Josh Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 1 hour ago, seahawk said: Belarus, the Baltics, Hungary - many could seek the Russian protection. In Soviet Russia, protection seeks you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 2 hours ago, seahawk said: Belarus, the Baltics, Hungary - many could seek the Russian protection. Sayyyyy.... Thats a REAL nice country you have there Mac.... Be a REAL shame is something happened to it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martineleca Posted May 11 Author Share Posted May 11 (edited) 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Sayyyyy.... Thats a REAL nice country you have there Mac.... Be a REAL shame is something happened to it.... The comparison with the mafia is not very correct here, while you had to pay them off so they don't ruin your business they indeed protected you from rival gangs, whereas the Warsaw Pact set up by the Soviet Union remains the only military alliance in history to ever attack member states exclusively. Edited May 11 by Martineleca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 Well, looking at Hungary and Turkey, I wouldnt count on that remaining a perfect record.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martineleca Posted May 12 Author Share Posted May 12 10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Well, looking at Hungary and Turkey, I wouldnt count on that remaining a perfect record. According to putin NATO has in the past attacked Serbia, Lybia and is now fighting Russia in Ukraine, so it would be a tad late to start painting it as an alliance that only exists to keep members in line and never operated outside its territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martineleca Posted May 13 Author Share Posted May 13 German lawmakers suggest allies could protect sky over western Ukraine from NATO soil https://kyivindependent.com/german-lawmakers-suggest-nato-could-protect-sky-over-western-ukraine/ This would be a good first step considering the constant violations of NATO airspace and debree falling on the other side of the border... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 Here is the thing. Whilst that IS right, one has to say what the ultimate difference is between aircraft OVER Ukraine, and Western Soldiers (either under the NATO cap or something else) actually IN Ukraine. There is no fundimental difference. The risk of escalation is just the same. Which doesnt mean it isnt worth doing, but does to me seem a bit dishonest saying 'we can go this far, but not any further'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn239 Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 I'm assuming that the Russians would take the public position that SAM systems covering Ukraine from Poland are legitimate military targets in the Ukraine war, then they would proceed to pocket that option without immediately using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavel Novak Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, glenn239 said: I'm assuming that the Russians would take the public position that SAM systems covering Ukraine from Poland are legitimate military targets in the Ukraine war, then they would proceed to pocket that option without immediately using it. One could argue that in war situation you are right. But from a Russian legal view there is no war just special military operation - so there is no legal base or precedent just might makes right. Edited May 13 by Pavel Novak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 1 hour ago, glenn239 said: I'm assuming that the Russians would take the public position that SAM systems covering Ukraine from Poland are legitimate military targets in the Ukraine war, then they would proceed to pocket that option without immediately using it. If we were fighting in Iraq, and they sited S400 missiles in Syria to shoot down our missiles, would that be right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Pavel Novak said: One could argue that in war situation you are right. But from a Russian legal view there is no war just special military operation - so there is no legal base or precedent just might makes right. There was no "war" being declared and "wartime" powers enacted by... anyone in last, IDK, 50+ years, so I am not sure it is really relevant how Russians or anyone else calls their wars. Edited May 13 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrustMe Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 Vietnam was a "Police Action" only   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martineleca Posted May 14 Author Share Posted May 14 (edited) 15 hours ago, TrustMe said: Vietnam was a "Police Action" only   It was this kind of early PC wording that ultimately doomed the West to lose the propaganda war over Vietnam, it should have been named square for what it was, direct military support for the country of South Vietnam in its legitimate fight against being taken over by the communist North identical in character to Korea. Instead it was successfully framed by subversive elements as an aggressive US invasion aiming to seperate a single people who longed for the joys of gulags and mass starvation, completely ignoring that two thirds of the forces on the ground were South Vietnamese aided by troops from a half dozen other nations united in their struggle to halt the red menace. Edited May 14 by Martineleca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futon Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 7 hours ago, Martineleca said: It was this kind of early PC wording that ultimately doomed the West to lose the propaganda war over Vietnam, it should have been named square for what it was, direct military support for the country of South Vietnam in its legitimate fight against being taken over by the communist North identical in character to Korea. Instead it was successfully framed by subversive elements as an aggressive US invasion aiming to seperate a single people who longed for the joys of gulags and mass starvation, completely ignoring that two thirds of the forces on the ground were South Vietnamese aided by troops from a half dozen other nations united in their struggle to halt the red menace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Vietnam "Red menace" was 30 years old. A country an ocean away can't know what's best. It's predated Iraq 2003 by decades.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martineleca Posted May 14 Author Share Posted May 14 4 hours ago, futon said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Vietnam "Red menace" was 30 years old. A country an ocean away can't know what's best. It's predated Iraq 2003 by decades.  313 000 soldiers gave their lives in service of the Republic of South Vietnam, you seriously believe all of them they did so because a foreign leader from a country an ocean away directed them to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futon Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 2 hours ago, Martineleca said: 313 000 soldiers gave their lives in service of the Republic of South Vietnam, you seriously believe all of them they did so because a foreign leader from a country an ocean away directed them to do so? No, that wasn't the point. If keeping the communists out was paramount, then better to have kept the Japanese there. The wiki article shows the cooporation non-communists Vietnamese had with the Japanese. So instead of 30 years of warfare with defeat anyway, probably just a few years and then communists threat gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urbanoid Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 7 minutes ago, futon said: No, that wasn't the point. If keeping the communists out was paramount, then better to have kept the Japanese there. The wiki article shows the cooporation non-communists Vietnamese had with the Japanese. So instead of 30 years of warfare with defeat anyway, probably just a few years and then communists threat gone. Oh for fucks sake, the decision was being made in the 1960s, not 1940s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 (edited) 29 minutes ago, futon said: ... The wiki article shows the cooporation non-communists Vietnamese had with the Japanese... Quislings is the word you are looking for. Edited May 14 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futon Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 (edited) 1 hour ago, urbanoid said: Oh for fucks sake, the decision was being made in the 1960s, not 1940s. One faction in Vietnam were the communists since the 1940s. The other faction collaborated with the Japanese and achieved a path towards a unity independent Vietnam. The loss of Japanese support undermined them. And the return of the French with US support further did. The Vietnamese against communism didn't start in 1960. It started in the 1940s. And judging by the record, the Japanese would have been better in keeping the communists out. Edited May 14 by futon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futon Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 (edited) 54 minutes ago, bojan said: Quislings is the word you are looking for. More and more, the collaborators looked to be the sort of people that had their heads on straight. The communists independent fighters were not good at running a country when they finally got what they wanted, based off of the record. Chinese communists.. Mao's China Korean communists... DPRK Vietnamese communists... North Vietnam/Vietnam Edited May 14 by futon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martineleca Posted May 15 Author Share Posted May 15 7 hours ago, futon said: The communists independent fighters were not good at running a country when they finally got what they wanted, based off of the record. Chinese communists.. Mao's China Korean communists... DPRK Vietnamese communists... North Vietnam/Vietnam The famines that usually followed a communist victory in any country, whether intentional or through mismanagement often killed a lot more people than warfare itself, especially in the case of China. This is why the South Koreans fought till the last bullet and shell in a shrinking perimeter until help arrived to turn the tide, South Vietnamese troops likewise hoped for the same, knowing that if they failed the reprisals against the civilian population they were defending would dwarf any grievous losses the armed forces suffered. An enemy takeover of South Vietnam should never have been considered an option in the West even at the cost of escalated confrontation, just like it shouldn't have been in Iran as we're seeing the consequences of that weakness in the world today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perun Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perun Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 Just now, Perun said: Â But did they found crew for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 Its a Frigate, not a Battleship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perun Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 So far they strugle to finde crew and it will be worse in the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now