World War 2, part (b)

[poncom]

Putin is Evil but not stupid. He knows he can get away with annexing Crimea, there's nothing the West can do about it. Ukraine has always been under Russia/Soviet's Sphere of Influence. It's their backyard/frontyard/sideyard or whatever. Ordinary people be damned. Ordinary people are stupid, have you heard that majority of Russian people are supporting their dictator right now?

james, can you explain to me the motivations of the US and Russia's involvement in this situation? I've so far had a hard time wrapping my head around that part. Your post indicates a perception of Putin acting out of greed (a trait of being evil) and I just want to know how it's different from what everyone else is doing there.

I am not James but I can try to explain Putin's motivation.

The Crimea was part of the Russian empire for hundreds of years and part of the Soviet Union after that. It wasn't until 1954 that Khruschev made it part of the Ukranian S.S.R.

After the break up of the Soviet Union, the now independent country of Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapon arsenal and the Russian navy was allowed to keep using its base in Sevastopol on the Black Sea (in Crimea).

Thereafter, NATO expanded to include certain Eastern European countries.

Ukraine has been split between the western Ukranian part of the country which is majority ethnic Ukranian and Ukranian nationalist and southern/eastern Ukraine which is majority Russian ethnicity in many areas and more pro Russia.

Putin's actions may be based on mistrust of the west/the new government that just took power in Kiev as well as a desire to protect Russia's interests in the Crimea. A desire to look strong also probably plays well on the home front. I don't think all out war is likely however.

Years ago I heard the Russian navy's base in Sevastopol on the Black Sea (in Crimea) was the only easy way the Russian navy could reach the Atlantic. Russia cannot give it up without giving up it's only easy route to the Atlantic, so it's unlikely it will back down.

Russia has no direct outlets except on the Pacific Ocean and the White and Arctic Seas. To reach the Atlantic, the ships must travel along devious routes: in the north via the Finnish Gulf, the Baltic Sea, and the North Sea; in the south through the Black Sea, the Dardanelles, and the Mediterranean.

In its early history, Russia's only ports were on the Arctic Ocean and frozen shut for much of the year.

I don't know about anything else, but you need to freshen up on your geography lessons.
I have one word for you: Murmansk

"The port of Murmansk remains ice-free year round due to the warm North Atlantic Current"
"Red october"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWPBr4L1eyE

These Wikipedia links contradict you.

Only one Russian seaport in the Barents Sea en route the officially defined Northern Sea Route which begins at the Kara Gates Strait is ice-free all year round, Murmansk on the Kola Peninsula.

The term "ice free" generally refers to the absence of fast ice, i.e. continuously frozen surface ice sheet cover. Under common usage "ice free" does not mean that there is no Arctic sea ice. "Ice free" regions can contain broken ice cover of varying density, often still requiring appropriately strengthened hulls or ice breaker support for safe passage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Sea_Route


The southern half of the Barents Sea, including the ports of Murmansk (Russia) and Vardø (Norway) remain ice-free year round due to the warm North Atlantic drift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barents_Sea



The screenshot above shows the Barents Sea is located in the Arctic Ocean.

[Biodom]

Putin is Evil but not stupid. He knows he can get away with annexing Crimea, there's nothing the West can do about it. Ukraine has always been under Russia/Soviet's Sphere of Influence. It's their backyard/frontyard/sideyard or whatever. Ordinary people be damned. Ordinary people are stupid, have you heard that majority of Russian people are supporting their dictator right now?

james, can you explain to me the motivations of the US and Russia's involvement in this situation? I've so far had a hard time wrapping my head around that part. Your post indicates a perception of Putin acting out of greed (a trait of being evil) and I just want to know how it's different from what everyone else is doing there.

I am not James but I can try to explain Putin's motivation.

The Crimea was part of the Russian empire for hundreds of years and part of the Soviet Union after that. It wasn't until 1954 that Khruschev made it part of the Ukranian S.S.R.

After the break up of the Soviet Union, the now independent country of Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapon arsenal and the Russian navy was allowed to keep using its base in Sevastopol on the Black Sea (in Crimea).

Thereafter, NATO expanded to include certain Eastern European countries.

Ukraine has been split between the western Ukranian part of the country which is majority ethnic Ukranian and Ukranian nationalist and southern/eastern Ukraine which is majority Russian ethnicity in many areas and more pro Russia.

Putin's actions may be based on mistrust of the west/the new government that just took power in Kiev as well as a desire to protect Russia's interests in the Crimea. A desire to look strong also probably plays well on the home front. I don't think all out war is likely however.

Years ago I heard the Russian navy's base in Sevastopol on the Black Sea (in Crimea) was the only easy way the Russian navy could reach the Atlantic. Russia cannot give it up without giving up it's only easy route to the Atlantic, so it's unlikely it will back down.

Russia has no direct outlets except on the Pacific Ocean and the White and Arctic Seas. To reach the Atlantic, the ships must travel along devious routes: in the north via the Finnish Gulf, the Baltic Sea, and the North Sea; in the south through the Black Sea, the Dardanelles, and the Mediterranean.

In its early history, Russia's only ports were on the Arctic Ocean and frozen shut for much of the year.

I don't know about anything else, but you need to freshen up on your geography lessons.
I have one word for you: Murmansk

"The port of Murmansk remains ice-free year round due to the warm North Atlantic Current"
"Red october"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWPBr4L1eyE

These Wikipedia links contradict you.
<TL;DR>.

Contradict what? You were saying how they did not have access to Atlantic....because it is "frozen shut for much of the year"
I showed you a link that says..."ice free year-round" in Murmansk and Atlantic is "around the corner", so grow up and say "thanks", buddy...

[poncom]

Contradict what? You were saying how they did not have access to Atlantic....because it is "frozen shut for much of the year"
I showed you a link that says..."ice free year-round" in Murmansk and Atlantic is "around the corner", so grow up and say "thanks", buddy...

And I showed you a link that says under common usage "ice free" does not mean that there is no Arctic sea ice. "Ice free" regions can contain broken ice cover of varying density, often still requiring appropriately strengthened hulls or ice breaker support for safe passage

How can the entire Russian fleet navigate from Murmansk to the Atlantic if most of its ships are unlikely to have appropriately strengthened hulls or ice breaker support for safe passage?

Also navigating from Murmansk in the Arctic Ocean to the Atlantic is a little further than "around the corner".

I don't know about anything else, but you need to freshen up on your geography lessons.
I have one word for you: Murmansk

"The port of Murmansk remains ice-free year round due to the warm North Atlantic Current"
"Red october"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWPBr4L1eyE

These Wikipedia links contradict you.

Only one Russian seaport in the Barents Sea en route the officially defined Northern Sea Route which begins at the Kara Gates Strait is ice-free all year round, Murmansk on the Kola Peninsula.

The term "ice free" generally refers to the absence of fast ice, i.e. continuously frozen surface ice sheet cover. Under common usage "ice free" does not mean that there is no Arctic sea ice. "Ice free" regions can contain broken ice cover of varying density, often still requiring appropriately strengthened hulls or ice breaker support for safe passage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Sea_Route


The southern half of the Barents Sea, including the ports of Murmansk (Russia) and Vardø (Norway) remain ice-free year round due to the warm North Atlantic drift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barents_Sea



The screenshot above shows the Barents Sea is located in the Arctic Ocean.

[chopstick]

Putin is not evil, but the western corporate-owned media sure does try to make him out to be.

Putin and his compatriots in China are attempting to stand up to the new world order.

The conflict in Ukraine was funded by the west, and the CIA operates constantly in Kiev.

The new coup government in Ukraine wants to try to join NATO, a clear provocation and step towards world war 3, inspired by the west.

The nazi junta government in Ukraine regularly carries out shelling on civilians and conducts ethnic cleansing.

Who is really evil here? Is it the west for funding fascist neo-nazis and helping the gain power in ukraine simply because they oppose russia? Or is it Putin for trying to look out for the interests of Russia underneath the constant threat of NATO expansion and provocation?

[600watt]

Putin is in a fight for his ego.  His propaganda reveals his self-image.  To maintain his identity, he must not back down, must out-game all opponents, and make continual gains.  This is perfectly aligned with his domestic political requirements.  Expanding empire is good for the oligarchs he represents and manages, and good for his popular support.  His most obvious weakness:  Dependence on internal backers, whose interests may change skew to his own.  We have a mafioso in power in Russia.  He's more like Don Corleone than Hitler, but there are similarities to both.

Russian invasion of Ukraine at SOME level will not be tolerated by NATO.  He has seized Abkhazia and South Ossetia.  He has seized Transdneistra.  He has seized Crimea.  If he seizes Ukraine it seems clear he will seize the Baltic States.  Hell, why not Finland?  Why not assimilate Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan?  We've been down this road before.  Poland in WW2 had its borders guaranteed by UK.  Ukraine today had its borders guaranteed by US UK and RU.  If Russia stays in Ukraine, Ukraine will re-arm nuclear.  NATO does not want that, at least not unless Ukraine is both stable and part of NATO.  Putin would rather invade Ukraine entire than invade part and face a nuclear Ukraine in 2 years time.

To say there is nothing the west can do about it seems very questionable to me.  Putin can be removed.  Economic measures can be taken which would beggar Russia, causing him to be deposed.  Military action can be taken to strengthen Ukraine.  Political action can be taken, to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, or offer that as a chip to bargain against Crimea.  In a political game, ground truth is critical.  Putin is motivated to grab as much as he can before coming to the bargaining table.  If he does that badly, there will be copious blood.  The west has strong incentives to stop him before he gains more power, more momentum, and more bargaining chips.  In fact, given his history, it seems clear to me at least that he must be punished.  Some chips must be removed from his kitty, or he will just do it again on another front.

Where are you from and what sort of geopolitical disneyland are you living in?

The US lead West, have been baiting China and Russia for years and will continue to do so. Lately they have been pushing things a little too far and Putin isn't standing for it. All these recent squabbles in Russia's backyard involve muscling in on markets and gaining a strategic foothold right on Russia's doorstep. Can you see why Putin or any other Russian leader (who hasn't sold out to the West) might have a problem with a great big belt of NATO missile bases going up right along their borders? NATO cannot afford to engage Russia in a out and out military conflict. Russia needs to be brought to heel or at least pushed into a strategic and economic stalemate position. The ultimate end goal is to be in a position to crush China, who will grow to be the US's number 1 competitor for world resources and power. A strong Russia stands in the way of a WW3 scenario. For this reason, the Russian bear needs to be driven into it's cage, and held there.

oh and btw, just sit back and watch how Russia annex the Crimea and NATO does fuck all except blow their trumpet and wag their fingers. If the west pushes for sanctions against Russia, then Russia can also badly hurt the West, especially so the EU, and the EU won't like the US pushing for sanctions that will indirectly damage them. The US have pushed the boat out too far on this one, and will have to take a slap in the face with humility, as Russia does whatever it wants.

this.

[valvalis]

I really like to read about speculation about next world war.
But I think war is really bad, I hope It wouldn't come true.
war just waste a lot of money, and make many people suffer.

[Bitmore]

...
NATO uses tactical nukes.  
Putin nukes New York.
...

...and we all become
~fabulously wealthy~

Wealthy and powerful in a post apocalyptic Thunderdome world?

I don't see a downside to this.  

[Biodom]

Contradict what? You were saying how they did not have access to Atlantic....because it is "frozen shut for much of the year"
I showed you a link that says..."ice free year-round" in Murmansk and Atlantic is "around the corner", so grow up and say "thanks", buddy...

And I showed you a link that says under common usage "ice free" does not mean that there is no Arctic sea ice. "Ice free" regions can contain broken ice cover of varying density, often still requiring appropriately strengthened hulls or ice breaker support for safe passage

How can the entire Russian fleet navigate from Murmansk to the Atlantic if most of its ships are unlikely to have appropriately strengthened hulls or ice breaker support for safe passage?

<TL;DR>snip

You have to check correct wiki articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Fleet

"The Northern Fleet includes about two-thirds of all the Russian Navy's nuclear-powered ships."
"The Northern Fleet was considered secondary to the Baltic and Black sea fleets until operational responsibility for the Atlantic Ocean was shifted in the 1950s because of more direct access."
"The Bellona Foundation indicates the Northern Fleet main base is Severomorsk with six more naval bases at Polyarnyy, Olenya Bay, Gadzhiyevo (Yagelnaya/Sayda), Vidyayevo (Ura Bay and Ara Bay), Bolshaya Lopatka (Litsa Guba), and Gremikha. Arktika nuclear-powered icebreakers are based at Murmansk. Shipyards are located in Murmansk, Severodvinsk, Roslyakovo, Polyarnyy, Nerpa, and Malaya Lopatka. Spent fuel storage sites include Murmansk, Gremikha, Severodvinsk and Andreyeva Bay."

Moreover, here is something else:
http://natocouncil.ca/russias-resurgent-navy-assessing-the-northern-fleet/

Moreover, unlike the American and Canadian navies, the Northern Fleet’s surface vessels are able to navigate through Arctic waters. Russia has the world’s only nuclear powered icebreakers, with five currently in service and one being constructed. These icebreakers can clear a path through floating sea ice for the Northern Fleet, allowing Russia’s fleet to operate freely in Arctic waters.

[poncom]

Contradict what? You were saying how they did not have access to Atlantic....because it is "frozen shut for much of the year"
I showed you a link that says..."ice free year-round" in Murmansk and Atlantic is "around the corner", so grow up and say "thanks", buddy...

And I showed you a link that says under common usage "ice free" does not mean that there is no Arctic sea ice. "Ice free" regions can contain broken ice cover of varying density, often still requiring appropriately strengthened hulls or ice breaker support for safe passage

How can the entire Russian fleet navigate from Murmansk to the Atlantic if most of its ships are unlikely to have appropriately strengthened hulls or ice breaker support for safe passage?

<TL;DR>snip

You have to check correct wiki articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Fleet

"The Northern Fleet includes about two-thirds of all the Russian Navy's nuclear-powered ships."
"The Northern Fleet was considered secondary to the Baltic and Black sea fleets until operational responsibility for the Atlantic Ocean was shifted in the 1950s because of more direct access."
"The Bellona Foundation indicates the Northern Fleet main base is Severomorsk with six more naval bases at Polyarnyy, Olenya Bay, Gadzhiyevo (Yagelnaya/Sayda), Vidyayevo (Ura Bay and Ara Bay), Bolshaya Lopatka (Litsa Guba), and Gremikha. Arktika nuclear-powered icebreakers are based at Murmansk. Shipyards are located in Murmansk, Severodvinsk, Roslyakovo, Polyarnyy, Nerpa, and Malaya Lopatka. Spent fuel storage sites include Murmansk, Gremikha, Severodvinsk and Andreyeva Bay."

Moreover, here is something else:
http://natocouncil.ca/russias-resurgent-navy-assessing-the-northern-fleet/

Moreover, unlike the American and Canadian navies, the Northern Fleet’s surface vessels are able to navigate through Arctic waters. Russia has the world’s only nuclear powered icebreakers, with five currently in service and one being constructed. These icebreakers can clear a path through floating sea ice for the Northern Fleet, allowing Russia’s fleet to operate freely in Arctic waters.

Ok, it looks like I was wrong. Thanks for the links.

[Biodom]

Ok, it looks like I was wrong. Thanks for the links.

Ok, glad to help.

[Leina]

Didn't WW2 happen in 1941?

What is the purpose of this topic?

[Wekkel]

...
NATO uses tactical nukes.  
Putin nukes New York.
...

...and we all become
~fabulously wealthy~

Wealthy and powerful in a post apocalyptic Thunderdome world?

I don't see a downside to this.  

The best 2 years of your life