Russians as their "own" people. MissA will certainly be able to address this in greater detail. If we are to follow this logic, this would mean that the United States could invade Canada and Great Britain as they are the same "people" for the most part as all could claim to trace their political lineages to England....

Ahh...therein lies the rub. That type of logic would nullify literally every country in the world we know today. Do you consider yourself 'Canadian'? Should your vote have counted as a Canadian? Should you have a voice in Canada?

[Misha]

That type of logic would nullify literally every country in the world we know today.

Yes, and that is why international law for better or for worse applies to existing states and existing boundaries. To do otherwise invites global chaos.

[GQBlues]

Yes, and that is why international law for better or for worse applies to existing states and existing boundaries. To do otherwise invites global chaos.

Hence every state or country MUST respect the will of its majority to avert chaotic crisis. The will of the majority is wholly represented by the appointment of its leader regardless of the ethnicity of its citizens.

[southernX]

what would a war look like , ??


truth is we have been watching it since the 27th feb ,
russia has invaded ukraine , it has consistently been active in destabilising ukraine from within  for even much longer,

maiden protesters recognised the need to break from its sphere of influence , as this is one of the major contributing factors to its current malaise manifested in all aspects within ukraine

putins slow invasion and destabilising tactics are working , very effectivly, many here are willing to justify his actions rather than confront the reality and support more positive action against him ,

the countrys that signed the budapest memorandum are now doing much less that they agreed to at that time ,

human nature dictates self preservation first usually , except in rare individuals , currently we dont have any such individuals in the roles of power that are needed to stop this dead,

NATO should have put peacekeepers on the ground into ukraine since feb 27, to ensure a peacefull enviroment for the interim gov in ukraine to be able to hold elections on may 25th

given that they did not do so , elections will not be held , the continuing escalation in the south east will provide the twisted rationale for putin to move in and hold that part of ukraine and even into moldova ,
before may 9th imho

he will then hold armed bogus referendums to annexe it to russia , regardless of the real will of the people

the chapters are  already written ,  until such time as NATO/EU/US  take serious action to stop him he will continue ,

anyone who thinks otherwise is not following this from putins perspective

it is not a win/win for anyone other than putin at present , get real and stop kidding yourselves on that

all indicators are he will succeed , facts on the ground prove this out over the last 8 weeks  that is what counts
regardless of it being illegal on multiple fronts, regardless of the human cost it will inflict on the population in ukraine
SX

[Misha]

Hence every state or country MUST respect the will of its majority to avert chaotic crisis. The will of the majority is wholly represented by the appointment of its leader regardless of the ethnicity of its citizens.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make here? How does this apply to either Ukraine or Russia? If you are talking about Crimea, there was simply enough haste and some questionable actions to put into question whether the will of any majority was truly respected.

[southernX]

What exactly is the point you are trying to make here? How does this apply to either Ukraine or Russia? If you are talking about Crimea, there was simply enough haste and some questionable actions to put into question whether the will of any majority was truly respected.

example being , if we look at crimea , the recent election within their armed and russian soldier supervised parliament back in late feb of the now prime minister aksanov shows us how a guy who has criminal history can go on to form his own political party , get less than 4% of the vote in 2012 under free elections but then inlate feb 2014 win an overwhelming majority of votes to become prime minister ???
AND now it is being legitimised and recognised as the true democratic will of the crimean population ,

bloody incredulous !
SX

[GQBlues]

What exactly is the point you are trying to make here? How does this apply to either Ukraine or Russia? If you are talking about Crimea, there was simply enough haste and some questionable actions to put into question whether the will of any majority was truly respected.

Well Misha I didn't really think it needed explanation. I thought dismissing in answering my question was a submission you at least got the point.

So the point was, Ukraine elected a president fairly and legally. Which means that whoever became president represented the *majority will* of Ukrainians in Ukraine - regardless of ethnicity. Thus the president represented the *will of the people*. Whether Yanu was pro-Russian or not was never an issue until they found gas in Ukraine late 2012-2013 and the west started meddling around the country's internal affairs.

Yanu decided to align with Russia instead of the west and brokered a deal. Considering he's the duly elected president, the power was given to him to decide for the people by proxy. He decided to go with Russia and next thing you know, there's a protest. Then the ensuing illegal ousting of the country's leader...and bwalla, a nicely packaged crisis.

We've seen this before. It happened in our life time many times already even as recently as the Arab Spring i.e. Libya.

The additional interesting thing about this too is, the residing council members who were short in voting to depose of the president were officials elected in the last election which was coincidentally hailed as being mired by bribery and corruption. Even then, by Ukraine's constitution, they didn't meet the required 2/3 to impeach - fell ten votes short 328 from the required 338.

If any of what I said here is wrong, let me know by proving otherwise (citation).

[Belvis]

If we were to go all the way back to let's say the year 1000AD, we would have to raze Moscow as the city did not exist during the height of Kievan Rus and it only got its first prince much later. Finally, Russia would rightfully belong to Ukraine (Kyiv) where the Grand Prince would reside 

History channel: Moscow was founded by Kievan Grand Prince  Yuri Dolgoruki in XII c.
We have no objections if Grand Prince of Russia and Ukraine will reside back in Kiev again.

[fathertime]

It appeared to me that there was a general understanding that the parliament did not have the necessary votes to oust the president.  They did it anyway...and now they have problems... From what I've been reading over the past several weeks, the current Ukraine leadership has very little support...even the troops just handed over their tanks/weapons to the opposition...that certainly doesn't bode well for whoever is in power.  We *the USA* really stepped in a big pile of doodoo this time.  I don't see Russia letting go now, regardless of whatever threats we muster up....it didn't have to be this way.  If Ukraine becomes a federation, that should be considered a victory for both sides. 


Fathertime!   

[southernX]

It appeared to me that there was a general understanding that the parliament did not have the necessary votes to oust the president.  They did it anyway...and now they have problems, regardless of whatever   

Fathertime!

FT  regardless of how ukraine parliament voted etc , it is still ''THERE ''internal issue to sort out , not russias

there seems to be some sort of justification for russias intervention/invasion theft of ukraine lands based on this ,   how is that logic derived at ??

If Ukraine becomes a federation, that should be considered a victory for both sides. 

ukraine should be left in peace , have NATO peackeepers on the ground imediatly to oversee the free elections on 25th may , with russia completly withdrawing its forces away from the border and internally from ukraine soil , that is a win FT , anything else is not a win for ukraine , just another loss

SX

[Misha]

History channel: Moscow was founded by Kievan Grand Prince  Yuri Dolgoruki in XII c.
We have no objections if Grand Prince of Russia and Ukraine will reside back in Kiev again.

I was in Moscow when they celebrated their 850th anniversary in 1997. The date was chosen because it was the first time the town was mentioned in written history. It remained an insignificant locale until it was granted to Alexander Nevsky's youngest son Daniel in the 13th century and it would not really grow to be a center of any importance until the 14th century, long after the decline of Kievan Rus. But, much like a certain wannabe Tsar, the Princes of Moscow did seek to aggrandize their status by claiming the glory of Kyiv/Kiev and its past as its own...

[fathertime]

Hey Sx,  in a perfect world Ukraine would not be fiddled with by anyone...I think the Russian perspective is that the west *usa* had a lot to do with the events leading up to Y's sudden departure right before he was about to sign the pro Russia deal...if that is where they are coming from then they probably feel entitled to meddle all they want..

It appears to me that when the chips are down much of the Ukraine citizenry is going to choose the Russian side, especially if the other side is the USA. We are a fish out of water in Russia's backyard. it is a bad move for our nation to get deeper into this as it appears to escalate and make matters worse..imo
Fathertime!