NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

I still think he's concerned about NATO expansion to the East, and why shouldn't he be? NATO was an organization that should have been defunct with the end of The Cold War, instead it has been used to justify the expansion of American Imperialism to Russia's doorstep.

so that was all he wanted? Almost an anticlimax. All this talk of NATO at his doorstep and putting the sword to Ukraine was just upping the ante.
Still, it is a precedent. Next will probably be the Serb-dominated part of Bosnia. Another can of worms. 

Ukraine will find it hard to accept, but basically, little has changed on the ground. It will only serve to harden the border between Russia and its neighbours (excluding Belarus, for the moment) and drive Ukraine closer to the EU. It'll be interesting to see how damaging the sanctions will be. In the end it will be economic performance that decides the political map of Europe, not arms.

 Steely_D wrote:


TECHnically...

 Steely_D wrote:

The question is who's going to make the first move, and how big a move does it have to be to count as a move? Because moves have been made. "No more now, I mean it!"



Anybody want a peanut?

 Col. Kurtz wrote:
The Bosporus Trucker Convoy!

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
We could take the whole idea of Black Sea ocean access off the table in one fell swoop.  Simply steam or whatever you kids are calling it these days, an old battleship or aircraft carrier and sail it up to the eastern end of the Straight of The Bosphorus turn it sideways and scuttle it or blow it up or whatever and block it up for years.  Easy peasy.

 black321 wrote: 
you're right on that one. And if he thinks he's going to place a burden on the west I bet there are a whole of arms manufacturers who are warmly rubbing their hands in anticipation of higher revenue in the coming years. 
The west's biggest problem is saturated markets, not a lack of production. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Not saying it makes sense.
Does war ever?

Latvian prime minister seems to have the best handle on it.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
well ov has probably pimped it a time or two

dead simple to operate, just ask bush jr.

and it is a secret alien technology that saved the world

 black321 wrote: 
what he needs is foreign trade and to bring domestic production up to scratch (see the recent local content legislation).
If he thinks he needs a military port in the Black Sea then he really is still stuck in the mindset of WWII and the cold war. (and I'd like to know how he plans to get his navy through the Bosporus in a hot war).

And if it is just a trading port he's after, well, with Crimea, he already has one. 

 miamizsun wrote: 
ah, the knikken knokken WM-78V. I fondle it remembering as OV wouldn't have said had not said anything.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

He wants/needs those southern ports, no? 
Otherwise it's all just to confuse the west...so more chaos?
Maybe         

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 

 black321 wrote:
and i think that will eventually fall too

 black321 wrote: 
makes very little sense, unless Putin truly is locked in a pre-1989 mindset. 

He would immediately suffer major economic sanctions. His export revenue would plummet. He'd have a hornets nest of opposition that he would have to repress à la Belarus, except it would probably turn out much more brutal if it were to be effective. There is growing opposition at home to his leadership and I'm pretty sure a lot of Russians wouldn't feel too hot about a brutal repression of Ukrainians. 

addendum:
he would also have pissed off his trading partners in Europe and massively frightened the Baltic states and Poland, which will only push them more towards the west and harden the border to the east, which will further reduce trade and exchange. 

So he wins on the strong man stakes at home but loses on just about every other metric. Makes no sense.

addendum #2
and if his plan is to replace all European trade with China, that bears additional risks, making him dependent on one single foreign power that has way more economic clout than he does.. 

I don't get it.
 

 miamizsun wrote:

Or they invade, 
set up their own puppet,
then leave.
Win-win

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
since you didn't ask me i'll give my take
i tend to agree with you and it is easy to see that this is set up to fail
if he invades: this aggression like all other aggressions on peaceful people will eventually default
after enough loss of life, resources and support they will make a effort to save some sort of face and leave
how long will that take? who knows
and putin will be responsible, but he will blame someone else
if he should come to his senses and do the right thing:
then he will leave and make a effort to save some sort of face
authoritarian social tech is dead, he just won't admit it

 westslope wrote: 
Ok, smarty pants, so what's your take? All just a sham to wear down NATO patience? Seems to be a lot of effort for very little prospect of reward for the Russians.