"Putin Orders Snap Military Drills On NATO Border" Topic

"Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered snap military drills for Russian armed forces in the Baltic region to test Russia's "battle-readiness", a ministry of defence spokesperson told Russian news agency Interfax today.

"A self-sufficient, multi-purpose army of air, sea and land units was assembled in the period of less than a day in the Kaliningrad area, consisting of units from all branches of the armed forces," Andrey Kartapolov the lieutenant general of the Russian army said.

The drill took place between the 5th and 10th December, as servicemen were called to assume battlestations in Kaliningrad without warning at 7am Moscow time on the 5th December…"
Full article here
link

What if…? (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Hmmmm….. If the ruble keeps falling, I wonder how he intends to pay them?

With little parcels of other people's land?

"Peace, land, and bread! Or just land and bread!"

He will keep paying troops in worthless rubles. How he will keep his military resupplied will be the problem.

We should go to that border-great deals on Russian militaria. I can use a six-pack of BRDM's.

…A self-sufficient, multi-purpose army of air, sea and land units was assembled in the period of less than a day in the Kaliningrad area…

Worried that someone might try to 'do a Crimea'? ;-)

Provocative moves … again … He's a sly one …

Kaliningrad – that little chunk of East Prussia that shows where the Russians really want to expand to – the West!

Hmmm, makes me wonder if there'll be a Christmas, or New Years' surprise, given how far the ruble has fallen, and what oil is doing.

Looks like the US will go ahead with more sanctions and weapons for Ukraine, too.

Correction, they will go ahead with signing the right to supply weapons (and/or training). It will be interesting to see whether the intention is to supply them, or it is being used as a counter bluff to Russia to back off. ;-)

The country I think is the real threat for dreaming up military action as its' only hope to counter an economy in free fall is Venezuela.

The one neighbor they can dredge up the most resentment against is Colombia, so I give it a 50/50 chance of Maduro starting military action against Colombia in the next year.

But yes, if the ruble continues to fall, then Putin may join him…

Columbia has the better military by far. Plus if I remember right Brazil is closer to Columbia then Venezuela and Brazil is the 300 lbs Gorilla in the room when South
America is involved.

Actually where you have to worry about Venezuela striking is Aruba or any of the Dutch islands. Small garrisons and within easy reach of the mainland.

Generally, if we bother to vote and pass resolutions for military support to other nations, they go forward with them.

Dobby, the paper tiger!

There's some things that don't seem to add up with Russia and Ukraine.

The Russians had been selling gas to Ukraine at a reduced price and the Ukrainians still couldn't afford it and are billions in debt to Moscow.

But the Ukrainians eye the west and the much improved economy of Poland (etc) and want some of the same, which would then improve their lives and enable them to pay Moscow back the money they owe.

But the Russians see the move towards the west by Ukraine as a threat. Why? Russia and Ukraine have been 'family' for decades and are about as close as you can get.

So why is Russia acting aggressive when it is only harming themselves, financially at least?

Any Russians on here can help plug some knowledge gaps of this dumb old westerner? Barin, you around? You seem pretty level headed – can you help out?

This may go some way to explaining the Russian stance on Ukraine:
link

The Russians had been selling gas to Ukraine at a reduced price…

In exchange for being allowed to keep a naval base in Crimea…

…and the Ukrainians still couldn't afford it and are billions in debt to Moscow.

Because Russia then said "if you want to play with the West, we will bill you at full European prices", after they annexed Crimea, thus taking away their side of the bargain.

But the Ukrainians eye the west and the much improved economy of Poland (etc) and want some of the same, which would then improve their lives and enable them to pay Moscow back the money they owe.

Which goes to show it's more about power, influence and control than it is about money.

Russia and Ukraine have been 'family' for decades and are about as close as you can get.

Possibly because Ukrainians see themselves as Ukrainian, whereas Russia seems to still see Ukraine as belonging very much to Russia. The current actions do seem to be very much a punishment against Ukraine for daring to consider joining the EU rather than their own trading circle.

So why is Russia acting aggressive when it is only harming themselves, financially at least?

Because she sees herself surrounded by aggressive anti-Russian countries who are set on settling old scores and using unthinking western (US and UK particularly) support to overthrow democratic decisions that favour Russia.

Whether any of that is true is irrelevant, it is what the Russians think is true – but take a look at a few maps and see how we would feel if the positions were reversed?

Ukraine elects a pro Russian President (in 2004) and has him overthrown by western backed protestors – there is some evidence of electoral malpractice. The re-run puts a pro-westerner in power – the usual corruption continues but this time including the people who said they would stop it if they overthrew the pro-Russian group. Meanwhile the Ukrainian economy is trashed and the leaders sell gas from Russia under the counter to the west at inflated profits for themselves.

The people elect the pro Russian guy again (this time in elections monitored by international observers who say it is fine) and immediately western backed mobs overthrow the president again.

Wonder why the Russians think democracy is problematic?

Putin's popularity rating is 87% among Russians … Western politicians wish they came anywhere close to that … As some note, Hitler was very popular too, before WWII … But regardless I don't see WWIII breaking out … yet ..

Thanks guys for the answers.

I think the pro-Russian president was about as corrupt as you could get, so ousting him and his cronies was probably a step in the right direction.

Whether the next lot that came to power are any better is open to debate.

I can see the Russian point of view about being 'surrounded', but wonder if that is also mis-placed?

Page one of the British Army book of tactics says: Do not invade Russia. I think it also says that in the tactics manuals of a few other armies.

Getting Russia working as a business partner in trade would be better for everybody. Why they didn't go for that in 89 I don't know, the 'they' being the West.

As far as the UK being unthinking I think that is a bit out of place. As an ordinary Brit all I can see is UK Government trying to keep everybody happy and trying to stop a shooting war starting, if only because our guys will be pushed to the front to fight in that one. It's the last thing we want.

The ordinary Brits like Russians. My neighbour is from Moscow and she's great. We're also concerned at any hardships the ordinary Russians might be experiencing due to financial problems (we've had the same for a few years thanks to the bankers!, and we don't like it either).

I just wish Putin would stop sending the tanks in. It doesn't help.

"Plus if I remember right Brazil is closer to Columbia (sic) then Venezuela"

No – Brazil's small border with Colombia is at the furthest, least accessible corner of the country. Venezuela's border with Colombia is its' longest with any neighbor, and most tied in to transportation infrastructure.

"The people elect the pro Russian guy again (this time in elections monitored by international observers who say it is fine) and immediately western backed mobs overthrow the president again."

Your presentation of history is factually incorrect.

Unrest started in Kiev after Yanukovych rejected closer trade associations with the European Union, which polls indicated was supported by a majority, in order to pursue closer trade tries with Russia and loans from Russia. Polls indicated the majority of Ukrainians rejected closer ties with Russia.

Putin has said recently, it is all the USA's fault and the US are warmongers … No surprise there …

Getting Russia working as a business partner in trade would be better for everybody. Why they didn't go for that in 89 I don't know, the 'they' being the West.

Because in 1989 Russia didn't have any industries that were capable of producing items desired by the west in large quantities.

There are a few places where the US buys Russian goods at a premium (vacuum-tube stereo electronics and replacement tubes), but those are not a significant % of trade.

Your presentation of history is factually incorrect.

Actually it is correct – the Yanukovych government was democratically elected.

Unrest started in Kiev after Yanukovych rejected closer trade associations with the European Union, which polls indicated was supported by a majority, in order to pursue closer trade tries with Russia and loans from Russia. Polls indicated the majority of Ukrainians rejected closer ties with Russia.

So according to you, democratically elected governments need to be toppled everytime they make unpopular decisions?!?

The majority of Australian people are completely opposed to current government budget. Does that mean we should topple the government sand destabilise our social structure?

There are democratic processes called elections that allow for change of government. Sometimes you have a dud government and have to wait a few years for your chance to change them.

The removal of the Yanukovych government undermined Ukranian democracy (even if Russia didn't get involved).

I'm not advocating Russia's response either (IMO Russia needs to disappear permanently). From a purely Ukranian perspective, it's clear that people don't yet grasp democratic values if they're willing to topple governments everytime they do something unpopular.

As to topic, time to ramp up the sanctions even more (and maybe smash the price of oil some more).

Good luck keeping those units in any operational manner without any money.

Because in 1989 Russia didn't have any industries that were capable of producing items desired by the west in large quantities.

When it comes down to it, the Russian economy is not that far from Saudi Arabia's in that its predominant source of income is fossil fuel.

Replacing oil with environmentally friendly alternative would be the best weapon in destroying Islamic terrorism and the Russian threat.

democratically elected governments need to be toppled everytime they make unpopular decisions

If that was what happened, but it wasn't…

Maidan protests (so called because they took place at Maidan Nezalezhosti, the central square in Kyiv) were essentially peaceful, and came about after Yanukovich performed a sudden u-turn from a pro-EU deal back to a pro-Russian deal. It was poorly handled because he appeared to do it on a whim, with no consideration for the electorate and with an opportunity for personal financial gain, but up to that point the protests were pretty much just people waving banners and complaining (partly about the deal, partly about the general level of corruption).

Where it really turned was when Yanukovich decided he wanted to put up the Christmas tree on Maidan, only he couldn't because the people were all in the way, so in true old-school Soviet style he simply passed a law to outlaw protests, then ordered the Berkut to clear the camp from the square. The Berkut already had a reputation of brutality and violence, and stormed in.

Now, one thing pretty much guaranteed to stir up the crowd is telling them they have no right to object (remember that bit about democracy?) and driving the BTRs into the square pretty much turned it into the disaster it became.

The Berkut then opened fire on the protestors, either under Yanukovich's direct instruction or on their own command initiative (but with no objection from the CinC). Yanukovich then fled from Kyiv and ultimately Ukraine, turning up in Russia a short while later. So yes, he probably abandoned the post in fear of being impeached (or more likely lynched) but I'm not sure it is quite as black and white as him being toppled because he made a single bad decision ;-)

"Actually it is correct – the Yanukovych government was democratically elected."

No one disputes that. You are twisting statements to arrive at your own conclusions. Not contributing towards a worthwhile discussion.

"So according to you, democratically elected governments need to be toppled everytime they make unpopular decisions?!?"

According to me? You're making stuff up.

Interesting point – counterpoint …

- military drills are having very litlle press here. Especially now, when people are starting to look at the costs of these deployments. Therefore, they're not adding to government/president popularity.
- it is still not clear, who exactly opened the fire on Maidan square. Even with some back pedaling we have recordings where there're some chaps shooting both ways. Later we had very similar stuff happening in Odessa.
-we had several cases where elected presidents were removed from power, hiding in foreign embassies, and even running away from their country. Still, they were considered legitimate. I agree that Yanukovich was a crook, but the opposition could dispose of him legally by impeachment.

- I expect that further economic troubles will make Putin's popularity a bit lower, but don't expect revolutions. He already channeled general unrest into "us against them" talk at recent press conference.

- generally, you can see that some people on this very forum are saying the same as much-hated Putin – this is all about government changes and removing Russia from the map. I don't fully subscribe to this point of view (we had to invest more into smth we can control within our country, and not live off hydrocarbons that can be thrown to the pit by rich sheikhs) – but this idea is becoming very, very popular here.
One thing that got severely damaged is the trust in local currency. Russia was the only post-soviet state (Baltic states apart) where people during last 5 years started trusting their local currency, so some savings were switched from USD/EUR to rubles. Tuesday was a peak of panic, where people and banks alike were trying to buy hard currency at any costs, and it is when EUR jumped over 100 roubles!
I knew it was too late at that time…we'll see how the situation will be developing.
I lived through 3 crises myself. End of 80s I was checking the shops for ANY goods/food, as there were none. Now, I just bought lots of stuff, including a new car.

Hopefully, we'll live through this one, too.

áîëüøîå ñïàñèáî ìîèì äðóãîì Barin1 for the "inside" info.
Very interesting.

Amicalement
Armand

-we had several cases where elected presidents were removed from power, hiding in foreign embassies, and even running away from their country. Still, they were considered legitimate. I agree that Yanukovich was a crook, but the opposition could dispose of him legally by impeachment.

I thought Yakunovich fled before he could be impeached?

He did

You can even put to trial smb without him been present. If they want to go legal way, they still should be at least opening the procedure.
There was nothing in the old Ukrainian constitution that says: "if head of state runs away for whatever reason he is no longer the president".
And there was an agreement of power transfer/new elections, signed by opposition ,brokered by EU/Russia an broken immediately. Therefore, even that Yanukovich removal was an act of justice in its broad sense, it was by no means legal.

In case of Yeltsin/our parliament impeachemnt was tried several times.

link

"The Rada did not follow, or claim to follow, the impeachment route. They passed a resolution that established that Yanukovych had removed himself from fulfilling his constitutional duties. The resolution stated that due to the fact that Yanukovych had unconstitutionally stopped fulfilling his presidential duties, the Rada was calling early presidential elections as is their right under Article 85/7. It seems that nothing in the constitution prohibits parliament from passing such a resolution, which has the full legal force of a law, according to Article 91."