Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "Russia reinforces military presence in Crimea" video.

Is Russia defending what it has (re)gained or is it preparing to gain more. The missiles appear to be defensive, though the missiles could be used to screen ground forces for a build up for an attack. It is too early for the Russians to be reacting to the threat of an EU army. In any case, without the advanced stealthy capability of the US in NATO, an EU army is no real offensive threat. It is difficult not to conclude that Russia is preparing for an attack on the Ukraine. The clue will be if these missiles are followed by a build up of ground forces, particularly tanks. It is possible that the Russians are calculating on the US being distracted by NK and Iran, and also being annoyed by the EU's rejection of NATO. If Russia attacks, the US might allow Ukraine to fall, to teach the EU a lesson about its need for NATO. Beyond the Ukraine and the US is likely to intervene to protect NATO members. This is all very dangerous. The question is; do the Russians think it is worth the risk. Russia is allegedly supporting both Iran and NK, so is this a well thought out long term strategy or just serendipity.
3
Harrisonъ Khwordъ on the contrary, they apply to the EU. The Ukraine is a sacrificial buffer whose ambiguous status preserves the peace. Once Russia formally lays claim to it, the risk of conflict between Russia and EU/NATO dramatically increases.
2
alek Rawls I am not stating my position, I am stating what I suspect is the position of the US, and untill recently, the EU. I believe that if the EU had not supported ukraines entry into the EU, Russia might not have annexed Crimea. I think it suited both sides to use Ukraine's ambiguous independent status to allow it to be a buffer between the two. From the western news point of view, it was the EU who change the balance by offering membership. Russia did not want NATO that bit closer and did not want to lose control of the Crimea Port, making the EU the aggressor, but I am willing to accept that Russia might have been attempting to take control of the Ukraine by installing a puppet government, before EU intervention. I think it likely that Putin has a policy of rebuilding the sphere of influence that the USSR once had. I suspect that Putin sees himself as a a new tsar rebuilding the former Russia empire. I am not in a position to tell if the Ukraine's status was stable or changing before the EU's intervention. As I recall Russia was in dispute with Ukraine over the transport costs applied to the oil pipe line that runs through the country. This is where apportioning blame is difficult, as I really do not understand or have access to the details. What I am attempting to determine is the Russians willingness to get involved in a war with the west, and if the EU's move to establish its own army to replace NATO had emboldened Putin. It is all about cost/benefit analysis and what are the chances of a nuclear war. The worst case choice for the ukrainians maybe between being an uncomfortable buffer zone or being turned to nuclear ash. Putin appeared to be happy risking a conventional war against the west, was this because he identified a weakness in NATO due to the EUs plan for a defence force? Is Putin willing to fight for control of the pipeline, the port, or to regain control of the region or a combination of any or all? This matters because of the EUs policy to replace NATO with its own defence force may have destabilised the region and created the recipe for war and all the deaths that followed. Has Putin stopped?
2
Harrisonъ Khwordъ you are going to have to explain this in terms a westerner can understand. I am confused by your terminology. Please explain in terms of twenty first century politics.
2
Harrisonъ Khwordъ I think I understand, no sorry, your explanation has confused me as to who is still fighting who. The Ukrainians are attempting to regain control of Crimea from the Russians. However, the Crimean population is majority Russian and Russia has a traditional and valued port in Crimea. Until recently Russia did not have major military assets in the area, so it was a demilitarised buffer. Who caused this to change? Are you saying the the UK, Russia and the US share a common enemy in the EU???
2
Hell, this is complicated. Reading through the threads in this report shows how little I understand about the Ukraine. I will neglect the religious comments as misguided or deranged. From the point of view of strategic power blocks it all seems relatively simple, just a question of finding out who moved first. Then we get into Ukrainian history and politics, this is very confusing. My intention was to understand who was the aggressor, but that seems to depend on how far back in history you are willing to look. My second goal was to determine the EU's role in this conflict and if its expansionist and military policy played a part in triggering the recient violence. Maybe some one from the Ukrainian can enlighten me, but they must state their allegiance.
2
Harrisonъ Khwordъ the more I read of your comments the less I understand your point of view and the less I agree with it. NATO and not the EU have kept the peace in Europe since WWII, mainly through the very real threat of WWIII with all the horrors that ment. I remember, as a child, having nightmares about the prospect of being vaporised by a nuclear exchange between East and West, the world came close to this on a number of occasions, not all public knowledge. NATO is not just letters, it was and is a real war machine designed specifically to confront the Russian threat. Make no. mistake an attack on a NATO member during the 50s through the to the 80s would have rapidly escalated to a full nuclear exchange. MAD by name and mad by nature. You can not judge the US then by the US as it is now. If you are arguing that Putin may be trying to re-establish the USSR, you would not find it difficult to convince me. It depends if you view Putin as an ideolog or a business man.
2
Harrisonъ Khwordъ we all share misgivings about the position of Germany in Europe. A cynic might think that Germany acheived by financial means what it failed to do by military means. It would be grossly unfair to identify the current government with the evils of the Nazi regime. In a way the war did give Germany an significant advantage, though they might nothing so. After the war, the German infrastructure was totally destroyed with the result that everything was rebuilt with the new technology. The US provided money for the rebuild process, largely driven by the demands of the cold war. For years the Germans did not have the financial burden of funding their own military, they were not allowed it. The Americans provided defense, largely because that wanted to fight any limited nuclear exchange with the Russians on German soil, rather than US home ground. All this combined with not insignificant German ingenuity has made the country the financial power house it is today. Interestingly, at the behest of the French, the Germans are slowly giving up these advantages. Certainly the formation of a EU army and the move away from NATO, stands a good chance of bankrupting the economy, particularly if the French manage to get the Germans to pool financial resources in a federal government super bank. Add to this the pressure on the euro of all those member states that are not doing so well or are net recipients from the EU budget. There is a lot of resentment building against Germany, some of it underserved. I think it is a cultural thing, the Germans like to give orders, they believe they have built a superior society and EXPECT others to follow their example. Behind all of this is the murky machinations of the super rich world elite who make their money from others misery and the facilitation of trade through globalisation. There is certainly a connection between the big power blocks, Trump's US, Putin's Russia, the Saudi's ,China and the emerging African Nations (who provide natural resources).. The EU is just another brick. Interestingly a true world government, ruling a global monoculture would not make money. The profit comes from playing the big power blocks off against each other and controlling the trade between them.
1