Tango01 | 20 Feb 2015 9:02 p.m. PST |
…says Nato general. "General Sir Adrian Bradshaw, Nato's deputy supreme allied commander in Europe, says Vladimir Putin could try to invade and seize Nato territory Tensions with Russia could blow up into all-out conflict, posing "an existential threat to our whole being", Britain's top general in Nato has warned. Gen Sir Adrian Bradshaw, deputy commander of Nato forces in Europe, said there was a danger Vladimir Putin could try to use his armies to invade and seize Nato territory, after calculating the alliance would be too afraid of escalating violence to respond. His comments follow a clash between London and Moscow after the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, said there was a "real and present danger" Mr Putin could try to destabilise the Baltic states with a campaign of subversion and irregular warfare. The Kremlin called those comments "absolutely unacceptable"…" Full article here link YouTube link Amicalement Armand |
Mako11 | 21 Feb 2015 12:30 a.m. PST |
He's been warning them of Russia's power, for quite some time, so I wouldn't be surprised at all, especially given the overly weak responses to continued aggressions and provocations by Putin. Angela is the new Neville. NATO and the West are lead by paper tigers. Why wouldn't he, since he sees no real threat, or reaction to his actions. |
Huscarle | 21 Feb 2015 3:20 a.m. PST |
Sadly, I have to agree with Mako11. |
Porthos | 21 Feb 2015 7:51 a.m. PST |
Angela is the new Macchiavelli. Russia is slowly being economically strangled so sooner or later something will break. The real question is what will happen then: will Putin be removed ? Will someone with more feeling for economical problems and solutions stand up ? Angela Merkel said time and again that war is no solution in cases like this. After all: Germany took only forty years to be back at the "old" borders, stronger then ever and clearly leading Europe. In war no one wins. |
Visceral Impact Studios | 21 Feb 2015 8:16 a.m. PST |
Because Russia is being slowly damaged by economic sanctions rather than being decisively confronted over its actions war is more likely. History has many examples of war being used to distract a population from official corruption and unified against an invented external threat. This slow burn being led by the EU's financial sector (they like their connections with Russia) throws Russia an economic lifeline giving Putin time to address threats to his regime. And Putin is right: the U.S. will not want Kansas nuked because Russia invades a tiny Baltic state. It just isn't going to happen if we take a reactive stance. The only way to prevent a war would be to position US and other troops from larger NATO countries in the smaller ones. Putin will be happy to attack a small NATO member and then dare the US to respond because that will play well to the civilians. And he knows the US won't respond. But he won't attack US troops directly because the civilians wouldn't support that. Slowly backing Putin against the wall just provides him more opportunities to survive and threaten Europe. |
Mako11 | 21 Feb 2015 9:00 a.m. PST |
Animals attack when cornered, so I suspect Putin and the Russian Bear will attack NATO, and/or other periphery European countries, if for nothing else other than revenge, if it gets that bad economically for him. That'll play well to his citizenry back home, and secure his position, much like when Hitler stood up to its former foes just prior to kicking off WWII, over reparations for WWI, and armament restrictions. Don't poke a bear with a stick, especially if you are unwilling to fight it. |
Legion 4 | 21 Feb 2015 9:25 a.m. PST |
If Putin and his cronies are crazy enough to attack the NATO Paper Tiger with the smaller Russian Paper Tiger … It certainly seems like a recipe for nothing but disaster and eveyone involved will suffer. Which in the end would gain little. I don't think even Putin is that nuts. He's a Russian not an islamo-fascist. He wants to survive the end game. Unlike rad/fan islamists who crave martyrdom … Putin is most likely an atheist regardless … like all good [former KGB] Communists … |
Tgunner | 21 Feb 2015 9:25 a.m. PST |
Also consider Japan in 1941 being strangled by sanctions. They were backed into a corner of their own making and that led to the Pacific War. Sanctions are a good strategy, but you need military force behind them to make them truly effective or else you leave a hostile power with force as an option to break the sanctions which is exactly what Imperial Japan did. Does Russia have an Axis to rely on? |
Legion 4 | 21 Feb 2015 9:56 a.m. PST |
Does Russia have an Axis to rely on?
Not anymore … And just as a sidebar, Saddam's Iraq, the Iranians and North Koreans, to name a few, routinely ignore/break sanctions … |
Mako11 | 21 Feb 2015 10:14 a.m. PST |
Actually, Putin is working on his alliances with China (admitted, a dubious one at best), Iran, Syria, and he's working on one with North Korea of late, reportedly, too. Some even claim he's backing ISIS, though I haven't seen anything to really back that up. Of course, it won't be an overt attack. Probably more like in Crimea, and claims in Eastern Ukraine, of "little green men", on vacation and acting independently on their own initiative, or getting lost while on military exercises. Could also be rogue bands of Russian-leaning, disaffected separatists, in the Baltic States as well. He can take small bites, and dare NATO to respond, since he'll threaten to nuke them, or cut off their natural gas, and he has the ability to do so. That's what the whole, "Russia will never be defeated" rhetoric is about, since he has the second most powerful military in the world, but I have no doubt, is the most powerful force on the planet currently, since he's willing to use it. |
Tony58 | 21 Feb 2015 10:30 a.m. PST |
The new Cold War: Putin issues chilling new threat as Nato chief says tensions with Russia could end in 'all out conflict' Read more: link Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook link
|
NavyVet | 21 Feb 2015 10:57 a.m. PST |
|
Tango01 | 21 Feb 2015 11:18 a.m. PST |
|
Weasel | 21 Feb 2015 12:30 p.m. PST |
|
Zargon | 21 Feb 2015 1:36 p.m. PST |
Weasel spot on, whole lot of hyperbole by cruddy General (how many stars can I get) know alls. Kansas nuked? "Why! Toto we're not in Kansas any more" :) (that would be an interesting 'day after' scenario, protagonists, survivors of the blasts, National Guard, Neo survivalists? "I told ya so!" types. All trying to hold on to what little is left, food, clean water etc. The grid is fried and down, trucker CBs to communicate. How do you as a leader/commander deal with fellow citizens who 2 days ago were mild law abiding people, and now…! OK Nordic? I'll use no end in sight for this one:) Cheers see ya all in the trenches |
Visceral Impact Studios | 21 Feb 2015 6:12 p.m. PST |
Zargon, The whole point is that Putin can do what he wants precisely be because nobody want Kansas nuked over something like the Crimea, Ukraine, or any Baltic state, NATO member or not. If tomorrow morning we awoke to news that Russia invaded one or more Baltic states, all of whom are NATO members, the result would be…nothing. We're not going to get into a shooting war over them or Ukraine which Russia has already invaded (but is not a NATO member). |
Mako11 | 21 Feb 2015 8:31 p.m. PST |
Exactly, and Putin knows that, since he's a pretty shrewd chess player, three steps ahead of the rest of the world's leadership. |
piper909 | 21 Feb 2015 11:06 p.m. PST |
It's a little hard for me to get all riled up for WWIII over fears that Russia might try to restore itself to something like the borders of the old USSR -- which NATO did NOT go to war with, it should be noted, even though it was conceivably much more of a true threat and had an active military alliance at its back. Today's pollarded Russia is nowhere near the same level of geopolitical threat, altho' the possession of a nuclear arsenal means it should not be provoked beyond its obvious national interests by any rational Western power. |
David Manley | 22 Feb 2015 3:18 a.m. PST |
In contrast to the doom and gloom views often expressed on this subject I have rather more faith in the US and NATO in defending the sovereignty of the Baltic States and indeed any NATO member. The reason? One word – credibility. If the Baltic States were attacked and NATO did nothing it would be finished overnight. Gone. And if the US were to fail to live up to its treaty obligations under Article 5 it too would face an overseas credibility issue the likes of which it had never experienced, especially when one remembers that the only time Article 5 has needed to be invoked was to support the US following the 9/11 attacks. If the US failed to step up to the plate in the face of an attack in the Baltic its credibility as an ally as well as its national honour would be gone forever. Imagine how that would be viewed around the world, Tokyo and Beijing in particular. And how that scenario would play out in the future. NATO needs to react because its future existence depends on it. The US needs to react because its entire foreign policy and standing in the international community depends on it. But despite what some might think of the inhabitants of inner DC I believe they are VERY well aware of this and would not be prepared to throw away the standing of the US lightly. And I similarly believe Putin knows this to be the case. So I don't see him doing anything more than sabre rattling in the Baltic. After all, its cheap to do, it scares the neighbours and it has the potential to make the "cops on the beat" look weak and feeble if they don't react. But more than that? I don't buy it. And I'd see that "cover" applying to Sweden and Finland as well (both of whom are so deeply integrated into NATO as to be members in all but name). The situation in the Baltic region is very different to that on the shores of the Black Sea. The Baltic nations enjoy political, social and economic stability as well as extremely close ties with NATO and the EU. Contrast that to the relative "basket case" situation that exists in the Black Sea region where the opposite is true |
GNREP8 | 22 Feb 2015 8:35 a.m. PST |
Weasel spot on, whole lot of hyperbole by cruddy General (how many stars can I get) know alls. ------------ Cruddy General know alls ? If that meant Gen Bradshaw how many stars have you got? |
GNREP8 | 22 Feb 2015 8:39 a.m. PST |
And I similarly believe Putin knows this to be the case. So I don't see him doing anything more than sabre rattling in the Baltic. After all, its cheap to do, it scares the neighbours and it has the potential to make the "cops on the beat" look weak and feeble if they don't react. But more than that? I don't buy it. ----------------------- As much as I do support Ukraine's right to exist, I can understand the Russian pov of concern re having another potential NATO member on its border – Russian policy for centuries has been about having buffer states (I play Muscovy in that computer game Europa Universalis IV) |
Inkpaduta | 22 Feb 2015 11:10 a.m. PST |
I think there is another reason Putin and similar leaders do not take the US as seriously as they once did. The US is now $18 USD Trillion in debt. We simply are not as strong as we once were. How could we even afford a massive war? This debt is limiting the US as a world player. |
Mako11 | 22 Feb 2015 1:42 p.m. PST |
"Something, something, something……….Egypt….. Mubarak…….thrown under bus……..Muslim Brotherhood……..support for,……..Syria………red lines……….WMD disarmament/use……….no action……….despite use……………, ….force reductions……..withdrawal….Afghanistan……Iraq……,……loss of credibility on the world stage……….". Russians/Putin laughing at the situation, and/or taking advantage of it, since they know they can, without any real repercussions. |
GNREP8 | 22 Feb 2015 1:55 p.m. PST |
I think it was the Egyptian people and generals who threw Mubarak under a bus as did the Ukrainian people and generals with Yanukovych (unless you are thinking they were both US funded/green lighted/facilitated!) |
GeoffQRF | 22 Feb 2015 3:11 p.m. PST |
This is the big problem. It is being touted that this whole thing was a CIA/USA operation to tumble Ukraine into the western sphere of influence… because Ukraine has… Ummm. Well nothing really. It's all about ego. It is much it is much easier to think that this is some scheming deviousness on the part of NATO to place itself right on the border with Russia (because they gave never been there before, cough, Turkey) and thus contain Russia… because… well who knows really. Like Russia really needs containing… Much easier to believe this is all part of some great Western plot than to consider the highly dangerous option… You see, it is almost too scary to think that the people themselves may have got fed up with a leader who was slowly giving himself more and more dictatorial powers while building himself luxury palaces at the expense of the common man. That they looked enviously at their neighbour, who only a few years before had been in the same position and was now doing far better. That they thought 'hey, you know what? This deal looking right ain't working. We want to look the other way'. See, that's scary, to think that the general population may actually hold that power themselves. It's particularly scary when you run a country that relies on you holding [almost] ultimate power. |
tuscaloosa | 22 Feb 2015 4:25 p.m. PST |
Geoff's comments are spot-on. Those who think that the change of government in Kiev was part of a devious U.S. plan give way too much credit to the U.S. government. The reality is (to echo Geoff's comments): Poland looked at Germany and decided it wanted to do better, so it introduced capitalism and its' economy did much better. Ukraine looked at Poland, wanted the same thing, so the Ukrainian people took the first steps. Putin couldn't allow that example to continue its' march eastward. |
Mako11 | 22 Feb 2015 5:41 p.m. PST |
Very true. We can't even set up and run a decent website, no matter how many billions we sink into that, or send out the right tax form info, apparently. |
GeoffQRF | 22 Feb 2015 11:51 p.m. PST |
I am in no doubt that the US may have tried to poke their finger in there, but US $ have been absorbed there by both pro east and pro west leaders. And it is certainly no more that the heavy influences placed on Ukraine by Russia. Maidan was about dissatisfaction by the people. Yanukovich may have been legitimately elected (albeit by a slim margin and under a huge could of suspected fraud and vote rigging). It was the people who objected to more of the same, and wanted something different. This isn't about Ukraine, it's about fear and ego and power by individual criminal wannabe warlords. |
49mountain | 24 Feb 2015 1:41 p.m. PST |
Hmmm… to paraphrase DUNE (the movie) – I see plots within plots – you are transparent! I have no doubt that the West was not conspiring with regards to Ukraine. I believe the people of the Ukraine decided to change their future. Putin wants to re-establish the old Soviet Empire. Thus the direct conflict. EU and other economic sanctions coupled with the drop in Oil prices has caused an economic crises in Russia. Putin will have to decide just what his options are and what he is going to do (as has been pointed out in the prior comments). This is the dangenous period. What is Putin capable of? If NATO does not react to the invasion of a NATO ally, then the entire North Atlantic Treaty Organization disappears. Many in EU and US don't want this to happen as it can only lead to more global chaos and uncertainty. Other agressors will decide to change the staus quo. Whether the politicians want to or not, the West will be forced to react in some manner. Does Putin's sabre rattling have any force or determination behind it? My hope is that it doesn't and a way out will be found. My fear is that it does and conflict will erupt. I afraid I have to come down on the side of fear being the reality. I wish some of our politicians could see this and take actions (possibly positioning US troops in threatened NATO countries?) to cause Putin to put his sabre back in its scabbard. What is the solution? IMHO |
Legion 4 | 25 Feb 2015 10:19 a.m. PST |
Geoff's comments are spot-on. Those who think that the change of government in Kiev was part of a devious U.S. plan give way too much credit to the U.S. government. Totally agree … But the narrative works for Putin's propaganda machine. Saw on CNN interviews with Russian civilains in Moscow. According to them … this is all USA's fault … |
tuscaloosa | 25 Feb 2015 5:46 p.m. PST |
Latest headline in a major German newsweekly: "World War III Can Be Avoided, if the Ukraine Gives Up the Eastern Territories". This sounds exactly like what the Western press said in 1938 about Czechoslovakia giving up the Sudetenland in order to appease Nazi Germany. It's true, history repeats itself: the first time as a tragedy and the second time as a farce. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 25 Feb 2015 6:41 p.m. PST |
True, it's going to take a lot more belligerence on Putin's part for the western world to stand up to him, commit troops and declare war on Russia. Eastern Ukraine is not the 'threshold' which would generate a direct military response. If and when Putin overreaches, the point of which is decided by the powers-that-be, then maybe someone will do something about it. |
GeoffQRF | 26 Feb 2015 4:13 a.m. PST |
…to cause Putin to put his sabre back in its scabbard… Problem is, he is now caught between a rock and a hard place. Putin's continuing position relies on his popularity, or force. He is seeking ways to make Russia appear strong and powerful (to the domestic populiation, by attempting to reflect the American model, but in a poor and clumsy attempt. Russia has a lot of internal difficulties, which are getting compounded by external pressures (i.e the economy was not great before and outside of the big cities the standard of living is not high, but sanctions have lowered the standards in the more affluent areas). Each action taken seems to be to deflect/detract attention from the last one and keep the image of popularity high – this is classic ego trip. But each one makes it harder to step back without appearing to give in to the west. Crimea was a mistake. It was popular, but a tit-for-tat reaction to penalise Ukraine and set Russia on the path of antagonism with the west. He now has no way to step back without looking weak to his own people. |
GNREP8 | 01 Mar 2015 12:55 p.m. PST |
Useful counterpoint to the impression that all Russians support Putin link Of course various in Russia are blaming dark forces (ie the Ukrainians/CIA) in terms of it being a false flag kind of – in that case given it took place to near to the Kremlin etc they should easily be able to track down the murderer and the group behind him/her |
GeoffQRF | 01 Mar 2015 1:40 p.m. PST |
Putin is personally leading/watching the investigation into his death, so guaranteed some underfunded nationalist group will be found guilty and then charged. |
David in Coffs | 01 Mar 2015 2:14 p.m. PST |
My bet…. Putin will find "proof" that it was the Ukrainian Government and use that as an excuse to send a couple of divisions of "investigators" in to seize proof from all of the Ukrains cities. No need to be creditable when it just needs to be acceptable to a domestic audience. |
David in Coffs | 01 Mar 2015 2:52 p.m. PST |
|
Legion 4 | 01 Mar 2015 5:47 p.m. PST |
Well with Putin's #1 nemisis being gunned down yesterday while walking along a sidewalk near the Kremlin … May be this is part of a bigger plan ? Or not ? But once KGB, always KGB … |
GeoffQRF | 02 Mar 2015 12:55 a.m. PST |
Coincidence? Boris Nemtsov is believed to have been working on a report detailing the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine before he was shot in Moscow on Friday. |
GeoffQRF | 02 Mar 2015 4:17 a.m. PST |
|
Barin1 | 02 Mar 2015 7:45 a.m. PST |
Personally, Nemtsov was one relatively honest and less corrupt than some other opposition members who came from positions of power (like Kasyanov, Khodorkovsky, etc). He was a playboy in polytics, but an honest one. He somehow was rich enough from his years in politics, so as far as I know he has little business interests. There was a certain period when he was named as Yeltsin successor. Recently he was quite dangerous on regional level in Yaroslavl, when he, as a deputy of local parliament, forced some officials to resign. Was he dangerous to current Kremlin ? Very unlikely. Ok, even if we take version that he was preparing a report on Russia actions in Ukraine…was he alone? All materials destroyed? What prevents his colleagues from publishing them – say, anonimously in the Western press or give the info to those already there, like Kasparov? I don't know, why he was killed. In our situation, there can be a list of reasons. He was acting as a mediator between various opposition groups, at least he could talk to both people like Navalnyi and Memorial/Yavlinsky. His popularity was never enough for him to be a real leader, nor that he really wanted it. Now the chances for Navalniy increased…don't think that he was behind this, but there're more chances that he is the one who can in theory get Putin's place. Chances for soft, pro-western liberals are diminishing. |
GeoffQRF | 02 Mar 2015 8:04 a.m. PST |
In our situation, there can be a list of reasons… Absolutely, he was a well known womaniser and the (23 year old) girlfriend is currently under investigation, as he managed to get shot four times in the back (out of six shots fired) and not one hit her. Given his opposition position, recent statement that Putin would likely have him killed, alleged report of Russian troops within Ukraine (apprently confirmed by Yashin), etc Putin would have been better declaring a transparent and independent investigation than stating he will oversee it, as that just smacks of coverup whatever the declared outcome may be. However the backlash may be bigger than Nemtsov himself
|
Barin1 | 02 Mar 2015 8:45 a.m. PST |
I've been there, so seen it all. The crowd was from all spectres of politics, including those, who generally support Putin. People were demanding pretty much everything, from government change to setting Savchenko free. At least nobody was forced to come, thoough there was a lot of pre-made flags and boards. If it was a part of destabilization plot, there will be further development. Otherwise, it may die off as huge rallies several years ago, when opposition could never agree on a single thing. |
GeoffQRF | 02 Mar 2015 9:00 a.m. PST |
I don't think it is part of any major or external destabilisation plot. Same as I don't think that Maidan was part of a major destabilisation plot. Far too much credit given. |
Mako11 | 02 Mar 2015 2:03 p.m. PST |
News reports here say he was going to talk about Putin's involvement in Ukraine, and support for the war there with Russian troops. Also, apparently, Russian troop casualties are being covered up, since their remains are being cremated to get rid of the evidence of their involvement in Ukraine. Reports here are that Nemtsov was going to mention this the next day, so he was killed before that could occur. One wonders where his security detail was, at the time of his murder? I suspect possibly warned off by the thugs sent to kill him. I'm sure Putin had him killed, and in ironical, though typical KGB fashion, then makes it known to all that he will personally oversee the investigation, which of course means to state to everyone boldly that the real story will be covered up, and a convenient scapegoat will be announced shortly. Might as well eliminate more than one threat at the same time, right? For those that don't believe it, just look at all the other Putin foes who've been killed both inside and outside of Russia, and/or that he's attempted to kill, via poisonings, shootings, etc. |
GeoffQRF | 14 Mar 2015 12:36 p.m. PST |
even if we take version that he was preparing a report on Russia actions in Ukraine…was he alone? All materials destroyed? What prevents his colleagues from publishing them – say, anonimously in the Western press or give the info to those already there, like Kasparov? Turns out that may be close to the truth. "Mr Nemtsov's computer and documents are said to have been seized by the authorities after his death." So yes, they do appear to have confiscated the evidence he had. However… Ilya Yashin said most of the material gathered by Mr Nemtsov had been retrieved, despite police searches of his apartment and offices…. the team had recovered most of the material gathered by the politician. Difficult to say if they had access to other evidence, a duplicate of existing evidence or have been given back all the evidence (and if the latter, do they have 'all' of it or just the stuff they are willing to return/concede?). However as a consequence… "A report on Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict – compiled by the murdered Russian opposition politician, Boris Nemtsov – will be released in April… The BBC's Richard Galpin in Moscow says the report is likely to examine the extent of Russian casualties in Ukraine" No doubt the Kremlin will simply deny all the evidence in its entirety, which makes it hard to do anything more than cast a shadow of doubt. |
GNREP8 | 14 Mar 2015 1:21 p.m. PST |
Same as I don't think that Maidan was part of a major destabilisation plot. Far too much credit given. ---------------- Just started reading The Orange Revolution and the point that comes across from that to me is how much the EuroMaidan of 2014 was a continuation of that. The patronising attitude of Kremlin apologists and their fellow travellers in the West completely underestimates the role of the people of Ukraine other than their view of them as useful stooges of international capitalism (interestingly the same kind of people as the obnoxious clowns of Global Research in Canada view Tianamen Sq as also a CIA put up job against the valiant CP of China) |
Mako11 | 14 Mar 2015 2:26 p.m. PST |
Apparently, the fire, and/or sanitation department hosed down the crime scene, to get rid of the blood on the bridge (and I suspect, as much evidence as possible too), shortly after the attack. Rather convenient about one of the guys that participated in the assassination "blowing himself up" (I suspect someone blew him up) with a grenade. Seems the old adage "dead men tell no tales" is still alive and well. One of the guys in prison, who "confessed" to the attack, now claims they tortured him into signing a confession. I tend to believe that. I had planned to post my theory about the "perpetrators of the attack" being caught in short order, since that's the usual playbook, but Putin beat me to it. He and his allies work quickly. |
GeoffQRF | 16 Mar 2015 6:17 a.m. PST |
Curiously…
Many people at this month's march of remembrance for the murdered politician Boris Nemtsov were carrying banners with his photograph and name. Or, at least, that is what a non-Russian speaker might have assumed. In fact, the word was not "Борис", the Russian spelling of Boris, but "Борись". That extra, rogue letter, which resembles a small English b, is the previously mentioned soft sign: a silent Cyrillic character that alters the sound of the previous letter. In this case, it also changes the meaning of the word, transforming the murdered politician's name into a statement of intent. "Борись" is the imperative form of the verb "бороться" – "to fight" or "to struggle". |