"Act Of War" After Russia "Fires At Ukraine Ships", Seizes Three Vessels Off Crimea

Dec 13, 2016
654
53
70
google.com
#1
More at zerohedge article

Following reports from the Ukraine navy that Russian ships had fired on Ukraine vessels near the Kerch Strait, Ukraine accused Moscow of also illegally seizing three of its naval ships - the “Berdyansʹk” and “Nikopolʹ” Gurza-class small armored artillery boats and a raid tug A-947 “Jani Kapu” - off Crimea on Sunday after opening fire on them, a charge that if confirmed could ignite a dangerous new crisis between the two countries.


As reported earlier, Russia did not immediately respond to the allegation, but Russian news agencies cited the FSB security service as saying it had incontrovertible proof that Ukraine had orchestrated what it called “a provocation” and would make its evidence public soon. According to media reports, Russia said it has "impounded" three Ukrainian naval ships after they crossed the border with Russia


Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko immediately called a meeting with his top military and security chiefs to discuss the situation.
In history we can find lesser incidents that led to full scale conventional wars...
 

Senior

Neo Member
Nov 21, 2018
19
18
85
#3
With tension rising around the globe, I will be pleasantly surprised if the world doesn't go through another war in my lifetime.

The Russians have been checking for how much they can get away with for years now and this just another attempt.
No country wants to be the one to start conflict (understandably) and Russia is using this to their advantage.
 
Oct 3, 2004
1,169
674
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
#6
In history we can find lesser incidents that led to full scale conventional wars...
Which is why stating such a situation can lead to war doesn't serve anyone any good.

It's an aggressive means of handling a situation where both parties accuse the other of wrongdoing. According to Washington Post, "popular Russian TV host Dmitry Kiselyov told state television that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was picking a fight with Russia at the prompting of the United States." Take that with a nice helping of salt, of course.
 
Feb 22, 2018
809
713
290
#7
Ukraine should have never gotten rid of their nuclear weapons for NATO protection.
That's not how it works. Ukraine couldn't afford to maintain any of them. Throughout its ~20 year lifetime a single warhead costs $1 billion to maintain.

Kazakhstan and Belarus also gave up their nukes. No problem. don't bite the hand that feed you, got nothing to worry about.

The Russians have been checking for how much they can get away with for years now and this just another attempt.
NATO has been checking how much it can get away with. Surrounding Russia will ensure Russia responds.
 
Last edited:

RedCarp04

Neo Member
Feb 24, 2018
14
10
100
#8
Theres also Ukraine elections thats approaching and looking up Poroshenko, it looks like hes quite unpopular and some are saying hes using this as an excuse to declare martial law and postpone the elections.
 
Last edited:
Sep 1, 2017
397
176
210
#9
That's not how it works. Ukraine couldn't afford to maintain any of them. Throughout its ~20 year lifetime a single warhead costs $1 billion to maintain.

Kazakhstan and Belarus also gave up their nukes. No problem. don't bite the hand that feed you, got nothing to worry about.



NATO has been checking how much it can get away with. Surrounding Russia will ensure Russia responds.

In 1994, through an accident of fate, the newly independent country of Ukraine found itself in possession of the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal.
At first, Ukraine planned to keep its nuclear weapons. But, at the insistence of the two strongest powers in the world — Russia and the United States — Ukraine agreed to give up their nukes in exchange for perpetual guarantees of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

This supposedly ironclad treaty, signed 20 years ago, was the Budapest Memorandum.
The world was a different place then. The Soviet Union was breaking up, and many of the former Russian satellite states in Eastern Europe were becoming independent countries.
Why not give up their nukes? Russia was their protector and would always be there, and the U.S. lived up to its treaties. Ukraine didn’t need nuclear weapons. The Treaty was signed by Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, John Major (of England) and Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.

All of these leaders agreed to protect the sovereignty and “territorial agreement” of Ukraine, meaning any Russian support for Crimean independence would be in violation of Russia’s international obligations.
The three powers committed to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”
I guess Ukrainians learned their lesson: Things change.
You can be sure that Vladimir Putin wouldn’t have seized Crimea if Ukraine had kept their nuclear weapons.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/too-bad-ukraine-didnt-kee_b_5235374.html
 
Mar 12, 2013
2,816
69
350
#10
Oh, poor little Russia being surrounded by the NATO menace.

Maybe you should look at Ukraine which was, even before the conquest of Crimea and Donbass by Russia, was actually surrounded by Russian forces stationed in Belarus, Sevastopol, and the fake nation of Transnistria. And somehow it was still such a massive threat the Russians just had to invade or the NATO would have marched on Moscow.
 
Feb 22, 2018
809
713
290
#11
Oh, poor little Russia being surrounded by the NATO menace.

Maybe you should look at Ukraine which was, even before the conquest of Crimea and Donbass by Russia, was actually surrounded by Russian forces stationed in Belarus, Sevastopol, and the fake nation of Transnistria. And somehow it was still such a massive threat the Russians just had to invade or the NATO would have marched on Moscow.
-There are 1,500 Russian officers in Belarus. No Russian airbases. No Russian missile bases. It's a signals intelligence base.

-Sevastopol was leased to Russia by Ukraine via agreement.

-Transnistria contains 1,500 Russian troops. No Russian missile bases. no Russian airbases. Remnant from civil war in Moldova, they act as peacekeepers as they do in Georgia. Ukraine has 255,000 active Troops. Much Russian threat on western border, such wow.

Meanwhile NATO is building ballistic missile launch platforms and air bases all over eastern Europe - strategic platforms that can hit Moscow itself and has built up 7,200 troops in and around these US controlled bases. The only territories Russia has deployed its long range weapons is on...drumroll....recognized Russian territories and in unrecognized Crimea.

As they say across the world, from South America to the middle east - Yankee Go Home.
 
Last edited:
Feb 22, 2018
809
713
290
#13
Ok:




Yes, all receive US troops rotations, permanently and Us accounts for 80% of NATO budget. US is not here to defend anything, especially not Ukraine. It is there to forward deploy strategic sites so it can one day attack Russia in a preemptive strike. Russians would be stupid to just keep on sitting around. So they are doing the most logical thing imaginable, reacting. So don't be surprised when they invade and annex all of Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
Aug 11, 2018
426
272
170
#14
Ok:




Yes, all receive US troops rotations, permanently and Us accounts for 80% of NATO budget. US is not here to defend anything, especially not Ukraine. It is there to forward deploy strategic sites so it can one day attack Russia in a preemptive strike. Russians would be stupid to just keep on sitting around. So they are doing the most logical thing imaginable, reacting. So don't be surprised when they invade and annex all of Ukraine.
And why do these countries willingly allow NATO to do this within their borders?
 
Feb 22, 2018
809
713
290
#16
And why do these countries willingly allow NATO to do this within their borders?
For same reason Syria, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakstan, Kyrgystan,Tajikistan and Vietnam allow Russian bases I guess, collective defence as mandated by a global power with global influence.

Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Serbia for example certainly did not allow NATO/the US and its allies to deploy bases and troops in their borders. But like Russia in Moldova, Ukraine (after an illegal coup) and Georgia, they did anyway. If you're looking for a high horse, there is none. All the horses are the same height here.

I'm just telling you like it is - showing you why Russia is acting the way it is regarding Ukraine. It makes perfect sense, it is not going out of its way to do so. The US on the other hand...
 
Last edited:
Aug 17, 2018
186
180
170
#17
Ok:




Yes, all receive US troops rotations, permanently and Us accounts for 80% of NATO budget. US is not here to defend anything, especially not Ukraine. It is there to forward deploy strategic sites so it can one day attack Russia in a preemptive strike. Russians would be stupid to just keep on sitting around. So they are doing the most logical thing imaginable, reacting. So don't be surprised when they invade and annex all of Ukraine.
These countries are allowed to have a military and receive support from others as the break up of the USSR left them dirt poor. This is the exact thing they are defending against. Don't be surprised when Kaliningrad is seized because apparently treaties don't matter.
 
Feb 22, 2018
809
713
290
#18
These countries are allowed to have a military and receive support from others as the break up of the USSR left them dirt poor. This is the exact thing they are defending against. Don't be surprised when Kaliningrad is seized because apparently treaties don't matter.
That is as practical and realistic as Guam being seized by China. Let's stay in the realm of reality and context. This thread is about Ukraine and Russian/NATO buildup in eastern Europe that directly led to the Ukraine Civil War.
 
Last edited:
Aug 17, 2018
186
180
170
#19
That is as practical and realistic as Guam being seized by China. Let's stay in the realm of reality and context. This thread is about Ukraine and Russian/NATO buildup in eastern Europe that directly led to the Ukraine Civil War.
Russia is the only party responsible for the Ukraine Civil War. I hate the EU and Obama but I was in Kiev in 2012 and there was the democratic will for further integration with Western Europe and a move away from Russia. There still is with Fatherland leading the polling for the next election. Russia is once again commiting acts of war to destabilise the nation.

The world is becoming like a game of EU IV. China, Russia and US to be the only players with clay in 2100?
 
May 30, 2013
2,205
59
340
#20
Im seeing a lot of countries with only 4 planes... thats going to stop the Russian airforce for about 30 mins and thats if they get the opportunity of takeoff. No wonder the US is pissed at NATO spending.
 
Feb 1, 2017
3,597
1,121
355
#21
That's not how it works. Ukraine couldn't afford to maintain any of them. Throughout its ~20 year lifetime a single warhead costs $1 billion to maintain.
While that is true, they would not need to maintain 2000 of them, 20 would do.
And they would only need them until withdrawal of Rusian naval base from Crimea.

The context of giving up weaps, which is nowadays forgotten, is the promises Ukraine received from USA, Britain and, ironically, Russia:
"...security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

-Sevastopol was leased to Russia by Ukraine via agreement.
In "make them offer, they cannot refuse" context

Im seeing a lot of countries with only 4 planes... thats going to stop the Russian airforce for about 30 mins
That's not going to even scratch them, but remains of soviet air defense system could.
 
Last edited:
Feb 22, 2018
809
713
290
#22
Russia is the only party responsible for the Ukraine Civil War.
Like Russia is the only party responsible for Brexit, or the election of Donald Trump? Come now, let's be real about this.

Until the new UNELECTED leadership of Ukraine in Kiev BANNED the largest party in the country then sent 30,000 troops east to attack regions that firmly opposed the ban, Russian troops were not in Ukraine except by invitation at Sevastopol.

But western NGO's were involved from beginning to end. Very involved indeed. To the extent that the former Georgian president joined the coup government and a US national (son of Joe Biden) became boss of Ukraine's largest gas company.

This entire naval incident magically happened weeks before a very unpopular government is set to have an election. Martial law is very convenient-they can just arrest or keep people at home who vote or intend to vote 'the wrong way', while blaming Russia for any unrest that will ensue from this.

While that is true, they would not need to maintain 2000 of them, 20 would do.
And they would only need them until withdrawal of Rusian naval base from Crimea.
Those warheads would have been smuggled off to a US city by al qaeda long ago. You have no idea how corrupt and disfunctional Ukraine was and still is. You're peddling comedy.

In "make them offer, they cannot refuse" context
The Cubans agree with your sentiment regarding Guantanamo. Except Sevastopol was borne out of a political union, crimea itself was gifted by a Ukrainian leading that union...from Russia to Ukraine. Cuba meanwhile...
 
Last edited:
Feb 1, 2017
3,597
1,121
355
#23
Like Russia is the only party responsible for Brexit
Who has ever claimed that?

Come now, let's be real about this.
Russia has been accused of MEDDLING with Brexit/US elections. It's something very different from being "the only party responsible for".

But western NGO's were involved from beginning to end. Very involved indeed.
Scary stories for Russian population as NGOs are the only non-government-controllable things in Russia.
Ironically Russia tries to do, what it accused West of doing, but I have yet to see that working.

There was a genuine protest against corrupt government, it was not Western conspiracy.

...sent 30,000 troops east to attack regions...
That's simply not true. A bunch of Russian controlled or outright Russian citizens formed military groups and started "liberating" Ukraine, starting with Slaviansk, as I remember.

Some of them looked peculiarly "non-local" (Kadyrov's (Chechen "leader") troops in Donetsk):
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2013
2,816
69
350
#24
Ok:




Yes, all receive US troops rotations, permanently and Us accounts for 80% of NATO budget. US is not here to defend anything, especially not Ukraine. It is there to forward deploy strategic sites so it can one day attack Russia in a preemptive strike. Russians would be stupid to just keep on sitting around. So they are doing the most logical thing imaginable, reacting. So don't be surprised when they invade and annex all of Ukraine.
I see zero ballistic missile sites or newly constructed air bases here.
 
Feb 22, 2018
809
713
290
#25
If you deny that the US and its allies have been meddling in the politics of eastern europe for decades, especially Ukraine...boy do I have fresh news for you. so no, Russia is not the only reason Ukraine is a mess. Ukraine is primarily to blame for its shortcomings, followed by the west and Russia in equal measure.

I see zero ballistic missile sites or newly constructed air bases here.
There is no shortage of bases in eastern Europe, building more would be hilarious. The US is bringing strategic equipment to deploy on shared bases. This is a threat.

Anyway, Russia has opened the Kerch strait to all shipping, so Kiev has nothing more to bleet about. It will get its boats back when it learns its place in the world.
 
Last edited:
Feb 1, 2017
3,597
1,121
355
#26
If you deny that the US and its allies have been meddling in the politics of eastern europe for decades, especially Ukraine...boy do I have fresh news for you.
Citation needed. Not of "something I saw on Putin's Television" kind.

Ukraine is primarily to blame for its shortcomings
Primarily for not preparing to defend against Russian aggression.
 
Mar 12, 2013
2,816
69
350
#27
There is no shortage of bases in eastern Europe, building more would be hilarious. The US is bringing strategic equipment to deploy on shared bases. This is a threat.
When you said "NATO is building ballistic missile launch platforms and air bases all over eastern Europe " you meant that just using existing bases is also a massive escalation ?

And I see the NATO forces being reinforced in Eastern Europe a logical reaction to the Russian invasion and annexation of parts of Ukraine. But somehow NATO is never reacting in the Russian narrative, it is always instigating events while Russia only reacts.
 
Last edited:
Feb 22, 2018
809
713
290
#28
Citation needed. Not of "something I saw on Putin's Television" kind.
lol: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/soft-power-democracy-promotion-and-us-ngos

'Democracy' at the end of a gun/regime change. These NGO's always set the stage for revolution and pump millions into dissident movements. Conflict ensues and thousands/hundreds of thousands die.

Primarily for not preparing to defend against Russian aggression.
That's impossible and you know it. Promoting sacrificial lambs for your expansionist ambitions is fine and dandy, just don't try to hide it.
 
Feb 22, 2018
809
713
290
#29
When you said "NATO is building ballistic missile launch platforms and air bases all over eastern Europe " you meant that just using existing bases is also a massive escalation ?

And I see the NATO forces being reinforced in Eastern Europe a logical reaction to the Russian invasion and annexation of parts of Ukraine. But somehow NATO is never reacting in the Russian narrative, it is always instigating events while Russia only reacts.

From 1989 to 2003 SU/Russia did not lift a finger, until Bush started pumping funds into colored revolutions across eastern europe and central asia and NATO expansionism began to approach Ukraine and the Caucasus with talk of missile shields to cripple Russian second strike capability. That is when the US created instability in the region and when Russia was forced to fill the ensuing vacuums of these destabilized states.

Also, attacking Russia's age old ally Serbia in 1999 was a big no-no in so many dumb ways, basically indicated to the up and coming President of Russia (i.e Putin) that the US with NATO as its vehicle was not to be trusted at all and gave Russia so many cards to play. To this day the US occupies a part of Serbia, camp bondsteel is the largest base in the balkans in UN/internationally unrecognized Kosovo. That textbook example gave Russia a blank cheque to conduct identical operations in Georgia and later Ukraine.

Annexing Crimea was a historically convenient and democratically mandated cherry on top, as most Crimeans see themselves as Russians and would always vote overwhelmingly pro-Russian policy as most Albanians in Kosovo are pro-Albanian policy and there is talk of Albania annexing Kosovo.

In short, reap what you sow, yankee. Just wait until China gets in on the action. You are overextended and increasingly polarized at home and your allies are in political dissaray, bickering over a decidedly undemocratic EU. The time for collapse is now. :messenger_kissing_smiling:

Russia is just picking up your pieces.
 
Last edited:
Jan 25, 2018
1,904
2,117
255
29
Southeastern USA
#30
Russia's been spoiling for a fight for almost half a decade now.

Let's hope that whatever the fuck Putin thinks he's doing doesn't spiral into a major war or worst case scenario, World War 3.

I don't think enough people realize that a nuclear war is a very real possibility, it's hard to imagine what that would really be like and it's full impact, but it doesn't mean it's an impossibility though, it's terrifying reality, especially when things like this happen.

There's been a long, slow but steady decline of peace ever since the "end" of the Cold War, with the first major event being when Clinton bombed Kosovo, which was almost 20 years ago now.

During the height of the Cold War, both America and Russia understood what was at stake and there were a lot of checks and balances that had been put into place to try to prevent the unthinkable, it wasn't lost on anybody what a nuclear war would mean, that system has also declined over the last 25 years and dangerously so since both countries retained a significant nuclear arsenal, it's all the risk with none of the safety.

In the event of a full scale nuclear exchange, while not everywhere in the world would have a nuke hit it, the global environmental impact of it would probably bring humanity to the brink of extinction, even a limited nuclear exchange would have enough of an environmental impact to be the end of modern civilization as we know it, probably leading to mass starvation and who knows what, it would severely fuck up the Earth permanently and you could kiss any hope of a utopian future goodbye, at least on this planet.

Let's stop and think about the fact that Putin is willing to risk the fate of mankind and planet Earth over a dick measuring contest that lacks even the poetic "Capitalism vs Communism" struggle of the Cold War that made it seem like a battle worth risking everything for, instead Putin is just a power hungry shithead.

Now, I'm not saying Putin is the sole person to blame for this Neo Cold War, but he's a dangerous trouble maker, certainly not the "good guy" here if there even is one in this conflict.

My gut instinct says that yes, a major war with Russia will happen soon and this could be the start, Putin's not gonna stop until he pushes things too far, it's just a question of whether it's gonna stay conventional or snowball into something else, how big of a war will it be basically, but I'd bet there's a war coming either way.

Almost every decade ends with some major event that sets the tone for the next, Russia invaded Afghanistan at the tail end of 1979, the Berlin wall fell in 1989, the Great Recession started in late 2008, it stands to reason something major is gonna happen soon that will set the tone for the 2020s and a war with Russia could be it.

fyi, my dad is a US Navy veteran from the 1980s, he saw the Cold War firsthand and up close, he's long told me this about this stuff so I'm easily far more well informed about all this than most people my age, in case you're wondering why I have such an interest in this.
 
Likes: Senior

Senior

Neo Member
Nov 21, 2018
19
18
85
#31
Russia's been spoiling for a fight for almost half a decade now.

Let's hope that whatever the fuck Putin thinks he's doing doesn't spiral into a major war or worst case scenario, World War 3.

I don't think enough people realize that a nuclear war is a very real possibility, it's hard to imagine what that would really be like and it's full impact, but it doesn't mean it's an impossibility though, it's terrifying reality, especially when things like this happen.
I certainly agree that the threat of a nuclear war is at it's highest in a while. However, I think the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction applies as neither side will want to intiate a full scale nuclear war as it will lead to the end of both nations if not more. On the other hand, Putin doesnt seem to give a shit.
 
Mar 12, 2013
2,816
69
350
#32
From 1989 to 2003 SU/Russia did not lift a finger, until Bush started pumping funds into colored revolutions across eastern europe and central asia and NATO expansionism began to approach Ukraine and the Caucasus with talk of missile shields to cripple Russian second strike capability. That is when the US created instability in the region and when Russia was forced to fill the ensuing vacuums of these destabilized states.

Also, attacking Russia's age old ally Serbia in 1999 was a big no-no in so many dumb ways, basically indicated to the up and coming President of Russia (i.e Putin) that the US with NATO as its vehicle was not to be trusted at all and gave Russia so many cards to play. To this day the US occupies a part of Serbia, camp bondsteel is the largest base in the balkans in UN/internationally unrecognized Kosovo. That textbook example gave Russia a blank cheque to conduct identical operations in Georgia and later Ukraine.


Annexing Crimea was a historically convenient and democratically mandated cherry on top, as most Crimeans see themselves as Russians and would always vote overwhelmingly pro-Russian policy as most Albanians in Kosovo are pro-Albanian policy and there is talk of Albania annexing Kosovo.

In short, reap what you sow, yankee. Just wait until China gets in on the action. You are overextended and increasingly polarized at home and your allies are in political dissaray, bickering over a decidedly undemocratic EU. The time for collapse is now. :messenger_kissing_smiling:

Russia is just picking up your pieces.
That's a lot of tough talk from a country that is was, a few post ago, terrified of a few thousand NATO troops and 250 tanks that were about to march on Moscow. What is it ? Russia Stronk or Russia Surrounded And Under Threat ?

You can't have it both ways.

Oh, and most Crimeans are Russian because Stalin send all non-Russians to the gulag.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Darkangel
Feb 22, 2018
809
713
290
#33
Oh, and most Crimeans are Russian because Stalin send all non-Russians to the gulag.
Stalin the Georgian? Displaced Tatars in favor of Russians? No. Most people that ended up in soviet prisons were Russians.

Tatars are doing fine and dandy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan

This ping pong conversation has run its course. Let's just sit back and watch the US Empire burn.
 
Last edited:
Jan 25, 2018
1,904
2,117
255
29
Southeastern USA
#34
I certainly agree that the threat of a nuclear war is at it's highest in a while. However, I think the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction applies as neither side will want to intiate a full scale nuclear war as it will lead to the end of both nations if not more. On the other hand, Putin doesnt seem to give a shit.
That was my point, Putin doesn't give a shit, there was a time in which Mutual Assured Destruction was a concept leaders would understand and keep in mind, but that time has passed much to the world's peril.

I don't think the fact that a nuclear war would be so devastating is at all evidence it won't happen anymore.

From 1989 to 2003 SU/Russia did not lift a finger, until Bush started pumping funds into colored revolutions across eastern europe and central asia and NATO expansionism began to approach Ukraine and the Caucasus with talk of missile shields to cripple Russian second strike capability. That is when the US created instability in the region and when Russia was forced to fill the ensuing vacuums of these destabilized states.

Also, attacking Russia's age old ally Serbia in 1999 was a big no-no in so many dumb ways, basically indicated to the up and coming President of Russia (i.e Putin) that the US with NATO as its vehicle was not to be trusted at all and gave Russia so many cards to play. To this day the US occupies a part of Serbia, camp bondsteel is the largest base in the balkans in UN/internationally unrecognized Kosovo. That textbook example gave Russia a blank cheque to conduct identical operations in Georgia and later Ukraine.

Annexing Crimea was a historically convenient and democratically mandated cherry on top, as most Crimeans see themselves as Russians and would always vote overwhelmingly pro-Russian policy as most Albanians in Kosovo are pro-Albanian policy and there is talk of Albania annexing Kosovo.

In short, reap what you sow, yankee. Just wait until China gets in on the action. You are overextended and increasingly polarized at home and your allies are in political dissaray, bickering over a decidedly undemocratic EU. The time for collapse is now. :messenger_kissing_smiling:

Russia is just picking up your pieces.
I hope you realize that America won't go down without a fight, if America falls we'll literally take the whole world down with us.

Russian and China do indeed want to take down the West and create a post-Western world where the East is the new dominant superpower, what they don't understand is that's impossible, it's either the West or it's nobody.

I'm not saying this is a GOOD thing or that would be my decision if it was up to me, I'm just stating a fact, America will topple this whole planet before we give up our power over it, like Samson destroying the temple.

In Russian and China's bid for power, if they keep pushing there is no way they wont one day push it too far and cause the US to launch a nuclear strike, Putin and Xi are both dangerous lunatics if they think this is a war they can win.
 
Likes: Senior
Feb 22, 2018
809
713
290
#36
I hope you realize that America won't go down without a fight, if America falls we'll literally take the whole world down with us.
No you won't. Your decline is relative, not absolute. When China, then responsible for 60% of global GDP collapsed in relative terms in the 1800's, everybody else just picked up the slack and took advantage of it. by the time it had collapsed in absolute terms in the 1900's, nobody cared, it was small fish. Same thing happened to Britain in the 1950's and the soviet union in the 80's. It's collapse only affected its closest allies/client states.

You will become weaker relative to a Rising China, and when you collapse and the union ends, only your closest allies will be hurt. China is already the biggest trade partner to the majority of countries. With Trump's tariff wars it is moving its trade away from North America.

Russian and China do indeed want to take down the West and create a post-Western world where the East is the new dominant superpower, what they don't understand is that's impossible
That's happening Right now. Russia single handedly stopped US regime change in its tracks in Syria for example. So its...possible. Russia won't dominate anything economically (it never has in its history), but it will greatly increase its political and military influence in Europe and the Middle East. China is already dominating global economic affairs and later it will become a global military power. India will dominate you economically in just 20-30 years.

Meanwhile swathes of the EU will be a mess of civil wars and religious conflicts as the tens of millions of Arab arrivals opt for self determination and native European nationalism grows in direct opposition to that.

In Russian and China's bid for power, if they keep pushing there is no way they wont one day push it too far and cause the US to launch a nuclear strike, Putin and Xi are both dangerous lunatics if they think this is a war they can win.
Nobody is pushing anyone directly, but instead through proxies/client states. Which is why Russia will keep growing its influence, and China as well, because the Us has no answers to the growing polarization of itself at home and its empire abroad. Nuclear war or any direct war not required. All Russia and China have to do for example, is sit and watch and pick up the pieces.
 
Last edited:

RedCarp04

Neo Member
Feb 24, 2018
14
10
100
#37
Good thing the EU is there to keep the peace.
They won't, EU is far too dependent on Russia's gas to consider risking too much provocation and EU is starting to think Ukraine is much more trouble than its worth especially with its rampant corruption and Poroshenko unwilling and/or incapable way of dealing with it.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2013
2,816
69
350
#38
Nothing says 'sit and watch' like invading and annexing part of another country.

edit: the triumphant rhetoric about the imminent end of the US would make you think the Russian Navy had just won a Battle of Midway like victory over NATO. Instead of large Coast Guard cutter ramming a tugboat and a Navy attacking one 1/25th its own size. Maybe this was a morale boost needed after losing your only carrier to a power outage.
 
Last edited:
Apr 18, 2018
4,937
6,916
395
USA
dunpachi.com
#39
They won't, the gas deal between them and Russia is much more important than Ukraine, and EU is starting to think Ukraine is much more trouble than its worth especially with its rampant corruption and Poroshenko unwilling and/or incapable of dealing with it.
My apologies: anything about EU being capable of keeping the peace should be viewed as obvious sarcasm by this point.
 
Jan 25, 2018
1,904
2,117
255
29
Southeastern USA
#40
No you won't. Your decline is relative, not absolute. When China, then responsible for 60% of global GDP collapsed in relative terms in the 1800's, everybody else just picked up the slack and took advantage of it. by the time it had collapsed in absolute terms in the 1900's, nobody cared, it was small fish. Same thing happened to Britain in the 1950's and the soviet union in the 80's. It's collapse only affected its closest allies/client states.

You will become weaker relative to a Rising China, and when you collapse and the union ends, only your closest allies will be hurt. China is already the biggest trade partner to the majority of countries. With Trump's tariff wars it is moving its trade away from North America.



That's happening Right now. Russia single handedly stopped US regime change in its tracks in Syria for example. So its...possible. Russia won't dominate anything economically (it never has in its history), but it will greatly increase its political and military influence in Europe and the Middle East. China is already dominating global economic affairs and later it will become a global military power. India will dominate you economically in just 20-30 years.

Meanwhile swathes of the EU will be a mess of civil wars and religious conflicts as the tens of millions of Arab arrivals opt for self determination and native European nationalism grows in direct opposition to that.



Nobody is pushing anyone directly, but instead through proxies/client states. Which is why Russia will keep growing its influence, and China as well, because the Us has no answers to the growing polarization of itself at home and its empire abroad. Nuclear war or any direct war not required. All Russia and China have to do for example, is sit and watch and pick up the pieces.
What makes you so sure the US won't launch a nuclear strike if Russia or China does something it really, really doesn't like? Crosses a red line that they insist cannot be crossed?

The reverse is true as well, Russia or China would do the same if a red line was crossed, if say NATO started marching towards Moscow chances are Russia would drop some nukes as well.

That is the whole point of a nuclear arsenal, it's supposed to be a deterrent, the world was once upon a time neatly divided between east and west and with a nuclear deterrent to ensure the world would forever stay at a safe stalemate.

But now those lines are blurrier, lines that were never meant to be crossed but oh yeah, some dudes are thinking about crossing them all right.

If you think a county with a nuclear arsenal would not use them if they felt they had no choice, you're dreaming.

That's the worst case scenario however, but I do think we are on the verge at the very least of an official Second Cold War being declared, it already arguably started years ago, but people have yet to fully wake up to this fact and for it to be truly official.

Americans today think it's all about Trump, Trump, Trump and we've stopped paying attention to the global stage, we're in for a very rude awakening.

(as a side note, for what it's worth I think you're right about the EU, I do indeed think civil wars and religious conflicts are coming to Europe.)
 
Likes: Liberty4all
Jan 31, 2008
2,115
476
830
Taylorsville, Ky!
#41
Let's stop and think about the fact that Putin is willing to risk the fate of mankind and planet Earth over a dick measuring contest that lacks even the poetic "Capitalism vs Communism" struggle of the Cold War that made it seem like a battle worth risking everything for, instead Putin is just a power hungry shithead.
And yet it is the west who is pushing influence right up to Russia's borders, not the other way around. There is no way to look at western actions as anything but aggressive. Of course Putin is no boy scout, but who on the international stage is...?

We need a much more realistic approach to dealings with the Russians. Trump promised it during the campaign, but the hysterical media and mainline Republicans in the administration are positioned to exert a huge influence and keep us in a permanent cold war.

They have to have a recognized sphere of influence where we don't intrude. There is not going to be a unipolar world, that was Francis Fukuyama's fever dream, not reality.
 
Mar 12, 2013
2,816
69
350
#42
Independent countries have freely chosen to join NATO out of a, now clearly justified, fear of being brought back into the Russian sphere of influence by force as soon as Russia had recovered.
 
Apr 18, 2018
4,937
6,916
395
USA
dunpachi.com
#43
And yet it is the west who is pushing influence right up to Russia's borders, not the other way around. There is no way to look at western actions as anything but aggressive. Of course Putin is no boy scout, but who on the international stage is...?

We need a much more realistic approach to dealings with the Russians. Trump promised it during the campaign, but the hysterical media and mainline Republicans in the administration are positioned to exert a huge influence and keep us in a permanent cold war.

They have to have a recognized sphere of influence where we don't intrude. There is not going to be a unipolar world, that was Francis Fukuyama's fever dream, not reality.
In the USA at least, the Democrat fearmongering over not only "Russian collusion" but the notion that Pres. Trump is a literal "Russian agent in the White House" has hamstrung efforts toward resolving problems with Russia, in my opinion. No politician on either side wants to be seen as playing nice with Russia (also known as "diplomacy").
 

RedCarp04

Neo Member
Feb 24, 2018
14
10
100
#44
They have to have a recognized sphere of influence where we don't intrude.
Ukraine has to unfortunately eventually realise this too, theres is no real way of Ukraine solving the situation which it finds in without coming into some kind of compromise with Russia. I cant help but compare this between Philippines and China in regards to the South China Sea, Philippines tried to challenge China's encroaching sphere of influence, but economically and militarily is too powerless to do so until Philippines had to relent to at least cozy up to China to get anywhere at all with them and maybe reap the benefits and hope the improving relations will help in solving the situation.
 
Last edited:
Jan 25, 2018
1,904
2,117
255
29
Southeastern USA
#45
And yet it is the west who is pushing influence right up to Russia's borders, not the other way around. There is no way to look at western actions as anything but aggressive. Of course Putin is no boy scout, but who on the international stage is...?

We need a much more realistic approach to dealings with the Russians. Trump promised it during the campaign, but the hysterical media and mainline Republicans in the administration are positioned to exert a huge influence and keep us in a permanent cold war.

They have to have a recognized sphere of influence where we don't intrude. There is not going to be a unipolar world, that was Francis Fukuyama's fever dream, not reality.
There's pretty much nobody on the international stage who's a boy scout these days.

I don't mean to let the West off scot free nor do I mean to lay all the blame at Putin's feet, but he's the man in the best position to dial this situation back and instead he seems to be doing the exact opposite.

But this is the sad irony is if there is indeed a third World War, it'll be an echo of the first World War and not World War 2, there'll be no glamorous "good guys vs bad guys" pretense like WW2, just a great big international dick measuring contest that'll cost untold amounts of human life and will make you wonder what the point even was, much like WW1.

We won't even get the glamor of what WW3 would have been during the Cold War, which like I said was this great, grand existential conflict between two diametrically opposed philosophies over what the future of mankind should be.

Nope, instead these are all fundamentally capitalist countries (even China) in pursuit of more capital and they're willing to put mankind's head on the chopping block to get it, let that sink in.
 
Jul 16, 2011
2,427
2
480
Canada
#46
A sphere of influence isn't some inherent thing that Russia "deserves." The only people who bring up that talking point are Russians who still haven't gotten over the collapse of their empire.

Maybe they should start to think about why their neighbours instantly ran to the west as soon as they had the freedom to do so.

As for the Ukraine situation, they probably should have kept a few nuclear weapons.
 
Dec 13, 2016
654
53
70
google.com
#47
More development on the situation - Ukraine Declares Martial Law As Russia Refuses To Release Captured Ships

In response to what he decried as unprovoked Russian aggression, increasingly unpopular Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a declaration on Monday to declare martial law for 60 days through Jan. 26. He also started mobilizing the Ukrainian army despite the martial law order still needing approval by the country's Parliament, according to RT.
There is also video showing how it all started:
 
Nov 8, 2018
19
2
80
#48
UA says: we negotiated and got approval for passing under the bridge, but they still captured us as trespassers of the russian border.

RU says: they never contacted us regarding the trip under the bridge and we never gave them a permission to cross, and they were not responding to a radio contact.

Who lies? UA decided to check if russian military is on their guard and tried to rush under the bridge or RU deceived and lured UA vessels into their trap?
 
Aug 24, 2016
1,032
275
265
#49
With tension rising around the globe, I will be pleasantly surprised if the world doesn't go through another war in my lifetime.

The Russians have been checking for how much they can get away with for years now and this just another attempt.
No country wants to be the one to start conflict (understandably) and Russia is using this to their advantage.
The only way there could be another big war is if the US isn't involved in it.
 
Likes: Oversemper