Right to preventive strike

[obyknven]

Russian exercises suddenly  cause  nice butthurt in Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11702328/Russian-forces-practised-invasion-of-Norway-Finland-Denmark-and-Sweden.html

 

Russian forces 'practised invasion of Norway, Finland, Denmark and Sweden'  blah blah

 

But European liars don't talk all truth as usual.

 

Here follows a gem from the original report:
http://www.cepa.org//sites/default/files/styles/medium/Baltic%20Sea%20Security%20Report-%20(2).compressed.pdf
Offensive military capabilities can be better coordinated too. America has allowed Finland and Poland to buy the AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), a stealth airlaunched weapon that has the capability to strike hundreds of kilometers inside Russia. This has a powerful deterrent effect.

Translation for dummies: "Yes, we're deploying missiles, that cannot be intercepted, aimed at Moscow, a city of 12 millions and the 6th largest city in the world. You Ruskies have nothing to worry about."

Considering the accuracy of the defensive NATO bombings of the residential neighborhoods of Belgrade, me thinks I better be living somewhere beyond the Ural mountains, just in case of a sudden reveal of the massive human rights violations in Russia or something else like that.

[Gorgon]

So in response to a popular uprising Putin responds by invading four countries, and I reading the premise rigth. U sure this isn't The Onion ?.

 

Wouldn't those troops be better deployed, you know, putting down the uprising.

[Rostere]

US strategy: Try to scare Sweden and Finland into joining NATO by underlining the Russian military threat.

Russian strategy: Try to scare Sweden and Finland into not joining NATO by underlining the Russian military threat.

 

OK, so one of these actors are obviously not acting in their own self-interest...

 

The pro-NATO people get all giddy with excitement every time something like this happens. Presumably the Russians do as well, although I can say for sure that the politicians in Sweden and Finland who do not want to enter NATO are busy pulling their hair out.

[Meshugger]

 

Right to Preventive strike.

 

Right? It's Might.

[JadedWolf]

Worrying to see these things. It's sometimes difficult to tell if Putin is just a master of brinkmanship or just downright insane. He seems to be doing his best to bring back the specter of all out, civilization destroying, thermonuclear war from the cold war days.

 

Now, for some people it seems that they are happy to see its return, but I for one was not really feeling we were missing out on not having to consider that at any moment we could all blow up if some nitwits decided to see who had the bigger... rockets.

[Sarex]

Wait isn't the whole American war on terror(middle east) a preventative strike?

 

So in response to a popular(wtf?) uprising Putin responds by invading four countries, and I reading the premise rigth. U sure this isn't The Onion ?.

 

Wouldn't those troops be better deployed, you know, putting down the uprising.

 

You don't need troops to put down an uprising, you just let the Police take care of them. You use the troops to put their backers back to the stone age so it doesn't happen again and to set an example for other countries.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Sarex

[obyknven]

US strategy: Try to scare Sweden and Finland into joining NATO by underlining the Russian military threat.

Russian strategy: Prepare real invasion into Sweden and Finland because of good  loot ( defenseless rich countries with small populace's,  not members of NATO  ) before beginning of full-scale WW against NATO.

fix you

[BruceVC]

Russian exercises suddenly  cause  nice butthurt in Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11702328/Russian-forces-practised-invasion-of-Norway-Finland-Denmark-and-Sweden.html

 

Russian forces 'practised invasion of Norway, Finland, Denmark and Sweden'  blah blah

 

But European liars don't talk all truth as usual.

 

Here follows a gem from the original report:

http://www.cepa.org//sites/default/files/styles/medium/Baltic%20Sea%20Security%20Report-%20(2).compressed.pdf

Offensive military capabilities can be better coordinated too. America has allowed Finland and Poland to buy the AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), a stealth airlaunched weapon that has the capability to strike hundreds of kilometers inside Russia. This has a powerful deterrent effect.

 

Translation for dummies: "Yes, we're deploying missiles, that cannot be intercepted, aimed at Moscow, a city of 12 millions and the 6th largest city in the world. You Ruskies have nothing to worry about."

 

Considering the accuracy of the defensive NATO bombings of the residential neighborhoods of Belgrade, me thinks I better be living somewhere beyond the Ural mountains, just in case of a sudden reveal of the massive human rights violations in Russia or something else like that.

 

Your logic as usual makes no sense

 

There will never be a conventional war between Russia and the West due to the risk of mutually assured destruction due to the nuclear weapons. Even during the Cold War when the West and the USSR really didn't like each other there wasn't a " normal war " so what we are ultimately talking about in the worst case scenario will be proxy wars, like we are seeing in Ukraine and a war of economic  attrition. Sanctions will increase against Russia and Russia will in turn implement its own counter-sanctions 

 

But the war of sanctions Russia can never win because the West is the greater economic power and Russia has fundamentally weakened itself economically by its reliance on oil and natural gas as it main revenue stream to maintain its economy. And since the oil price has dropped Russia  has unintentionally  put itself at a disadvantage in its ability to sustain itself in this war of economic attrition

 

And the worst thing about all this tension is that it is unnecessary. We want Russia to be part of the global community, we want the Russian economy to grow. We respect Russia but Putins ideals of restoring the Russian empire and his general objective of Russian hegemony in certain areas cannot be condoned or accepted. The main reason for this is that the days of the USSR are over and previous members of the USSR are now independent and sovereign states.

 

So despite the fact that many Russian people feel that Crimea and parts of Ukraine should be part of it this is just not a legal option. And this is not something that the legitimate government in Ukraine want themselves. The sooner Putin realizes this the better for Russia and the Russian people so we can all get back to a world that has less conflict and antagonism

[obyknven]

 

So despite the fact that many Russian people feel that Crimea and parts of Ukraine should be part of it this is just not a legal option. 

Wut?! Do you crazy? 

[Gorgon]

Wait isn't the whole American war on terror(middle east) a preventative strike?

 

So in response to a popular(wtf?) uprising Putin responds by invading four countries, and I reading the premise rigth. U sure this isn't The Onion ?.

 

Wouldn't those troops be better deployed, you know, putting down the uprising.

 

You don't need troops to put down an uprising, you just let the Police take care of them. You use the troops to put their backers back to the stone age so it doesn't happen again and to set an example for other countries.

And these backers are four scandinavian countries ?.

[Sarex]

And these backers are four scandinavian countries ?.

 

I don't know what story they are using for their exercise, but it's the most likely scenario. Also it's very probable that the support they are talking about is physical, ie. logistic, military, training, weapons, etc.

 

I mean it's a war exercise, does it matter what story/pretext is used in it...

Edited June 28, 2015 by Sarex

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Wait isn't the whole American war on terror(middle east) a preventative strike?

The last US war that wasn't a preventative strike was WW2.

[Sarex]

The last US war that wasn't a preventative strike was WW2.

 

Well at least as far as the Japanese part of it is concerned, the European part of it was most definitely preventative. At that point the US only joined to stop the Soviets advancing and prevent them from taking all of the territory that Hitler conquered.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Sarex

[Zoraptor]

And these backers are four scandinavian countries ?.

 

 

From their pov Denmark and Norway are members of NATO, which is and always has been an anti Russian alliance. Sweden proclaims neutrality, but is mainly just used as a stalking horse for making NATO look reasonable because a 'neutral' is saying the same things (per the hilarious sub hunt which, coincidentally, took place during budget allocation and was competent and honestly enough run to to label a speedboat as a sub) and was hardly neutral even during the cold war, let alone now. Finland, well, they have the rather inaptly named 'Moscow Times' based there, which is an overt propaganda outlet. Though it does provide amusement when people think it actually is a Russian paper. Still, Finland is passably neutral unlike the other three, but strategy wise you have to go through Finland to get to Sweden/ most of Norway.

 

Mostly though, it is rather ironic that you get exactly the same argument, exactly in reverse, from the US and ROK when it comes to their amphibious invasion drills in the Korean peninsula. That's all defensive, designed to be preventative, supposed to stop DPRK aggression etc and the DPRK is completely, utterly, fundamentally wrong in regarding it as aggressive preparation for an invasion because so long as the DPRK isn't aggressive and provocative nothing will happen!

 

Always nice to see the Torygraph produce something that [North Korean Pravda] would print, just with the names switched around, very illustrative.

[Elerond]

 

And these backers are four scandinavian countries ?.

 

I don't know what story they are using for their exercise, but it's the most likely scenario. Also it's very probable that the support they are talking about is physical, ie. logistic, military, training, weapons, etc.

 

I mean it's a war exercise, does it matter what story/pretext is used in it...

 

 

One thing that is noteworthy in story story/pretext is that it was scenario in which Russia invades areas from another country/countries, meaning that it was not planned to be defensive exercise but aggressive one. 

 

I would also note that war exercises even though they are set in hypothetical scenarios always have purpose in greater military strategy of country and they are meant to make sure that country's military is ready to carry out that purpose if/when need to that comes.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Elerond

[Elerond]

Finland, well, they have the rather inaptly named 'Moscow Times' based there, which is an overt propaganda outlet. Though it does provide amusement when people think it actually is a Russian paper.

The Moscow Times is Moscow based publication that don't actually is issued in Finland. It is funded by Russian based (Sanoma) Independent Media, which is owned by Sanoma Oyj(Public Limited Liability Company), which primary owners are Finnish family Erkko's foundation and company's CEO Antti Herlin. They are one of the five biggest magazine publishers in Europe and own several TV stations. So they are bit like Finnish Murdochs, meaning that they own big part of news outlets.

 

But as I haven't ever read even single issue of The Moscow Times, I can't say if or if not it is a propaganda magazine. But as Finnish people accuse Sanoma Oyj's magazines, like Helsingin Sanomat, that are published in Finland to spreading leftist, communistic and Russian propaganda (can't really judge if there are bases in reality for such accusations, as similar accusations are targeted against all the largest Finnish news outlets by certain Finns), I would guess that said magazines suffers from similar issues.

[Zoraptor]

The propaganda accusation is based on my observations predominantly, but I think it's well enough founded. It's an english language publication using articles largely sourced from english bureaux and papers, and with a fairly clear slant on its own articles. It isn't so much that it is extraordinarily biased itself, comparatively to other PR outfits on both sides, as that it has a sense of 'false authority' in being a 'Russian' paper saying 'bad' stuff about Russia which is then given extra and undue weight as a balanced source due to that.

 

One thing that is noteworthy in story story/pretext is that it was scenario in which Russia invades areas from another country/countries, meaning that it was not planned to be defensive exercise but aggressive one.

 

 

That is true, but it is also true for everyone, amphibious assaults and the like are not really defensive in nature. Most drills aren't in truth, from any side with power projection capabilities, you can bet that any actual NATO/ Russia confrontation has had offensive drills done for it as well as defensive ones, on both sides, and both with the suggestion they would just be responding to aggression. Fundamentally though, if China does amphibious drills it is likely for a scenario involving an attack on Taiwan whether they say so or not. If Russia did the same it was usually a scenario involving Crimea or the Baltic States, historically, and whether they actually stated it or not. But at the same time, if the US is doing them in South Korea it is definitely aimed at North Korea, whatever is said, and from direct historical experience last time the US actually did an amphibious landing there it was not in any realistic way 'defensive' in nature, they didn't stop at Seoul, and wouldn't have stopped at all until the Yalu and the Chinese intervention. Sure, the US would say that that is defensive because the North started the war- but then they'd also claim that the Iraq War was defensive too, in the preventative sense, so amphibious drills leading up to that were defensive as well.