Talk Elections

Shared by RogueBeaver:

Moscow signals concern for Russians in Estonia


http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-russia-estonia-idUSBREA2I1J620140319

Thankfully Estonia is in NATO- otherwise I could see Narva area being grabbed up.

I think their just f[inks]ing with us

I think Putin might actually want to reconstitute the old USSR.


Watch out Kazhakstan!!!!

And they feel you will not do sh**t about it.

Why should I? As long as they keep out of this hemisperhe, I'm not really concerned. I'm interested, but not concerned.

Despite all of the sabre rattling, everyone knows that while far-away and unimportant countries like Ukraine are subject to anything, NATO members are sacrosanct.

And what is the source of that knowledge?

The same source which said Putin's Duma speech was just words, as was "Ukraine isn't a real state" and Eastern Anschluss was scaremongering.

World War III is happening if Putin tries the same sh**t in Estonia that he did in Crimea.

Tsar Vladimir V wants to reconstitute the old Russian Empire.

Watch out Alaska and Poland!!!

Seriously though, I think Vladimir has his sights on maximizing his sphere of influence and power and is willing to push right up to edge to get it, but not go over. Doomsday isn't very advantageous to ruling supremely.

The only way he would invade Estonia would be if he thought NATO wouldn't retaliate.

Nope.
NOPE.
NO WAY IN HELL.
Keep your filthy hands off Estonia, Kremlin Gremlin.

I don't think they'll go for Kazakhstan - they already have a pretty compliant puppet and it runs the risk of pissing off China.

The Caucasus region on the other hand is fair game.

The Baltic states have monuments to Nazi collaborators and the Russian minority has never received the nicest treatment. Russia has a point here, especially since Putin is still nowhere near dumb enough to butt heads with a NATO member.

Well, to most inhabitants, there wasn't much difference between being invaded by Germans or Soviets.

What are your thoughts on the intervention in the Ukraine, Pingvin? I haven't seen you on here in a while.

what's the problem with allowing them to move to the old Warsaw Pact boundaries?  exempting the GDR if you insist.

Why not let them settle Manhattan then?

He would prefer it if they did, if you see.

my domino theorist friends!  to which the Atlantic is no boundary.

Yeah, the Baltics are pretty much off limits unless Putin wants to deal with NATO.

His best bets for further irredentism would be to force a referendum for the Russian-speaking parts of Eastern Ukraine and to bully Lukashenko into a Russia-Belarus anschluss.

So what if Russia invades Estonia? Is the U.S. really going to war against a country with 5,000 ICBMs over Estonia? Most likely it'll expose NATO as an empty piece of paper.

If Russian Maidan happens, Putin's done. That's why he's afraid of Ukraine.
Now he's trying to score some points as a man who got Crimea back.

So, where would it stop? Warsaw? Berlin? London?

Anyways, what most of you, guys, are missing, is that Russia is emerging - internally, not so much externally - as a proper hysterical fascist dictatorship. The regime is whipping hatred - and for that it is going to need conflicts. Today it was Crimea - it will not be the last.

So far, there has been precious little reaction to what Russia did. Yes, today´s sanctions are a slight improvement (they did name some of the Great Leader´s buddies). But this is far too little, far too late. And, in fact, from now on these same buddies will be even more loyal - they no longer have anything that does not directly depend on the guy. As for the still surviving opposition - state media (and increasingly this is the only media out there) is openly using the word "traitors". Prison terms are only starting - but there will be more. And the nationalist hysteria makes prison a popular means of treating the opposition.

So, it is all around success for the Leader - he will want to repeat. Relying on the never properly tested (at least recently) Article 5 is all nice and good - till he decides to test. Estonians have every right to be worried.

So, suppose in a year or two Russia takes over Narva (oh, yes, at first there will be a lot of happy people there as well - the town is 95% ethnic Russian). Will the US risk a war with 5000 warheads over a smallish town in a country 1/30 the size of Ukraine? Once the NATO partners cancel Russia´s participation in G-20 and force Mr. Abramovich to sell Chelsea FC and declare that in this way they fulfilled obligations under Article 5, once the brave Estonian border guards move their post towards Kohtla Jarve (to be taken over the following month), what is it that our Polish friends will do? Say they are different because... What? This is what I would like to hear.

You are dead wrong on this. See the Churchill quote in my sig.

If Russia invades Estonia the West will have to make a stand. Nobody really cares about Crimea but Putin should not go too far. And he probably knows this.

If Putin wants to start WWIII, he can. Only time will tell if that's his desire.

anyway, this is a total lie.  I have no interest either way in Russian territorial claims.  it does bear remembering that Gorbachev was promised that NATO would not expand to the east.  we can just as easily use ag's "where does it stop?" logic in reverse... first it was East Germany, then Poland and the Czechs, then Romania, when will they come to Petersburg and Moscow? imperial powers will always use these paranoiac justifications for why they can't give an inch, with varying degrees of legitimacy.

That's very generous of you. Thank you!

Of course he can if he wants to. So can Obama.

But I don't think he wants to start WW III. He is not stupid. He knows that nobody really cares about Crimea.

Unlike Ukrainian Maidan, Russian Maidan won't be supported by half of the population and overwhelming majority of capital's inhabitants, and probably that difference will be crucial. 2011-2012 protests led to almost nothing.

You are most certainly right: as long as oil and gas prices are what they are :)

Are you certain he does know it? Are you certain YOU do know it?

Yes, there is no doubt in my mind.

The US would not go to war over Estonia but it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. It just wouldn't be worth the death from a conventional ground war. Additionally Estonia would be kind of responsible for bringing it on themselves via terrible policies.

As to nuclear weapons, we spend too much time discussing them. Nuclear weapons do not deter military action at all. If Ukraine had kept their nukes, Russia would still have taken Crimea. The only thing nukes do is deter other people from using their own nukes.

1. Allowing a Russian occupation of parts of Estonia would jeopardize the credibility of NATO and all your other military alliances. The size and economic importance of Estonia doesnt matter in this context.

2. Do you have even a shred of evidence to back up that claim?

There's the Sino-Soviet border conflict of 1969 plus the Yom Kippur War.

So you really think if Russia had taken Crimea and then Ukraine nuked Moscow, public opinion would side with Ukraine? No, it would still be condemned by almost everyone as disproportionate and a crime against humanity. That's why Ukraine would never have even considered it. Moscow knows this and that's why it wouldn't have deterred them. They know the West in general is too civilized to ever use nuclear weapons first. They can do anything they want short of nuking people and not worry about getting nuked. The only thing they have to worry about is provoking a ground war and we're not going to start one over Estonia.

Maybe if France got attacked we would go to war but that's not even realistic worst case scenario.

Not commenting on whether it was the right or wrong thing to do....but ever heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

A desperate Ukrainian government could have done something rash and stupid. True, it would have been blamed - but Putin (and the rest of Moscow population) would not be able to enjoy hearing about that. Even if the probability of pressing the button was 1%, it would have been enough to make even Putin nervous.  And, of course, if Putin were to go beyond Crimea the probability of the button being pressed would be a lot higher.

Indeed, if nukes do not deter military action, then why wouldn't the West react to Crimean occupation by sending its own troops there (on invitation of Ukrainian government, of course). On March 1st that could have been done without much conventional response. Push comes to shove, it would have been enough to bomb the hell out of the bases of the "unidentified" soldiers - loyal Ukrainian troops would have done the rest. Why wasn't it done?

The dynamic of foreign relations and nuclear weapons were quite a bit different in 1945 than they were in 1985. I don’t necessarily think it is accurate to judge the Cold War with World War II era actions as a standard.

Aside form the fact that it would immediately render NATO meaningless - which in itself would constitute one of most significant paradigm shifts in international politics and the balance of power since the end of WWII - it would also completely obliterate the credibility of American foreign policy for the next 50 years or so. Why would anyone ever see an advantage in entering a military alliance with the US again?

I'm so bold to say that such an event would be identified by future historians as the turning point at which the United States ceased to be a superpower (and perhaps a great power too) and the "Asian Century" began.

All of this is purely academic though. Exactly for the reasons I just mentioned, the United States would of course go to war over Estonia. (And as long as Putin is convinced that the U.S. would, he probably won't touch Estonia.)

True. But that doesn't have anything to do with who is "civilized."  It has to do with nuclear proliferation and the fact that the leaders of US and Europe don't have a death wish.  And neither I believe does Putin.

Gorbachev says he was promised. Not the same thing.