Russia; will they make a big move in Eastern Europe?

[Socialist Nordia]

Russia has appeared more and more hostile over the past several years, taking territory from both Georgia and Ukraine. They have been given sanctions, which have in many ways caused a hit to their economy, but they continue to unlawfully occupy the Crimea. Now, with a new administration, one that appears more friendly to Russian interests, it seems like the ideal time for Russia to make an even bigger move. Trump has made many questionable statements that Russia could exploit if he was serious.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/13/politics/ ... ns-taiwan/

If you get along and if Russia is really helping us, why would anybody have sanctions if somebody's doing some really great things?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/15/w ... oogle.com/

"I took such heat when I said NATO was obsolete,” Mr. Trump said. “It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying, ‘Trump is right'"

In recent comments, and also way back through the campaign, Trump has consistently showed an affinity for Russia and hesitation to fully back NATO. Will Russia exploit this? How? Will they continue to push further into Ukraine until it is fully occupied? Could Russia even take a chance at some of the Baltic states, which are NATO members? And will Trump respond with sufficient action against Russia? What actions should be taken?

My opinion is that Russia will probably continue to expand into Ukraine. Trump will likely shrug his shoulders, considering he never even knew about Russia's 2014 invasion. Europe wouldn't be likely to take united action against Russia to defend a non-NATO state. Obviously, this is a bad thing for anyone who opposes Russian imperialism. I doubt Russia will venture into the Baltics, because even without the US, the rest of NATO would be a tough war to fight, but the possibility is always there.
The United States and others ought to tighten sanctions on Russia, and be ready to arm Ukraine. The Baltic states need to be defended vigorously, and any attack against them should be followed by a declaration of war against Russia, but I doubt this will be the incoming president's course of action.

[Uxupox]

Arming other nations is what got us into trouble in the first place. It needs to stop.

[NeoLiberia]

Arming other nations is what got us into trouble in the first place. It needs to stop.

Would you consider the Panama Canal trouble? We got that by arming people.

[Socialist Nordia]

Arming other nations is what got us into trouble in the first place. It needs to stop.

You think the government of Ukraine will go from this to terrorists if we give them arms? They've existed for decades after the fall of the USSR, and the government of Ukraine hasn't been known to carry out terrorist operations. It's not like we don't know who we're supplying here.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

Arming other nations is what got us into trouble in the first place. It needs to stop.

I would have done it again knowing what would happen. It contributed greatly to the fall of the Soviet Union, which saved more in the long term than a 15 year conflict. Plus, you know, no more nukes pointed at each other.

[Anarcho Somethingism]

Just bring back the Free Territory of Ukraine to fight back the Russian fascists.

[Big Brain City]

I have no idea. Putin's about as random as the CBP's event system, and about as annoying.

[Uxupox]

Arming other nations is what got us into trouble in the first place. It needs to stop.

Would you consider the Panama Canal trouble? We got that by arming people.

More like US troops got sent there.

Arming other nations is what got us into trouble in the first place. It needs to stop.

I would have done it again knowing what would happen. It contributed greatly to the fall of the Soviet Union, which saved more in the long term than a 15 year conflict. Plus, you know, no more nukes pointed at each other.

I agree that it contributed greatly to the fall of the Soviet Union but today Afghanistan is a complete shithole with some people (Which include women and the tradition of raping little boys) are treated like complete garbage. Under Soviet rule it was a little different than that.

Arming other nations is what got us into trouble in the first place. It needs to stop.

You think the government of Ukraine will go from this to terrorists if we give them arms? They've existed for decades after the fall of the USSR, and the government of Ukraine hasn't been known to carry out terrorist operations. It's not like we don't know who we're supplying here.

Dunno I highly doubt France expected that after they signed the treaty of Versailles to get fucked up by the Germans 20 years later.

[Populi-Terrae]

If Russia actually moves onto Eastern Europe, I have no doubt that they would go after their historical enemy, Poland, which is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. One of the other members is the UK, which has nuclear weapons, same with France. They will tell Russia to back off or face military consequences. So, if Russia moves onto Eastern Europe, all of Europe will be reduced to rubble and if worst comes to worst, become a nuclear wasteland.

[NeoLiberia]

Would you consider the Panama Canal trouble? We got that by arming people.

More like US troops got sent there.

Both things happened.

I agree that it contributed greatly to the fall of the Soviet Union but today Afghanistan is a complete shithole with some people (Which include women and the tradition of raping little boys) are treated like complete garbage. Under Soviet rule it was a little different than that.

It was going to end up like that regardless. The Soviet Union wasn't an economically prospering country.

[Engleberg]

Russia's going to do something because Russia ALWAYS does something to spite the West.

But we must prevent them from reestablishing the USSR - the world does not want or need that hellhole back. Other than that, there is a chance that Russia will try to do what it did in Ukraine with a different Eastern European nation. Hell, they might even use Königsberg (Kaliningrad is bullshit) as a FOB if they really wanted to go after one of them.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

I agree that it contributed greatly to the fall of the Soviet Union but today Afghanistan is a complete shithole with some people (Which include women and the tradition of raping little boys) are treated like complete garbage. Under Soviet rule it was a little different than that.

It may have been different, but even those that suffer under the Afghan tradition would probably have wanted an Afghan ruled country. The Soviets had this nagging ability to piss people off by outlawing religion and such.

[Venerable Bede]

Russia's going to do something because Russia ALWAYS does something to spite the West.

But we must prevent them from reestablishing the USSR - the world does not want or need that hellhole back. Other than that, there is a chance that Russia will try to do what it did in Ukraine with a different Eastern European nation. Hell, they might even use Königsberg (Kaliningrad is bullshit) as a FOB if they really wanted to go after one of them.

Pretty sure Russia is not interested in reestablishing Bolshevism, even if they want to restore the borders back to 1900.

[Engleberg]

Russia's going to do something because Russia ALWAYS does something to spite the West.

But we must prevent them from reestablishing the USSR - the world does not want or need that hellhole back. Other than that, there is a chance that Russia will try to do what it did in Ukraine with a different Eastern European nation. Hell, they might even use Königsberg (Kaliningrad is bullshit) as a FOB if they really wanted to go after one of them.

Pretty sure Russia is not interested in reestablishing Bolshevism, even if they want to restore the borders back to 1900.

Well I meant my statement in both a possibility of Bolshevism USSR, and/or just returning to the USSR's borders.

[Venerable Bede]

Pretty sure Russia is not interested in reestablishing Bolshevism, even if they want to restore the borders back to 1900.

Well I meant my statement in both a possibility of Bolshevism USSR, and/or just returning to the USSR's borders.

I think Russia is more looking at the borders before the USSR took over (which originally forfeited a lot of Russian territory). Not the USSR borders--that is, I seriously doubt Russia is looking to take over half of Germany.

[Engleberg]

Well I meant my statement in both a possibility of Bolshevism USSR, and/or just returning to the USSR's borders.

I think Russia is more looking at the borders before the USSR took over (which originally forfeited a lot of Russian territory). Not the USSR borders--that is, I seriously doubt Russia is looking to take over half of Germany.

Well I certainly hope not. They already ruined rightfully German territory, and I'd hate to see them do that again to half of Europe. It should be interesting to see what Putin does in the next 4 years. Speaking of him, does Russia even have elections anymore?

[Venerable Bede]

I think Russia is more looking at the borders before the USSR took over (which originally forfeited a lot of Russian territory). Not the USSR borders--that is, I seriously doubt Russia is looking to take over half of Germany.

Well I certainly hope not. They already ruined rightfully German territory, and I'd hate to see them do that again to half of Europe. It should be interesting to see what Putin does in the next 4 years. Speaking of him, does Russia even have elections anymore?

Yes, he has extremely high approval ratings, and a lot of Russians probably see the territory he's reclaiming as having about as much right to independence as Lincoln thought the South did.

[Major-Tom]

Probably not. They recognize that they'd be straddled with sanctions up the ass, and recognize that NATO would be there to fucking fight that, so Russia likely has no real interest in expanding further.

[IceBuddha]

It is certainly possible, but not likely. I think they will continue to go for salami slicing tactics instead of an overt confrontation.

They could rapidly attack some NATO member states (let's say the Baltics), make gains while the alliances tries to formulate a response (the meager tripwire forces that are currently in the Baltics would not withstand a Russian attack, they would be rather easily overrun), and then threaten to escalate to limited nuclear warfare if NATO does not back down. This concept of deescalation through limited nuclear warfare is a formal part of Russian military doctrine.

They could also try to stoke a crisis somewhere which will test NATO's resolve. Say the situation in Kosovo deteriorated and NATO peacekeepers were attacked. That could turn into a major crisis of confidence if some nations refused to send troops to respond.

[Venerable Bede]

Probably not. They recognize that they'd be straddled with sanctions up the ass, and recognize that NATO would be there to fucking fight that, so Russia likely has no real interest in expanding further.

It might be easier with Trump, especially if they make some backroom deals.

[Aclion]

So long as Russia is unable to maintain an international presence peacefully they will try to do so militarily,
See; Germany.

[Rio Cana]

Arming other nations is what got us into trouble in the first place. It needs to stop.

Would you consider the Panama Canal trouble? We got that by arming people.

You do know that action by the US was a violation of the Treaty of Friendship between the US and Colombia -

From article 35 of the treaty -

And, in order to secure to themselves the tranquil and constant enjoyment of these advantages, and as an especial compensation for the favours they have acquired by the 4th, 5th and 6th articles of this Treaty, the United States guarantee positively and efficaciously to New Granada, by the present stipulation, the perfect neutrality of the before mentioned Isthmus, with the view that the free transit from the one to the other sea, may not be interrupted or embarrassed in any future time while this Treaty exists; and in consequence, the United States also guarantee, in the same manner, the rights of sovereignty and property which New Granada has and possesses over the said territory.

The treaty was so be in effect for 20 years. Both nations would have to inform the other of changes one year in advance. If not, then the treaty would continue in effect for one more year and so on every year. Has far has I know, the US nor Colombia ever asked for this treaty to be changed. After all, in 1901, the Colombian government which was involved in another civil war, asked the US to send troops to oversee Panama. This type of action was stipulated in the treaty. Edit - The US helped broker a deal to end the Colombian civil war in 1903. Then a treaty for the US to build a canal was written. The Colombian congress voted it down, the US leader at that time did not like that so you know what happened.

The entire treaty - http://tcc.export.gov/Trade_Agreements/ ... 002803.asp

[Wiepolskie]

Russia did not take territory from Georgia, and Crimea voted to become part of Russia. Russia does not want to invade Eastern Europe or restore the USSR (or at least the 1989 borders). Most of Europe is stacked against them if they did, because NATO, in practice, is an inherently anti-Russian organization. Trump is right when he says its failing.

[Aclion]

Would you consider the Panama Canal trouble? We got that by arming people.

You do know that action by the US was a violation of the Treaty of Friendship between the US and Colombia -

From article 35 of the treaty -

And, in order to secure to themselves the tranquil and constant enjoyment of these advantages, and as an especial compensation for the favours they have acquired by the 4th, 5th and 6th articles of this Treaty, the United States guarantee positively and efficaciously to New Granada, by the present stipulation, the perfect neutrality of the before mentioned Isthmus, with the view that the free transit from the one to the other sea, may not be interrupted or embarrassed in any future time while this Treaty exists; and in consequence, the United States also guarantee, in the same manner, the rights of sovereignty and property which New Granada has and possesses over the said territory.

The treaty was so be in effect for 20 years. Both nations would have to inform the other of changes one year in advance. If not, then the treaty would continue in effect for one more year and so on every year. Has far has I know, the US nor Colombia ever asked for this treaty to be changed. After all, in 1901, the Colombian government which was involved in another civil war, asked the US to send troops to oversee Panama. This type of action was stipulated in the treaty.

The entire treaty - http://tcc.export.gov/Trade_Agreements/ ... 002803.asp

That's an interesting bit of history, but the canal was built nearly a hundred years too late for it to be relevant.

[Engleberg]

Russia did not take territory from Georgia, and Crimea voted to become part of Russia. Russia does not want to invade Eastern Europe or restore the USSR (or at least the 1989 borders). Most of Europe is stacked against them if they did, because NATO, in practice, is an inherently anti-Russian organization. Trump is right when he says its failing.

This is quite a Pro-Russian statement here. So supporting organisations that work to return parts of sovereign nations to Russia is okay now?