Ask a Russian

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, as far as I understand, putting ground troops there doesn't have much sense from military point of view. Baltic states are essentially a pocket surrounded by Russian and its allies territories. Small amount of troops will be outnumbered, threatening amount will be targeted by tactical nukes.
Which is why it is hard to buy that Kremlin having issues with NATO expansion here is due to some sort of genuine worry over national security of Russia.

Rather it enables to peddle a convenient narrative about Russia being, once again, threatened and insulted by the blue menace, to detract people's attention from more difficult domestic topics...
so why would Baltic states citizens be so touchy about NATO troops and bases being also targeted on their soil? Nothing personal, it's just the world we live in.
Well, I agree we shouldn't be.... in the event that high enough concentration of forces to merit such a tactical strike would ever become a reality - which I think is pretty unlikely prospect.
 
Which is why it is hard to buy that Kremlin having issues with NATO expansion here is due to some sort of genuine worry over national security of Russia.
The worry, as you understand, is not about NATO putting a million soldiers in Latvia and conquering Russia from there. Potential to use your territory for deployment of ground troops is just one of consequences.
 
Which is why it is hard to buy that Kremlin having issues with NATO expansion here is due to some sort of genuine worry over national security of Russia.
Well, I agree we shouldn't be.... in the event that high enough concentration of forces to merit such a tactical strike would ever become a reality - which I think is pretty unlikely prospect.
What you need to worry I think most just like the rest of the Europe together with Russia isnt so much a threat from Russian side but some third party trying to dramatically change the status quo in the region. Take the missile defense shield in Romania which is viewed as a potential threat in Russia and is likely bound to be targeted in potential conflict between US and Russia if some loco in Washington gets hold of the idea that the war for global supremacy can be won through the first strike on Russia and sacrificing some of its European allies in process. In this case Romanian fate will be decided elsewhere...
 
The worry, as you understand, is not about NATO putting a million soldiers in Latvia and conquering Russia from there. Potential to use your territory for deployment of ground troops is just one of consequences.
Yeah, but not sure I follow what you consider "the worry" to be...?
What you need to worry I think most just like the rest of the Europe together with Russia isnt so much a threat from Russian side but some third party trying to dramatically change the status quo in the region. Take the missile defense shield in Romania which is viewed as a potential threat in Russia and is likely bound to be targeted in potential conflict between US and Russia if some loco in Washington gets hold of the idea that the war for global supremacy can be won through the first strike on Russia and sacrificing some of its European allies in process. In this case Romanian fate will be decided elsewhere...
I partially agree in that a (pretty unlikely) conflict between Russia and NATO is at present more likely to have a different cause then Russia coming after Narva or smth.

However, the idea of a nuclear "first strike" from US is in a realm of a poor fiction. Nvm that Russia is definitely not in a position to be a contender in a "war for global supremacy".
 
Yeah, but not sure I follow what you consider "the worry" to be...?
Infrastructure. Existing and potential air, naval bases, radars, intelligence centers, missile silos, etc. Absence of buffer zone. In general, this territory is under control of adversary military block with military spending exceeding ours by an order of magnitude. And whose officials claim with straight faces that it's we who are threatening them.
 
In general, yes, these are good terms which would help to alleviate most of the problems. Some of the points look even too much of a concession from US side (of course nobody would say this at negotiation table). For instance, I don't like this sphere of influence stuff, both countries could just agree to limit their meddling in affairs of post-Soviet states. Like you can have institutions which promote your culture, education, democratic values, stuff like that there, but not to finance and organize mass protests, for "regime change". Frozen conflicts, and especially those which are not frozen, still would require cooperation to resolve. Ukrainian crisis would remain a serious problem, it cannot be left at current stage forever.
I was imagining that the sphere of influence stuff wouldn't be acknowledged directly and there would be some official agreement for both countries not to interfere in the internal politics of post-Soviet states. But geopolitics being what it is, I doubt that the Russian side would totally restrain itself from interfering in its neighbors' internal politics, so in practice there would be some sort of "sphere of influence", although not quite as blatant as during the Cold War. I agree that it's the US-funded organizations that fund and organize mass protests aiming to cause color revolutions which would lose official support, not everything having to do with liberal democracy. Basically I want to eliminate any US involvement in regime change operations.

As for conflicts, of course there would still need to be active negotiations to deal with the situation. The idea is basically that Russia is not allowed to support the DPR and LPR in seizing additional territory, should the ceasefire agreement break down entirely. I imagine that Putin is too invested in this conflict to permit the Ukrainians from winning that war entirely, either, so realistically there would still be Russian support if Ukraine started winning following a breakdown of the ceasefire agreement. Ideally the conflict will resolve with some sort of compromise granting autonomy to those regions, but at this point it looks like they're just turning into a pair of unrecognized frozen conflict states, like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria.

As for NATO forces in the Baltic states, I think the idea is to put some number of troops so as to make it clear that, if the Russians were to invade, there would be armed resistance from non-Baltic NATO countries and it would generate a broader war against NATO. But putting enough troops there to actually threaten Russia is another matter, as would stationing missiles there.
 
The whole notion of "buffers" is illusory and even dangerous at this point. Never mind the mockery it tends to make of self-determination.

Especially since Russia apparently hasn't quite asked itself what kind of offensive assets NATO actually has? If defense and "buffering" is supposedly what it's about...

Or rather this isn't a military problem but a political one — at least not beyond the extent Russia might chose to make it military, for lack of other effective political responses.
 
I was imagining that the sphere of influence stuff wouldn't be acknowledged directly and there would be some official agreement for both countries not to interfere in the internal politics of post-Soviet states. But geopolitics being what it is, I doubt that the Russian side would totally restrain itself from interfering in its neighbors' internal politics, so in practice there would be some sort of "sphere of influence", although not quite as blatant as during the Cold War. I agree that it's the US-funded organizations that fund and organize mass protests aiming to cause color revolutions which would lose official support, not everything having to do with liberal democracy. Basically I want to eliminate any US involvement in regime change operations.

As for conflicts, of course there would still need to be active negotiations to deal with the situation. The idea is basically that Russia is not allowed to support the DPR and LPR in seizing additional territory, should the ceasefire agreement break down entirely. I imagine that Putin is too invested in this conflict to permit the Ukrainians from winning that war entirely, either, so realistically there would still be Russian support if Ukraine started winning following a breakdown of the ceasefire agreement. Ideally the conflict will resolve with some sort of compromise granting autonomy to those regions, but at this point it looks like they're just turning into a pair of unrecognized frozen conflict states, like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria.
What can I say, your assessment of the situation looks correct to me and your hypothetical offers seem to be a good start for normalizing relations. It will of course also depend on who will be in charge in our countries - I think it's extremely unlikely to get these offers from Clinton and even Trump administration. As for Putin, I think he would also agree to negotiate on these terms. And Putin has two years and one more term to serve, until 2024.

As for NATO forces in the Baltic states, I think the idea is to put some number of troops so as to make it clear that, if the Russians were to invade, there would be armed resistance from non-Baltic NATO countries and it would generate a broader war against NATO. But putting enough troops there to actually threaten Russia is another matter, as would stationing missiles there.
I'm sure Russia is not going to invade Baltic States in foreseeable future even if they won't have any NATO protection, including 5-th article. So, there should be no objections against putting NATO troops there as long as their numbers and specialization fits into defensive agenda. From what I know, even Russian state media reaction to this movement was more like "meh, whatever".
 
I think that NATO expansion rapidly improved security of Russia. First the national armies went into more specialised tasks leading to not complex armies, unlike neutral countries under threat of potential invasion and second there is much more control from other countries. In invasion of Georgia or Ukraine would be neutral Turkey or Poland much bigger threat to Russia, even if it would be not doing of its governments.
 
Any of 3-rd party candidates would be better. From these two, Trump. He is unpredictable, but Clinton is predictably bad.
 
I think that NATO expansion rapidly improved security of Russia. First the national armies went into more specialised tasks leading to not complex armies, unlike neutral countries under threat of potential invasion and second there is much more control from other countries. In invasion of Georgia or Ukraine would be neutral Turkey or Poland much bigger threat to Russia, even if it would be not doing of its governments.
Those national armies were never a threat to Russia in the first place. Now they serve as a useful idiots for US-made and perpetually sustained absurd and sickening so-called war on terror. NATO is meant to be a defensive alliance but its has been invading, destroying and suppressing other countries. It has become an instrument for manipulation and not for cooperation and small highly specialised armies lacking capacity to complexly defend its own territory such as the Czech army are the result of that. Still members such as Baltic countries or partners like Georgia can be used to keep Russia somewhat in check for now. But does it serve it well to the development of these countries? Is the region more secure because of that? I dont think so.
 
Both last Czech presidents have same choice with same reasoning. Russian agents? :mischief:

Spoiler :
subjekty, které pořád jen bubnují na poplach proti Rusku, jsou beznadějně zaseklé v roce 1968 a nepřipustí si, že svět se už od té doby někam posunul. Pořád jenom sázejí na již dávno vyčpělé emoce, a jakmile zjistí, že to nefunguje, tak se stávají agresivní a začínají skrytě nebo i méně skrytě vyhrožovat. Co jiného než vyhrožování je označování lidí nesouhlasících s oficiálním mainstreamem za Putinovy agenty? Jinými slovy, obviňování těchto lidí z trestného činu vyzvědačství podle paragrafu 316 trestního zákona? Uvědomují si tito lidé, že se sami dopouštějí trestného činu křivého obvinění podle paragrafu 345 téhož zákona?
http://www.parlamentnilisty.cz/aren...suji-zakon-varuje-vysokoskolsky-ucitel-454364
 
Spoiler :
subjekty, které pořád jen bubnují na poplach proti Rusku, jsou beznadějně zaseklé v roce 1968 a nepřipustí si, že svět se už od té doby někam posunul. Pořád jenom sázejí na již dávno vyčpělé emoce, a jakmile zjistí, že to nefunguje, tak se stávají agresivní a začínají skrytě nebo i méně skrytě vyhrožovat. Co jiného než vyhrožování je označování lidí nesouhlasících s oficiálním mainstreamem za Putinovy agenty? Jinými slovy, obviňování těchto lidí z trestného činu vyzvědačství podle paragrafu 316 trestního zákona? Uvědomují si tito lidé, že se sami dopouštějí trestného činu křivého obvinění podle paragrafu 345 téhož zákona?
http://www.parlamentnilisty.cz/aren...suji-zakon-varuje-vysokoskolsky-ucitel-454364
Mr professor is free to report me:lol:
 
Mr professor is free to report me:lol:

You are not accusing anybody but I suspect that you presented this idea here because of how the public discourse in our country has been polluted with this hunt on Russian agents. Its a kind of propaganda and I am bringing it to your attention so you know how to defend yourself from people and entities who dont care for discussion or truth but for their interests. In the name of good, democracy and freedom these idiots are covertly propagating their specific interest and calling it fair and just.
 
You are not accusing anybody but I suspect that you presented this idea here because of how the public discourse in our country has been polluted with this hunt on Russian agents. Its a kind of propaganda and I am bringing it to your attention so you know how to defend yourself from people and entities who dont care for discussion or truth but for their interests. In the name of good, democracy and freedom these idiots are covertly propagating their specific interest and calling it fair and just.

In what parallel universe? I know only one guy who is hunting Russian agents, Petr Cibulka, but he is considered maybe less sane than your professor by mainstream.
 
In what parallel universe? I know only one guy who is hunting Russian agents, Petr Cibulka, but he is considered maybe less sane than your professor by mainstream.

Dude, its everywhere. I know because I dont consume the mainstream media so when I do I get hit by the full swing of their agenda and propaganda. You always get only one side of the story and they invite only "right" people for the discussions. Its ridiculous. These media dont give you chance to form your opinion they gave you the opinion and thats the core of the problem. And than you get some loosers from US sponsored NGOs who chant irrational drivels about Russian agents. Wake up from that parallel universe, if you wish...

Just one sample for fun: The US Embassy has many collaborators in the Czech NGO's
 
This is kinda subjective. I would say Belorussia, Ukraine (most of the Ukrainians, not the ones who lost their mind), probably Cuba. In Europe it's Mediterranean countries, Greece, Italy, Spain.
Hmm, strange about the Ukrainians. Some Russian friends who live here say that Ukrainians are really Polish nazis. :crazyeye:
red_elk said:
The guy probably thinks he annoys me :)
Let's not disappoint him.
:salute:
As for Putin, I think he would also agree to negotiate on these terms. And Putin has two years and one more term to serve, until 2024.
Does he stand any chance of, well, adding more terms?

(I think declaring himself outright President for life as Tito did is a bit too far, but perhaps repealing limits on re-election would be feasible)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom