Neville Chamberlain speaks about his efforts to obtain a peaceful solution to the Sudeten dispute, which he refers to as a 'quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/ww2outbreak/7904.shtml

Throughout History: The 'War Mongers' are the Appeasers, and those in this Thread. Who will not do, what is necessary.

I have always asked myself: Why does the Human Race, when confronted by Evil, Beg for Mercy, from the Aggressors.

It is the Appeasers, who cause The BIGGER WAR.

My guess is that History will place the present Appeasers in the same category as Chamberlain, and his kind. Who called Winston Churchill a 'War Monger'.

And what is necessary? Begin a war with Russia?

Okay, and then what? What is your objective? Destroy the Russian army? Remove Putin from power? Occupy and try to turn it into a liberal democracy? Those are the three main offensive objectives that you have when starting a war with Russia.

Okay, say you destroy the Russian army, how far will you go. Attack all their bases. Completely destroy their armed capabilities? Does that include their nuclear arsenal, thus risking to escalate the war into a nuclear war, a war that we will all lose? Okay so do touch their nukes, just their regular armed forces. In that case, you will create the worst geopolitical disaster the world has ever seen. Without an army, the Russian Federation will rip apart. Those little states in the Caucasus will take the opportunity to rid themselves of Moscow authority and split off. Oh and those places are choke full of radical Islamist, so IS can move their once Iraq/Syria becomes to hot. And of course, without an army it will be easy for the Chinese to expand into Siberia/Manchuria. And if Russia is gone, then there will be an empty spot in the UNSC which depending on who takes the open spot could very well shift the balance of power into the Western direction which is not exactly a good thing.

Okay, so maybe not destroy their army, instead focus on regime change. Quickly march on Moscow, capture Putin, put him on trial and shoot him. Who are you gonna put into place? Some Kremlin critic that we all like? Okay, problem is those critics are such easy targets because they are wildly unpopular in Russia. So we would install a president the Russians don't like and who will lose the next elections, if not sooner. And thanks to our meddling with internal Russian politics, we will have united the vast majority of Russians behind the ultra nationalists. Now if you don't like Putin, you are gonna hate these guys. So in the end you will have replaced one enemy for a much more dangerous, unpredictable enemy. Good job.

So no simple regime change then? Instead, occupation and transformation of Russia into a liberal democratic state? Hah, good luck with that. First rule of warfare: DONT EVER TRY TO OCCUPY RUSSIA. Seriously, you want to try and conquer the largest country in the world, a country which for a large part consist of endless wilderness? With a backward infrastructure? And where the largest part of the population will want to see you dead? Yeah, not gonna happen.

So, if you think it through, an offensive military campaign against Russia will result in disaster. So maybe not be so eager to get involved in a war that you can't win?

Sweden and Finland?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalina_affair

Which didnt result in war now did it?

That's my Point.
Do we want fight again with Russia?
Of course not.
We have experinced 33! wars with Russia through the history. Not Soviet.
From the Viking era to 1809!

Мишель...

You start your silliness with:

And what is necessary? Begin a war with Russia?

No. It is up to Putin to decide. As it always has with Aggressors.

If Putin wishes a war - he can continue these, Acts of War, flights.

If Putin doesn't wish a war - he can stop these, Acts of War, flights.

As with ALL Aggressors: It is really up to them. Not their victims response.

Putin, as with all aggressors, will continue to escalate. You, and Other Appeasers, only emboldens The Bully.

Will you, and other Appeasers, ever learn? Of course not. As any reply will show.

Funny how not long before this you were calling me a warmonger when I said that in case the Russians invade the Baltic states and our NATO allies, we should fulfill our treaty obligations and come to their aid. Back then you made it clear you were unwilling to begin a war to protect our allies because of the destructive nature of such a war (even wishing me a rather painful death for disagreeing with you there), but now you are okay with starting a war because Putin flies a few planes through our airspace.

So why are you against a war when we are talking about an actual invasion of our allies and treaty partners, but pro war when we are talking about an annoyance but is for the most part harmless.

Which also makes it quite clear I'm not an appeaser. Ive clearly drawn a line of when it is okay to go to war with Putin. Its just that this line has not been crossed and hopefully doesnt get crossed.

Your entire thread is incorrect in its thinking, and understanding, of course.

"Harmless". As your have repeatedly believed Terrorism to be. Or at least not serious.

I was speaking of Realpolitik. Of course. And accepted, under Realpolitik, Tsar Putin I 'reclaiming' old Russian and Soviet Borders. Just happened to mention the Baltic States, where YOU wished to have YOUR population killed, if he invaded.

Tsar Putin, is now expanding his aggression beyond those, recently historical borders. And threatening civilian air passengers, and borders of Non-Old Soviet Country's.

Tsar Putin decides if HE wishes a War, after we physically, and legally, stop these flights.

All your verbiage is just to cover your Appeasement of Putin.

So I'm an appeaser when I don't want to start a war by blowing Russian planes out of the sky the moment they enter our airspace, but am willing to start a war to defend our NATO partners? Right, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'appeaser'.

And btw, these little incursions of our airspace aren't a recent thing. The Russians have been doing it ever since the fall of the Soviet Union.

And btw, these little incursions of our airspace aren't a recent thing. The Russians have been doing it ever since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Little? You are a lucky son of gun to live in Nederländerna.
Ok I admit. during the Soviet era it was much more incursions.
But remember how it looked back then and what Russia are aiming to do now!
Do we (countries around the Baltic See) want that?

Russia will shoot down EVERY western Aircraft if WE are trespassing THEIR territory!
F****g Hell.

Little? You are a lucky son of gun to live in Nederländerna.
Ok I admit. during the Soviet era it was much more incursions.
But remember how it looked back then and what Russia are aiming to do now!
Do we (countries around the Baltic See) want that?

Russia will shoot down EVERY western Aircraft if WE are trespassing THEIR territory!
F****g Hell.

Yes, little. And before you throw a tantrum, know that they also intrude in Dutch airspace on a regular basis. We have to scramble fighters to politely escort them to international airspace.

And sure, they would do that. The thing is, the situation we are in makes it difficult for us to be the ones that strike first. An offensive war with Russia would not favor us, in fact it would be a guaranteed disaster. So if we shoot the Russians out of the air, we would be waging war with a massive disadvantage. We have to wait until they cross the line first, until they actually attack us. Only then can we strike back and actually win the war.

Not fair, but this kind of situation isnt about whats fair.

Yes, little. And before you throw a tantrum, know that they also intrude in Dutch airspace on a regular basis. We have to scramble fighters to politely escort them to international airspace.
An offensive war with Russia would not favor us, in fact it would be a guaranteed disaster. So if we shoot the Russians out of the air, we would be waging war with a massive disadvantage. We have to wait until they cross the line first, until they actually attack us. Only then can we strike back and actually win the war.

I know that Dutch airspace are intruded by Russian military on a regular basis.
And almost every other country in the western World.
Nothing new about that.
Before I throw a tantrum I would like to ask.
Who are we in your post? United Nations, NATO, Europe, EU, Sweden and Finland, Holland? The US, Australia and New Zeeland perhaps?

I was involved (as a 'Keeper of The Papers'), decades ago, in some War Games against Soviet Forces. In addition, because of my present association with still active, High Ranking Military Personnel:

Win a war, against the present day Russian Military Forces, within the 'Old' Soviet Borders?

No one, including any combination of Military Forces, have the capability, over the years it would take, to do that.

Youre wrong. The US alone could easily do that. With NATO, it should be even easier.

We could kill their soldiers, and destroy their equipment, using a ratio of 5 to 1, and they will not (and have never) stopped fighting for Mother Russia.

A few posts ago I mentioned the reqruitment problems the Russians are having. Due to demographic problems and rampant alcoholism they are unable to maintain their army size. Furthermore, they rely heavily on conscripts. The Russian army now consists of about half a million soldiers. The US alone can match that, and the average US soldiers is better trained and better equipped than his Russian counterpart. If they fight and lose man with a 5-1 ratio they would burn through their armed forces in no time.

Furthermore, Russian military doctrine is severely outdated. Basically, they are terrible when it comes to the information aspect of modern warfare, which is exactly what Western armies, but the US in particular are great at. Basically put, when it comes to open confrontation between NATO and Russia, NATO can pick the Russian army apart in such a way its entire structure collapses.

And mind you, this is coming straight from the Russians themselves.

EDIT 2: The Russians do have difficulties 'Moving Forward'. However, they 'Move Back', because of Area, and 'Never Stop Fighting' Culture, better than anyone else in Europe.

Which is exactly why an offensive war against Russia would be a stupid idea. A defensive war where NATO has to defend NATO territory has a very clear and very limited objective: kick the Russians out of NATO territory. No need to conquer parts of Russia, only limited incursions into Russian territory would be needed, and once we trashed their army, they will be forced to back down.

Who are we in your post? United Nations, NATO, Europe, EU, Sweden and Finland, Holland? The US, Australia and New Zeeland perhaps?

NATO + allies.

Who are we in your post? United Nations, NATO, Europe, EU, Sweden and Finland, Holland? The US, Australia and New Zeeland perhaps?

NATO + allies.

NATO + Allies? Please explain.

Russian military doctrine is severely outdated. Basically, they are terrible when it comes to the information aspect of modern warfare, which is exactly what Western armies, but the US in particular are great at. Basically put, when it comes to open confrontation between NATO and Russia, NATO can pick the Russian army apart in such a way its entire structure collapses.

And mind you, this is coming straight from the Russians themselves.

You are talking nonsense and your information and sources are outdated!
Russia now have the most superior military capacity in Europe.
VDV I have explained Before.
They have very good fighting experience to invade small countries.
Maybe Holland should watch out...

This is coming straight from the Russians themselves

Please tell what source you are refering to.

The latest NATO-Russia plane encounter over the Baltic Sea was even more dangerous than usual.
This was the very first time a Russian Air Force plane flying from mainland Russia to Kaliningrad Oblast was heading towards Denmark and Gotland and Bornholm, at supersonic speed.
Some analysts believe the purpose of the flight was provocative. Moscow has recently warned Denmark that if it joins Nato’s missile defense shield, its navy will be a legitimate target for a Russian nuclear attack.

Read more: http://uk.businessinsider.com/russian-planes-over-baltic-more-dangerous-than-usual-2015-3?r=US#ixzz3VSP9JLJz

I was involved (as a 'Keeper of The Papers'), decades ago, in some War Games against Soviet Forces. In addition, because of my present association with still active, High Ranking Military Personnel:

Win a war, against the present day Russian Military Forces, within the 'Old' Soviet Borders?

No one, including any combination of Military Forces, have the capability, over the years it would take, to do that.

Youre wrong. The US alone could easily do that. With NATO, it should be even easier.

We could kill their soldiers, and destroy their equipment, using a ratio of 5 to 1, and they will not (and have never) stopped fighting for Mother Russia.

A few posts ago I mentioned the reqruitment problems the Russians are having. Due to demographic problems and rampant alcoholism they are unable to maintain their army size. Furthermore, they rely heavily on conscripts. The Russian army now consists of about half a million soldiers. The US alone can match that, and the average US soldiers is better trained and better equipped than his Russian counterpart. If they fight and lose man with a 5-1 ratio they would burn through their armed forces in no time.

Furthermore, Russian military doctrine is severely outdated. Basically, they are terrible when it comes to the information aspect of modern warfare, which is exactly what Western armies, but the US in particular are great at. Basically put, when it comes to open confrontation between NATO and Russia, NATO can pick the Russian army apart in such a way its entire structure collapses.

And mind you, this is coming straight from the Russians themselves.

EDIT 2: The Russians do have difficulties 'Moving Forward'. However, they 'Move Back', because of Area, and 'Never Stop Fighting' Culture, better than anyone else in Europe.

Which is exactly why an offensive war against Russia would be a stupid idea. A defensive war where NATO has to defend NATO territory has a very clear and very limited objective: kick the Russians out of NATO territory. No need to conquer parts of Russia, only limited incursions into Russian territory would be needed, and once we trashed their army, they will be forced to back down.

And I will ask what happens to our great information aspect when it gets hit with a suborbital EMP? Your blind.
Now everyone was pissed when China took out one of their satelites. I do think Russia could do the same to our satelites. And we to theirs.
It will not be a cakewalk if war braeks out.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Who are we in your post? United Nations, NATO, Europe, EU, Sweden and Finland, Holland? The US, Australia and New Zeeland perhaps?

NATO + allies.

NATO + Allies? Please explain.

There are a number of European countries that are not members of NATO but who would probably want to support NATO in their efforts to keep the Russians from forcefully expanding their borders. Because it would be in their own interests to send a message to Russia that they can't do that.

And I will ask what happens to our great information aspect when it gets hit with a suborbital EMP? Your blind.
Now everyone was pissed when China took out one of their satelites. I do think Russia could do the same to our satelites. And we to theirs.
It will not be a cakewalk if war braeks out.

The dangers of EMP are well known, which is why a lot of critical military infrastructure is hardened and therefor immune to the effects of EMP. If you want to hit the US's information warfare capability, you have to knock down their satellites physically. So far the only nation that has invested a lot of money into doing that is China. Not Russia. Also, there are some contingencies in place should that happen. Back up satellites that send up when one is shot down.

But you are right, it won't be easy, and I never said it would be easy. I'm simply saying that the Russians can't win this.

Who are we in your post? United Nations, NATO, Europe, EU, Sweden and Finland, Holland? The US, Australia and New Zeeland perhaps?

NATO + allies.

NATO + Allies? Please explain.

There are a number of European countries that are not members of NATO but who would probably want to support NATO in their efforts to keep the Russians from forcefully expanding their borders. Because it would be in their own interests to send a message to Russia that they can't do that.

I Think many other countries than Europian countries want to support NATO in efforts to keep the Russians from forcefully expanding their borders.

BTW When the russian subs where here and lurking close to Stockholm recently, Kremlin said that the sub came from an other country then Russia.
Guess what country?
Holland:)

BTW When the russian subs where here and lurking close to Stockholm recently, Kremlin said that the sub came from an other country then Russia.
Guess what country?
Holland:)

So Ive heard :P Its hard to take them serious though, given their track record on submarines snooping around in Swedish waters.

In any case, Sweden is going to help us get new submarines.

So Ive heard :P Its hard to take them serious though, given their track record on submarines snooping around in Swedish waters.
In any case, Sweden is going to help us get new submarines.

Strange. Saab of Sweden!
I thought they built cars and fighter jets.....

We use to joke about russian subs here and say.
The Russians are here again and checking out the latest fashion of swimwear:)

Once Sweden asked for help from the Dutch to build ships:)
The Regal ship Vasa was ordered to Antonius Monier with the Dutchman Henrik Hybertsson as a ship builder. January 16, 1625 Henrik and his brother, Arendt Hybertsson (de Groote) toke over the ship yard and signed a contract to build four ships, two major with a keel length around 135 feet (41 m) and two smaller at 108 feet (33 m).

Matjesill is originally from the Netherlands and the word comes from the Dutch name of maatjesharing which means "virgin herring".
Mandatory on a Smörgåsbord:)

Russian sub, Triton 2 :)



Russian special vessels for covert transport of underwater vehicles.

Space for Triton 2
Space for hidden out lockage Sirena and divers.[/quote]

All this argy bargy about whether Russia or the West with its allies would win WWIII is just speculation really. Neither side is going to declare war as I see it. Russia under Putin has to be seen to flex its muscles and test its offensives against other countries defences. That way it keeps abreast of what it could possibly do if war was declared upon them, and keeps the natives happy to prop up their regime.

The West won't declare war on Russia, it would only retaliate if forced to by Russian aggression. it's all a game of "push me pull you", sabre rattling, and keeping the military from getting bored. WWIII with ICBM and other missiles would devastate half the world, whoever won it would be a pyrrhic victory. And for those lucky ones of us that were left half alive, not much to look forward to with half the planet in ruins.

Do you actually believe there would be 1/2 a world left after a nuke war? There will be NOTHING left after a full exchange. MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction is called that for a reason. With the number of hidden nukes (Submarines) there would be a launch everytime one side or the other 'raised it's head'.

Human life would cease to exist within 10 years of a full exchange. End of the 'never-ending' story.

---

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

Here is a survivor.