Jan you won't be able to cut his money off because of crypto , and if the E.U country's stop paying all he'll do is just turn the pipelines off .
Only a full blown war with every weapon on the table will stop him now .
He knew the west would not help after what happened in Georgia .

---

Jan you won't be able to cut his money off because of crypto , and if the E.U country's stop paying all he'll do is just turn the pipelines off .
Only a full blown war with every weapon on the table will stop him now .
He knew the west would not help after what happened in Georgia .

Glenn. SWIFT is not about crypto. SWIFT is THE way money transactions are done globaly between banks. But of course they use cryptographics when doing it.
http://www.swift.com/index.page?lang=en
A full blown war will certainly turn the pipelines off!
Gas accounts from Russia is only two percent of Sweden's energy supply:)

Germany and Italy? More than 'cold radiators' involved.

Maybe. But after the disaster in Japan Fukushima in March 2011, when a tsunami caused an accident involving radioactive emissions due to three meltdowns, the Coalition Government in Germany agreed to take all nuclear power plants out of service by the year 2022, and eight temporarily stopped reactors were closed with immediate effect.
So Germany have an option to start those reactors again.

The current situations you describe are all traced back to this administrations refusal to act on ANYTHING. You ask what happens when the USA withdraws, You gave your own answer.

The situations I described were all under the Bush administration. That aside, the administration does not has such a disproportionately high influence on the way the military fights wars that it actually makes a difference between winning or losing a war. The next administration might decide to start a ground war again in Iraq or do one in Libya or Syria. And they will lose just as much as any other administration would have done. The US is simply not equipped to fight and win this kind of war, all it will do is make the situation worse.

I think many of you have it wrong. Look at the map below. Russia sees a corridor between it and Europe, from the North comprising Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Russia sees those as a controllable buffer zone between it and the West.

I doubt that Putin would declare an all out war against the West made up of Nato and the USA. What he will do it maintain his feelers of control and test the West's defences for his own amusement.

Chris.
I think this is the best and simple illustration of Russias intentions today.
Both Soviet Union did and now Russia are doing everything to protect their Holy Grail Moscow.
To make it worse Finland and perhaps Norway (not shown in the pic) might be a russian buffer zone as well in the future.

Personal amusement?

Have you not seen Putin smiling all the time when the Minsk 2 agreement was founded?

The situations I described were all under the Bush administration.

I think you need to revisit history. By the time the previous administration left there was a stable situation in those countries.

The next administration decided the would not follow the advice of the generals and declared within the first few weeks the removal of all troops.

All the followed can be traced to the lack of decision making and or action by the current administration.

administration does not has such a disproportionately high influence on the way the military fights wars that it actually makes a difference between winning or losing a war

Actually they do, as again seen with this administration. Micro managing every part handcuffs the military. Firing all the general who disagree with you and putting yes men leads to failure.

I could reference someone else who did that and lost a war but we all know we've been down the topic already.

I think you need to revisit history. By the time the previous administration left there was a stable situation in those countries.

Requiring hundreds of thousands troops to occupy a country just so car bombs don't go off daily is not a stable situation.

The next administration decided the would not follow the advice of the generals and declared within the first few weeks the removal of all troops.

All the followed can be traced to the lack of decision making and or action by the current administration.

That is because America lost the war. Or let me put it this way, America was at a position where victory was no longer attainable. In order to pacify Iraq for good, it would require a massive presence of US troops for decades to come. And the costs of such an operation were so high that not even America could afford it. Hence, impossible to win. But is that the current administrations fault? No, they didn't start that war, nor did the prosecute said war in such a way that by the time Obama took over in 2009 he was faced with a situation where he simply could not win.

We have got some messages from Russia.
Here is one. Mama Mia:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viN428_IPEM

I think you need to revisit history. By the time the previous administration left there was a stable situation in those countries.

Requiring hundreds of thousands troops to occupy a country just so car bombs don't go off daily is not a stable situation.

The next administration decided the would not follow the advice of the generals and declared within the first few weeks the removal of all troops.

All the followed can be traced to the lack of decision making and or action by the current administration.

That is because America lost the war. Or let me put it this way, America was at a position where victory was no longer attainable. In order to pacify Iraq for good, it would require a massive presence of US troops for decades to come. And the costs of such an operation were so high that not even America could afford it. Hence, impossible to win. But is that the current administrations fault? No, they didn't start that war, nor did the prosecute said war in such a way that by the time Obama took over in 2009 he was faced with a situation where he simply could not win.

First off I agree we should have never gone to Iraq the seccond time. You can never teach a people democracy who have no clue of what it is, Or was.
We spent lives trying to give them freedom when they dont even want it. Ten Years we spent Training their military and they still cant even defend Iraq? They dont want to. So let ISIS take over. They seem to love dictators in the ME.
I for one am sick of the US sticking our nose over there. Let the rats take over the ship. When they get so out of line we have to take action, Destroy their military capability and let the rats fight over whats left.
The old saying you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink sure applies to the ME. Let them kill each other. Maybe someday the good folks will wake up. If they are not all dead.

---

[/quote]

Old James

First off I agree we should have never gone to Iraq the seccond time. You can never teach a people democracy who have no clue of what it is, Or was.
We spent lives trying to give them freedom when they dont even want it. Ten Years we spent Training their military and they still cant even defend Iraq? They dont want to. So let ISIS take over. They seem to love dictators in the ME.
I for one am sick of the US sticking our nose over there. Let the rats take over the ship. When they get so out of line we have to take action, Destroy their military capability and let the rats fight over whats left.
The old saying you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink sure applies to the ME. Let them kill each other. Maybe someday the good folks will wake up. If they are not all dead.

The main reason ostensibly give for the 2nd incursion into Iraq was the possibility that Saddam had WMD's which could be given to terrorists for use against US interests. This proved to be both correct (some chemical weapons were found) and incorrect (not in the quantity or readiness state anticipated by 'intelligence'). The fact this possibility existed was due to the failure to totally destroy Saddam in the First Gulf War. That's all history and cannot be changed (except by academicians in books slanted to what ever viewpoint is currently in vogue).

The question before the world now is Russian Expansionism now focused in Ukraine. That question being, (and I hope Jan answers this question sincerely) should the US grant the request of the Ukraine government to send defensive anti-armor weapons to defend their country?

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

The main reason ostensibly give for the 2nd incursion into Iraq was the possibility that Saddam had WMD's which could be given to terrorists for use against US interests. This proved to be both correct (some chemical weapons were found) and incorrect (not in the quantity or readiness state anticipated by 'intelligence'). The fact this possibility existed was due to the failure to totally destroy Saddam in the First Gulf War. That's all history and cannot be changed (except by academicians in books slanted to what ever viewpoint is currently in vogue).

The question before the world now is Russian Expansionism now focused in Ukraine. That question being, (and I hope Jan answers this question sincerely) should the US grant the request of the Ukraine government to send defensive anti-armor weapons to defend their country?

As you say some chemical weapons were found.
I have met an Iraq teacher who told me about Iraq army used his school facility to cook something. It was not the kids lunch:)
I also met Hans Blix, best known as the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and chairman of the UN Special Commission (UNMOVIC), which in 2000 began research on Iraq had those of the US and Britain declared weapons of mass destruction, in a park in Stockholm.
Almost had to say to him. "No WMD's here" :)

Back to Russia and Ukraine.
Ukraine scrapped all their nuclear weapons when Soviet Union collapsed.
One of many reasons was that the US and the UK would assist Ukraine if Russia attacked them.
So if the US send them more defense systems and non-lethal weapons in this war I dont see any problem.
And Russia gives Donbass more than they want and need.

But giving Ukraine weapons does increase the chance of escalation by the Russians. While there is no way those weapons would actually swing the conflict in Ukraine's favor.

Also it would mean we are picking Ukraine's side against Russia, which makes a peaceful resolution even more difficult and unlikely to happen.

So, its a stupid idea.

So if the US send them more defense systems and non-lethal weapons in this war I dont see any problem.
And Russia gives Donbass more than they want and need.

I hope your admitted unfamiliarity with English caused your use of the word lethal in place of Nuclear. Non-lethal designates pepper spray, water cannons, bean bag shotguns and teargas.

What is needed are anti-tank and anti-artillery munitions and systems. Possibly to include A-10 Warthogs, to stalemate and confront similar weaponry supplied by Putin.

A followup question for you. What would you gauge the response of Sweden, Finland and Norway be to substantial delays or outright refusal by the US to provide this weaponry, and the subsequent fall of Ukraine to Moscow?

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Am I missing something here?

WTH is a non-lethal weapon?

Am I missing something here?

WTH is a non-lethal weapon?

HARDENED bags of MRE's

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

But giving Ukraine weapons does increase the chance of escalation by the Russians. While there is no way those weapons would actually swing the conflict in Ukraine's favor.

Also it would mean we are picking Ukraine's side against Russia, which makes a peaceful resolution even more difficult and unlikely to happen.

So, its a stupid idea.

If the US is doing the supplying, who is the 'we' to which you refer?

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Am I missing something here?

WTH is a non-lethal weapon?

HARDENED bags of MRE's

If anything like our old "compo" rations, still deadly when soft :-)

Am I missing something here?

WTH is a non-lethal weapon?

Sorry:) Should be non-lethal military equipment.

I hope your admitted unfamiliarity with English caused your use of the word lethal in place of Nuclear. Non-lethal designates pepper spray, water cannons, bean bag shotguns and teargas.
What is needed are anti-tank and anti-artillery munitions and systems. Possibly to include A-10 Warthogs, to stalemate and confront similar weaponry supplied by Putin.
A followup question for you. What would you gauge the response of Sweden, Finland and Norway be to substantial delays or outright refusal by the US to provide this weaponry, and the subsequent fall of Ukraine to Moscow?

I admit that I'm unfamiliar to English. However my nephew speaks nothing but English:) Never mind.
Ukraine are in indeed need of anti-tank and anti-artillery munitions and systems.

You would get 3 different responses from Sweden, Finland and Norway.
Norway is a NATO member, Sweden and Finland is not.
Finland is a VERY close neighbour to Russia with a very long border to them.
You forgot Estonia that also are a Scandinavian country.
We dont call our region for Scandinavia. We call it "The Northern".
Russia and Sweden have a lot common history. Both countries are taught this in school but with different interpretations of course.

If the US decides to provide weaponry or not to Ukraine will probably not even be recogniced by the Northern countries.