More Ukrainian Events

[joepistole]

This thing was badly played by the west. For all the posturing and saber rattling, nothing worthwhile came of it.
The idea of having NATO military exercises within Ukraine was the absolute epitome of stupidity. (I know, lets make Ukraine a battleground.) idiocy by any other name would still be as stupid.
What has the west, the us, and nato accomplished (aside from demonstrating their petty squabbles to the world.)?
Our leaders have pretty much convinced Ukraine that we will do nothing to help nor protect them, just like the west did nothing when Stalin starved millions of them in the '30s.

And you think that makes sense? Your post is a contradiction, not to mention factually incorrect. Obviously, the West has done much to support Ukraine. It has imposed economic sanctions. It has provided Ukraine with financial and eonomic aid. And most Western states have also said they will not intervene militarily in Ukraine as Ukraine is not a NATO member state.

The simple fact that Russian troops are not occupying Kiev now says your assertions about the effectiveness of Western intervention are wrong.

 

[sculptor]

At the recent NATO conference, more time was spent squabbling about the military budgets being a minimum of 2% of GDP than was spent on Ukraine. No new sanctions were accepted nor imposed.

NATO has shown it's self to be a limp dick left over from a bygone era. Without purpose, it flounders about looking for military adventurism to justify it's pathetic existence.

Maybe, the meetings are good for an occasional chat with old allies?
Like a couple septuagenarian vets chatting about the war of their youths.

 

[joepistole]

At the recent NATO conference, more time was spent squabbling about the military budgets being a minimum of 2% of GDP than was spent on Ukraine. No new sanctions were accepted nor imposed.

And you have proof of that claim? I don’t know how much time was spent discussing military budgets during the recent NATO conference. But it wouldn’t be surprising if your assertion about time spent was true given NATO states have been discussing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for the better part of a year now. And you are wrong, new sanctions were imposed in the immediate aftermath of the NATO conference. NATO member states have been discussing, developing and implementing sanctions since the first Russian incursion into Ukraine 7 months ago.

NATO has shown it's self to be a limp dick left over from a bygone era. Without purpose, it flounders about looking for military adventurism to justify it's pathetic existence.

Well that is your opinion, but member NATO states seem to feel differently. Why don’t you ask Poland, Lithuania, Estonia or Ukraine for that matter how they feel about NATO. I don’t think they share your “limp dick” assessment. And if you believe Putin, he doesn’t either as he has used NATO as the reason for his aggression in Ukraine.

Maybe, the meetings are good for an occasional chat with old allies?
Like a couple septuagenarian vets chatting about the war of their youths.

I think your assessments are just not consistent with known facts. Each of the major NATO powers has very capable military organizations who perpetually exercise and practice war maneuvers with each other and have for decades fought together in places like Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Bosnia. That is far from the antiquated scenario you are painting.

 

[orcot]

On October first, Jens Stoltenberg will become the 13the secretary general of NATO.

These are his opinions on Russia:

On 25 March 2014, Stoltenberg gave a speech to a Labour Party convention where he harshly criticized Russia over its invasion of Crimea, stating that Russia threatened security and stability in Europe and violated international law, and calling Russia's actions unacceptable.[54] After his election as NATO Secretary-General, Stoltenberg emphasized that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a "brutal reminder of the necessity of NATO," stating that Russia's actions in Ukraine represented "the first time since the Second World War that a country has annexed a territory belonging to another country."[55]

Stoltenberg has highlighted the necessity of NATO having a sufficiently strong military capacity, including nuclear weapons, to deter Russia from violating international law and threaten the security of NATO's member states. He has highlighted the importance of Article 5 in the North Atlantic Treaty and NATO's responsibility to defend the security of its eastern members in particular. He has further stated that Russia needs to be sanctioned over its actions in Ukraine, and has said that a possible NATO membership of Ukraine will be "a very important question" in the near future. Stoltenberg has expressed concern over Russia acquiring new cruise missiles.[56]

Stoltenberg has called NATO "the most successful alliance in history," stating that "NATO has secured the peace in Europe since its creation, and the alliance has managed to adapt to new security challenges."

I wish he didn't bring up the nuclear weapons though.
I imagine NATO members will actually increase their spending (probably to 2%) and we will see more cooperation between Nations.
Apart from that, Europe will probably diversify its energy policies and invest in green energy, giving it a second breath. They claim to make 20% of their energy green in 2020 (not really realistic but who knows).
But what about the future of poor Ukraine? Will they find a ballance between Europe and Russia or will they drift off to the west?

 

[sculptor]

The likelihood of NATO member nations meeting agreed upon military spending seems exceptionally remote to me.

From my perspective, NATO is'nt much more than a shill for UK and US economic colonialism and military adventurism.
I am puzzled by the willingness of the other member nations to continue to go along with this continuation of Atlanticism.

Surely, we've grown beyond the petty squabbles and wars of bygone generations?

 

[joepistole]

The likelihood of NATO member nations meeting agreed upon military spending seems exceptionally remote to me.

From my perspective, NATO is'nt much more than a shill for UK and US economic colonialism and military adventurism.
I am puzzled by the willingness of the other member nations to continue to go along with this continuation of Atlanticism.

Surely, we've grown beyond the petty squabbles and wars of bygone generations?

Well, the fact is they did agree to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense. The fact that Russia and more specifically Putin has repeatedly attacked, occupied and annexed portions of neighboring states clearly demonstrates you are wrong.

 

[sculptor]

Did the member nations really agree?
Or was it just words flung headlessly to the winds.
Is their continued underspending an indication of their true feelings?

 

[joepistole]

Did the member nations really agree?
Or was it just words flung headlessly to the winds.
Is their continued underspending an indication of their true feelings?

Well it's a simple matter of fact, they did agree. Whither they follow through on their agreement remains to be seen. NATO members are democracies and have complicated fiscal processes.

 

[sculptor]

Maybe, we need a better understanding of the meaning of the word "agree"?

 

[joepistole]

Maybe, we need a better understanding of the meaning of the word "agree"?

No, I think the Webster's definition is fine.

 

[sculptor]

well, then
When they "agreed" they lied.
If you cannot trust your allies to honor their words, why keep them?

 

[joepistole]

well, then
When they "agreed" they lied.
If you cannot trust your allies to honor their words, why keep them?

No they didn't agree the lied. They agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defense.

 

[orcot]

IF NATO is the EU + the US and Turkey then those 2% is equal to 35% the GDP of Russia wouldn't that be overkill?

 

[joepistole]

IF NATO is the EU + the US and Turkey then those 2% is equal to 35% the GDP of Russia wouldn't that be overkill?

The combined GDP of NATO nations account for more than half of world GDP. It's a 34 trillion dollar economy versus a 2 trillion (and shrinking) dollar economy. Yeah, Mother Russia is already out gunned, just as the former Soviet Union once was. But Putin and his fellow Russians appear to have learned nothing from the past.

 

[sculptor]

Russians appear to have learned nothing from the past.

Rather depends on which part of their past you focus on.

 

[joepistole]

Rather depends on which part of their past you focus on.

I don't think so. Putin's aggression and nationalism is helping him to mask the economic problems created that aggression. The Bank of Russia (Russia's central bank) is forecasting a .4% economic growth for 2014 and as the sanctions persist, the economic pressures will spiral. Russian inflation is running at 7.5% and Putin's retaliatory sanctions will only exacerbate Russian inflation problems. Putin's land grabs will not solve his economic problems.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101903367#.

 

[joepistole]

The fighting in Eastern Ukraine continues - so much for the truce. I still wonder what was really on those "humanitarian aid trucks". Given the proximity to the invasion of uniformed Russian troops and the importance Putin placed on them, I think it safe to assume they were anything but humanitarian in nature.

 

[orcot]

It's getting colder to, Last time I checked it was near 30°C in eastern Ukraine the temprature now had droped to 10°C if the treaty can hold a other month it will start to freeze and snow.

https://weatherspark.com/averages/33801/Donetsk-Donets-ka-Ukraine

 

[joepistole]

It looks like Canada might buy Russia's war ships from France. Meanwhile, Putin's press is busy telling Russians NATO cannot afford them and lacks the ability to use them.

 

[Billy T]

Part of why the rebels seem to be winning now in main cities of eastern Ukraine including Debaltseve, may be related to this:

The Mikoyan MiG-29 fighter jet is one of the world's great fourth-generation fighter planes. Powered by twin Klimov RD-33 turbofan engines, the MiG-29 (which NATO calls the Fulcrum) is capable of flying at speeds in excess of Mach 2 for distances of as much as 888 miles, and at altitudes up to 59,000 feet. Armed with a 30 mm GSh-30-1 cannon, and equipped with nine "hard points" capable of carrying everything from bombs to rockets to air-to-air missiles, the plane can perform both air superiority and ground attack missions. And priced at approximately $30 million per unit, it's cheaper than comparable American fighters such as Lockheed Martin's (NYSE: LMT ) F-16 Fighting Falcon or Boeing's (NYSE: BA ) F/A-18 Super Hornet.

It's little wonder, then, that the MiG-29 is the most popular non-U.S.-built fighter jet on the planet. Indeed, just next door to Russia, 80 MiG-29 jets used to form the backbone of the Ukrainian air force. Except that that was last year.

According to the latest Flightglobal report on the status of the Ukrainian air force, more than three-quarters of those MiG-29s no longer exist. And it's not just Fulcrums. Between the 2014 issue of Flightglobal's "World Air Forces" report and the latest update, Ukraine's air force fighter jet fleet has shrunk from:
•80 MiG-29 Fulcrums to just 19
•25 Su-24 Fencers to only 11
•36 Su-27s Flankers to just 16
•36 Su-25 Frogfoots ("Frogfeet"?) to just 15

Now Kiev has only small combat ready air force. Courage, training, tactical advice, and heavy weapons (captured from Kiev forces* or supplied by Putin) are not so vulnerable to air power and seem to be stronger on the rebel side.

* those of 8000 government troops at the Debaltseve garrison probably will soon fall into rebel hands.