Breaking: Nato Chief: Russia Ready To Invade Ukraine

In regards to the OP, it's a 50/50 shot at this point. They've already shown they aren't bluffing, at least as far as Crimea was concerned. One has to wonder... they must be there for a reason.

Arnie123
I say with absolute arrogant confidence that Russia would never attempt a land grab from American soil.

I couldn't agree more!

Putin better hurry because NATO will be visiting Ukraine at some point between July and October for the games. That would be most inconvenient for him.

If he's smart, he will leave Ukraine alone altogether. An incursion into a sovereign nation is a no-no.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


I disagree. Putin didn't need any 'deal' to do what he did. Again, short of a very, very ill-conceived military confrontation, NOTHING would have changed the outcome. Nothing. Crimea is a tier-one strategic asset for Russia and they would have done pretty much anything to retain it. Period.

The solution here is get the Chinese
to start messing with Putin's Eastern Border..
That would certainly put the cat among the pigeons..

Would be quite ironic too!

rigel4
The solution here is get the Chinese
to start messing with Putin's Eastern Border..
That would certainly put the cat among the pigeons..

Would be quite ironic too!

China will mess with Russia's east if US/NATO let's Beijing pocket Taiwan without a shot being fired.

Not a bad deal after all !!

reply to post by jtma508


Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with you 100%. A few people will read the post about a back room deal and believe it, and of course the person starting this rumor will believe it himself the more he states it. We need to stick to facts in our discussions here if we are to learn anything.

rjbaggins
reply to post by jtma508

 

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with you 100%. A few people will read the post about a back room deal and believe it, and of course the person starting this rumor will believe it himself the more he states it. We need to stick to facts in our discussions here if we are to learn anything.

I concur. Unfortunately ATS seems to attract lots of people who stick their fingers in their ears and swear blind EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. Anyway...General Breedlove has given an interview with CNN where he stated Russia could invade within a 12 hour period.

I will end with this excellent quote: "No amount of propaganda can make right what the world knows is wrong." - President Obama.

It is important to keep some things in perspective. The Russian force on the border is not large enough to completely invade all of Ukraine. What it is large enough to do is take some the east and south and improve Russia exposed position in Crimea. NATO is not going to go to war over parts of Ukraine. Not when it can rip apart the Russian economy. Their is also a larger message here for NATO hanger ons. Those nations that hang around NATO but, do not commit to joining. That message is, sure we will do what we can to help you short of going to war but, if you want the 28 nations of NATO to go to war for you, then you better be commited to going to war for them.

As for that force on the border. I would expect it is just another bargaing chip however, if Russia can fabricate an excuse for a small incursion then they might go for it. In particular if it looks like the West is going to play hard ball in talks.

ColCurious
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Wrabbit2000
Nato's top military commander says Russia is ready to invade Ukraine and could "accomplish its objectives" in three to five days.

Brussels have asked the general to draw up a package including land, air and sea reinforcements to reassure nervous allies in eastern Europe by April 15.

So all Putin has to do now to expose the scaremongering is wait for 13 days...

Time will tell what is what.

You make a VERY good point and one I have spent time considering as well. Putin has the same power that Saddam had, Gaddafi had, Mullah Omar had and many others before them. Putin can turn this off, any time he wants. He can send his border troops back to garrison and he can just sit on Crimea and make no overt moves further, at all.

Wouldn't it be something if he thought this whole thing through, never actually WANTED more than the Crimea in the first place and is just playing games now to let the West blow themselves out of hot air and embarassment before he does turn the whole thing off, to make fools of the doomers?

I wondered in 2001...why the Taliban didn't call Bush's bluff for the very REAL choice they were given. If they'd taken it, he'd have been in a hell of a bad spot. Putin isn't a fanatic and he's not marginally educated as some of our past enemies have been. He'd be perfectly capable of playing the game to leave us basically standing there with a goofy grin when the music stops, everyone else grabs a chair...and we're one short of joining them.

reply to post by MrSpad


The only thing about what you said there that needs to also be understood is that NATO is not looking for Ukraine to join them and visa versa. The U.S. and the U.K. however have obligations to the NPT with Ukraine which NATO backs. It has been discussed already at great length where protection is involved in the event of a foreign invasion. Russia signed it too and broke it with Crimea, and neither the U.S. or the U.K. honored it with Crimea. So the question becomes when do they honor the treaty, when Russia is on Kiev's doorstep, eastern/southern Ukraine or never?

Wookiep
reply to post by MrSpad

 

The only thing about what you said there that needs to also be understood is that NATO is not looking for Ukraine to join them and visa versa. The U.S. and the U.K. however have obligations to the NPT with Ukraine which NATO backs. It has been discussed already at great length where protection is involved in the event of a foreign invasion. Russia signed it too and broke it with Crimea, and neither the U.S. or the U.K. honored it with Crimea. So the question becomes when do they honor the treaty, when Russia is on Kiev's doorstep, eastern/southern Ukraine or never?

Your talking about the Budapest Memorandum BUDAPEST MEMORANDUM. That agreement does not require anyone to defend Ukraine. It does require that military force not be used on Ukraine (one could argue Russia has breached this). It also requires that the UN security council be called in if Ukraine is attacked with a nuclear weapon or threatened with one. Beyond that is does not require much esle. It in no way requires the US or UK come to Ukraines defense in anyway if a nuclear weapon is not involved and even then it only requires meeting. So no, the UK and US (nor China or France who signed similar agreements with Ukraine) have any agreement that would require them to defend Ukraine.

reply to post by MrSpad


EDIT -

Ok, never mind. Everything I'm able to find now goes back to the Budapest Memorandum. It appears now that we are talking about the same thing. I guess it depends on interpretation at this point.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Putin isn't a fanatic and he's not marginally educated as some of our past enemies have been. He'd be perfectly capable of playing the game to leave us basically standing there with a goofy grin when the music stops, everyone else grabs a chair...and we're one short of joining them.

Russian economy is C grade with all dependence on oil and energy. Thus vulnerable a lot.
Russian military is D grade when compared with NATO. Only around 10-15% power of NATO.

Hope Putin takes such facts into mind and plays it cool. No need to have troops cross into Uks until and unless there is a total anarchy against the ethnic Russians. It is quiet for now and hope it remains calm into the future.

reply to post by victor7


If I honestly believed this were only Russia we faced as the ultimate adversary? I'd feel better by those numbers. Russia may have simply chosen to take lead and engage the West directly, first. If that's what we're seeing, we'll learn of the scope of what we face at the absolute least helpful moment we could, I'm sure.

It's that assumption that only we could make alliances or form plans in effective ways that gets me. We aren't 'all that', IMO. Not at this level of it.

I'm still waiting on the 'economic collapse'.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by victor7

 

If I honestly believed this were only Russia we faced as the ultimate adversary? I'd feel better by those numbers. Russia may have simply chosen to take lead and engage the West directly, first. If that's what we're seeing, we'll learn of the scope of what we face at the absolute least helpful moment we could, I'm sure.

It's that assumption that only we could make alliances or form plans in effective ways that gets me. We aren't 'all that', IMO. Not at this level of it.

Actually we are all that at this level. In fact we are on a completely different level at this point. The truth is who could Russia form plan with that would make any diffence? Lets say Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt, Brazil, Cuba, Venezuala, Syria, and a hodge podge of other nations managed come up with a secret alliance that some how got passed everybody. What exactly could they do with it? None of them are in position to support each other. None of them have any real ability to project power. And none of them have anything to gain and everything to lose. Look at this way, even during the highest points of deployments of Iraq and Afganistan over 90% of US active duty military was still within US territory. Then you have reserves and National Guard etc. The US always keeps a massive amount combat power in reserve even when at war just in case. And it is no secret.

And lets say such a group existed. They would be best served by trying to divide the US from its allies instead of driving them together as Russia has. Russia actions in Crimea also are a direct theat to nations like China for whom such a thing presents huge probems at home. Even with a healthy imagination their simply is no coalition that could defeat the West.

Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt, Brazil, Cuba, Venezuala, Syria, and a hodge podge of other nations

Incidentally the group of these nations also account for nearly half the global population. This means lots of economic power punch will be built up in within a decade. Lots of economic punch also means good deal of military muscle developed.

Making alliances is the ONLY WAY NATO WILL STOP EXPANDING........ONLY WAY !!!

It is NATO which is on the offensive since the mid 1990s via all sorts of expansionist programs. Russia only reacted once it's near abroad was picked for 'messing around'. After 'welfare coddling' during the Warsaw pact years, Russia is not anymore interested in ruling over and 'carrying the weight' mechanism for the allied nations. Crimea was different as it has been part of Russia for centuries.

In Russia specific case, the main problem TODAY is Putin wants to react but has only 1/10th the air force and 1/20th the navy vrs the NATO countries. Nukes are his only chip to talk upon. Even under Putin, no strong improvements have taken place in Russia regarding corruption, massive emigration, concentration of wealth in few hands and cities etc. etc.

But for energy prices, Russia is still in decline internally.

WEAKNESS INVITES AGGRESSION.............and that is what NATO is doing right now.

The lazy, drunk, corrupt Russian culture is where the main focus should be.

Uks in NATO or not does matter much as barely 34 Su-35s cannot hold off 1000 Rafaels, Euro Fighters, F-35s and F-22s. Gone are the days of dogged infantry and armor battles of WWII. Air bombing will keep going on until the ground capitulates.

Mr. Putin please focus on internal "clean up and tune up" a little bit more......that might save the house from cumbling !!! NO need to invade Ukraine for ego's sake.

reply to post by MrSpad


I think what scares me is that our leadership share many of your views. What really gives me pause and concern for my future and my sons future is simply the belief that America is so great, so clever, so intelligent and so SUPERIOR that such a thing as...surprise couldn't possibly happen.

History is littered with the shells of fallen empires and nations. Not a single one of them really, honestly, believed they could lose it all and fall completely in the ways they each came to fall.

What I believe has kept us in a solid and secure position to this point is the fact we haven't generally approached the world with hubris like this.

- Thanks to Manning, our State Department lost a great degree of it's effectiveness. That was the department of diplomatic solutions, and where peace was the first and last priority by charter and in practice. Like Manning or hate him...the cables will take a WHOLE lot longer than a couple years for the rest of the world to fully move past.

- Thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, our military is strung out, exhausted, on the downsizing trend with purpose, and just a but shy of all the equipment we've left and will leave in place for the waste it is to bring back. Whatever equipment issues are tho? Our people are shot. Many have 5+ combat tours. More than I think we'd want to consider, have more than that.

- Thanks to Snowden, United States intelligence is in shambles for international cooperation...as it requires to work effectively. They can snoop on phone calls and emails till they all turn blue and die. Without human intelligence, we know what others have chosen to put into electronic form, on purpose. That's limited by definition. When, by circumstance, it's a good part of what we have left? It's a very bad time we're going through right now.

Amid all this..We want to suggest we're still in a position to take on world powers and kick butt? I'm an American and I'm proud of my nation. It's that pride of America that causes me to say, that's just insane for ways to approach anything in the world. We're cruisin' for a bruisin' as I heard said in my childhood...and we're going to get what we seek, if we keep looking so hard for it, IMO.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Wrabbit2000
Wouldn't it be something if he thought this whole thing through, never actually WANTED more than the Crimea in the first place and is just playing games now to let the West blow themselves out of hot air and embarassment before he does turn the whole thing off, to make fools of the doomers?

I agree on that assessment about Putin's strategy. In fact, he might have made a move quite like this before.

Remember the time-line and the official US rhetorik in the build up of the Syrian crisis last fall:

Kerry told the world that the US had clear intelligence/evidence showing that Assad used CW on civilians. A few nations refused to blindly trust in his allegations, and there was a rumour in certain quarters that Putin had proof demonstrating the contrary - that it was Saudi and Egypt-based forces (the US-backed "rebels" at the time) that used CW near Homs.

Putin waited until the US/UK/France led campaign for military aggression against Syria intensified, and then we learned about that phonecall with the Whitehouse in September 2013...

All of a sudden there was Russia's offer to put the Syrian CW-program under international control and Assad agreed.
All plans to invade Syria were off the table, and we never heard about Kerry's dubious "evidence" again. Not a single word.

I remember Kerry's face on TV back then... the guy looked like he was played.