Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Empire strikes back - Russia going West
FT_Italy    9/20/2008 5:26:57 AM
Here the Russian plan to go back at least to 1939 western border, including the partition in 3 parts of Ukraine (East, Crimea and Odessa to be directly annexed; Central, to become a satellite then be "united" to Russia as Belarus; West, the one that could stay free): http://temi.repubblica.it/limes/alla-riconquista-di-un-impero-2/
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
FT_Italy       9/26/2008 4:36:36 AM

Let me ask you one thing, FT, to continue our discussion, do you believe Ukrainian to be a language in itself or a dialect of Russian?

 



I do not remember who said that "languages are just dialects with the bayonets" or something alike.
Anyway, from the few things I know, Ukrainian is a distinct language: but all Slavic languages are very similar.
Otherwise, all Latin languages would be by someway dialects of Italian, or all Germanic ones for German language.
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       9/26/2008 6:18:48 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       9/26/2008 6:20:06 AM

It is actually quite complex, and the problem is that no one is really concerned with knowing the truth but only in advancing their own political interests.

Ukrainian linguists contend that it is a language in itself and one of the original Slavic languages from the main tree of Old Slavonic which branched off into the languages we know today (i.e. Polish, Czech, Russian, etc). (The implication being, of course, that the Ukraine deserves statehood and independence.)

Russian linguists contend that Ukrainian is but a peasant dialect of Russian. At the time the Russian people moved the capital from Kiev to Moscow, those who were left behind were the peasants and lower classes who spoke a dialect of Russian, which we know today as Ukrainian. Sort of a creole of Russian with Polish and Baltic influences. (Many Ukis were incorporated in to the kingdom of Lithuania which itself united with Poland). (The implication being, of course, that the Ukraine is part of Russia and is but a province of Russia.)

The Russian view is, of course, very unflattering to Ukrainians but there is some truth that the Ukraine and Russia were united in the crucible of their establishment. Ukraine was known as "little Russia" up to the 1800s. Even today those in the Ukraine who speak Ukrainian are rural people. Those dwelling in the cities, the elites, all speak Russian.

The Russians contend that Ukrainian is nothing but "Polonized Russian". It does appear that Ukrainian is heavily influenced by Polish; I speak Polish and Russian and most expressions in Ukrainian derive from one or the other.

The "real Ukraine" could be Ruthenia. Which no longer exists as a nation state.

Studying the linguistic situation is interesting as it shows how tenuous the Ukraine is as a nation state. Time will tell if it gathers momentum and comes to life or if it falls under the gravity of the Russian state and blurs into anonymity, such as what happened to Ruthenia.

 

 

 

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    one last point   9/26/2008 6:25:48 AM
One last thing, the word "UKRAINA" in Russian has a meaning. U means 'at' or like the French "chez" and "kraj" is the 'outskirts'.
 
So a Russian would translate UKRAINA as "the Hinterland" i.e. the outskirts of Russia, but PART of Russia.
 
You see the Russian thinking?
 
But.... here's the funny thing:  in Polish, "kraj" means "country".....
 
So you be the judge, FT, which one represents the true nature and DESTINY of UKRAINA.
 
k
 
Quote    Reply

FT_Italy       10/8/2008 4:50:04 AM

One last thing, the word "UKRAINA" in Russian has a meaning. U means 'at' or like the French "chez" and "kraj" is the 'outskirts'.

 

So a Russian would translate UKRAINA as "the Hinterland" i.e. the outskirts of Russia, but PART of Russia.

 

You see the Russian thinking?

 

But.... here's the funny thing:  in Polish, "kraj" means "country".....

 

So you be the judge, FT, which one represents the true nature and DESTINY of UKRAINA.

 

k


You give me a great responsibility...lol

Anyway I think we are close to "step 2" of Russian strategy: from this one on, the matter of national identity of Ukraine will be not very important, just we will have to chose the side which we should support.
Despite Moscow stock exchange really sinking (-11/-19% a day, now closed until Russian authorities decide to re-open it), Russia has found 4billion$ to loan to Iceland, which is close to bankruptcy.
In the very likely event that Iceland had to declare bankrupt, Russia could legally take control of the island (e.g. in history see the examples of Boer Republics or Newfoundland).
Now, wasn't Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising to foresee a Soviet occupation of Iceland as a key strategic move for the invasion of Europe? (in this case, at least to prevent a strong response for operations east of river Bug and north of the river Memel)
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       10/8/2008 7:04:13 AM

Really? Why is Iceland strategic? The Bug river is very far removed from Iceland.... I don't quite follow.

 
Quote    Reply

FT_Italy       10/8/2008 11:32:55 AM

Really? Why is Iceland strategic? The Bug river is very far removed from Iceland.... I don't quite follow.



Iceland is strategic in two ways:
- a base there can control the routes between North America and Europe, in the North Atlantic;
- being a NATO country, with an American base, it is both a favourite observation point for the activities of Russian sea and air fleets in the Far North, and a door closing North Atlantic to Russian Navy.
If Russia controls Iceland, they could (in the worst case, "all out war" with NATO) be a real problem in the Atlantic (Allied needed 3 years to begin safe troop and material transportation across the Ocean in WWII against German submarines menace).
This could make USA and UK think twice and even three times before supporting Ukraine or defending Latvia and Estonia.
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       10/8/2008 11:49:59 AM

German, I think that Germany will have a lot of work to do to build up a 10million men Army, having now just 101,000 men on active service and 35,000 reservists, in an Army that is considered by many ones as almost disbanding (in 1991 there were 360,000 men).


I think also 10million is a bit exaggerate: it is the 12% of German population; likely ones many among them would be too old to serve.

On such a basis, we should then count Italian and French reserves (both countries passed to full professional Armies a few years ago) as about 7-8million men each one: a bit too much I think.

 

To tell the truth, Russian percentage is even higher: but we know, historically, which are conscription methods in Russia; and about a half of their forces are anyway "paramilitary" ones, so militia or alike, good to occupy enemy territory or guard basis, but not to fight on the frontline (but I think it is a very good idea, keeping high number/low level forces for these things); more, until last year, tha mandatory military service was still 18 months.

 

Anyway, while Russian would even mobilise everyone from 15 to 65 in event of war, having nothing to lose and everything to gain, I think European countries would mobilise very slowly and very reluctantly, maybe just wanting to lead a "phone war" like on the Rhine front until May 1940.

We have an economy that needs many men, our population is very old and our moral values are very low.


The thing you have to Remember about Germany is that those 101,000 regulars and 35,000 reserves are not the true numbers, Germany still has conscription, its a very short conscription though (10 months IIRC), just long enough to get through basic training and spend a few months with a regiment or battalion. What this means is that their "true" reserve is much high, especially when you add in all the people who leave the army every year for whatever reason.
 
 
France though without conscription, does have the largest army in Europe and could increase its numbers quite a lot by calling up former members of the armed forces, and the UK army while not so large, has a relatively large turn over of soldiers each year, and most of them are infantry of one kind or another, so they would be relatively quick to get them reequiped.
 
Quote    Reply

FT_Italy       10/8/2008 5:55:05 PM




German, I think that Germany will have a lot of work to do to build up a 10million men Army, having now just 101,000 men on active service and 35,000 reservists, in an Army that is considered by many ones as almost disbanding (in 1991 there were 360,000 men).




I think also 10million is a bit exaggerate: it is the 12% of German population; likely ones many among them would be too old to serve.



On such a basis, we should then count Italian and French reserves (both countries passed to full professional Armies a few years ago) as about 7-8million men each one: a bit too much I think.



 



To tell the truth, Russian percentage is even higher: but we know, historically, which are conscription methods in Russia; and about a half of their forces are anyway "paramilitary" ones, so militia or alike, good to occupy enemy territory or guard basis, but not to fight on the frontline (but I think it is a very good idea, keeping high number/low level forces for these things); more, until last year, tha mandatory military service was still 18 months.



 



Anyway, while Russian would even mobilise everyone from 15 to 65 in event of war, having nothing to lose and everything to gain, I think European countries would mobilise very slowly and very reluctantly, maybe just wanting to lead a "phone war" like on the Rhine front until May 1940.



We have an economy that needs many men, our population is very old and our moral values are very low.






The thing you have to Remember about Germany is that those 101,000 regulars and 35,000 reserves are not the true numbers, Germany still has conscription, its a very short conscription though (10 months IIRC), just long enough to get through basic training and spend a few months with a regiment or battalion. What this means is that their "true" reserve is much high, especially when you add in all the people who leave the army every year for whatever reason.

 

 

France though without conscription, does have the largest army in Europe and could increase its numbers quite a lot by calling up former members of the armed forces, and the UK army while not so large, has a relatively large turn over of soldiers each year, and most of them are infantry of one kind or another, so they would be relatively quick to get them reequiped.



The numbers are right, I do not where you found German Army has more than 101,000 men and women, while conscription is limited today to just 17,000 men of these 101,000.
If you do not trust me, check here for the Heer: http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd443cTQCSYGYxgEh-pEwsaCUVH1fj_zcVH1v_QD9gtyIckdHRUUATi3qcg!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82X0NfNENM
http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd443cTQCSYGYxgEh-pEwsaCUVH1fj_zcVH1v_QD9gtyIckdHRUUATi3qcg!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82X0NfNENM
Anyway, out of that you are completely forgetting Italian Army (larger than German one, 112,000 men and women to be added to other 112,000 men and women of the Carabinieri armed force to control land and towns; and with a manpool as large as France or UK and without religious/ethnical problems of the sons of the immigrates), you have to find 20million men in a few weeks, trained and equipped, and some major government willing to stop Russia at any cost.
 
Quote    Reply

FT_Italy       10/27/2008 5:19:57 AM
Iceland in the end accepted a minor IMF aid (about 2bn$) instead of taking Russian money.
And Russia seems to be very close to default, as Ukraine, Belarus, Hungary, Romania, the same Iceland etc. but these medium-little countries have not such a military power nor they went to war since many decades.
Will Russia accept its financial fate, or will she "come to us" to take the money she needs?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics