Head of German navy steps down over Ukraine

120 posts in this topic

Vice admiral Schönbach stepped down because of his remarks that the Crimea peninsula is lost for the Ukraine and that Putin merely wants respect and recognition as equal, not to start a military conflict.

He may well be right, though. In my view, "the West" should acknowledge the status quo because there is no way to change it anyway. Sanctions aren´t helping and are usually hitting innocent Joe Sixpack´s Ukrainian equivalent who has no control over things anyway, while hurting the economies of both sides. What´s the point of shooting oneself in the foot if there is nothing to win?

 

A few days ago I heard an interview with Harald Kujat, the retired highest-ranking German general who said the media hype about Russian troops deployment at the Ukrainian border is blown out of proportion, In reality those troops are hundreds of kilometres from the border and he isn´t aware of any signs of an imminent attack.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we go back to the thirties, Germany built up it's armed forces and nobody did anything It re-occupied the Rheinland and nobody did anything. It occupied the Sudatenland and the great European powers said that was naughty but don't do it again.... Austria was encompassed into a greater Germany.

Russia entered a non aggression pact with Germany and invaded Poland. The Baltic states were occupied in 1940 by Russia and the western powers were a bit busy by then so did nothing. Post WW2 Eastern European states had their legitimate governments removed or liquidated and Russian puppet governments put in place. Now tell me again, it's all a storm in a tea cup. Putin has form for removing anyone that stands in the way of a greater Russia as had existed before the fall of communism plus the Russian fear of invasion built into their psyche.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, French bean said:

Well, we go back to the thirties, Germany built up it's armed forces and nobody did anything It re-occupied the Rheinland and nobody did anything. It occupied the Sudatenland and the great European powers said that was naughty but don't do it again... Austria was encompassed into a greater Germany.

Russia entered a non aggression pact with Germany and invaded Poland. The Baltic states were occupied in 1940 by Russia and the western powers were a bit busy by then so did nothing. Post WW2 Eastern European states had their legitimate governments removed or liquidated and Russian puppet governments put in place. Now tell me again, it's all a storm in a tea cup. Putin has form for removing anyone that stands in the way of a greater Russia as had existed before the fall of communism plus the Russian fear of invasion built into their psyche.

This is true for China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia as well. Hell, Australia just signed a deal to buy submarines, the US and UK have massive armies and are know to bomb and attack whenever and whoever they want to. What did they win when they attacked Irak for example? Nothing. Instead the opened the door to hell.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Namu said:

This is true for China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia as well. Hell, Australia just signed a deal to buy submarines, the US and UK have massive armies and are know to bomb and attack whenever and whoever they want to. What did they win when they attacked Irak for example? Nothing. Instead the opened the door to hell.

So just when do you stand up and put a stop to expansionism? As for the UK having a massive army, it is smaller than it was before the First World War at less than 80,000, the RAF and Royal Navy are pitiful, we wouldn't be able to stop anything with what we have. As for attacking Iraq, that was a big mistake the second time round pandering to the Hawks in Washington who wanted to finish off what Bush Snr had started. The US tends not to attack unless directly threatened or with a UN mandate as happened for the first Gulf War.

 

Australia signing a deal with the US and UK is a direct consequence of aggressive expansionism by China in the S. China Sea. Saudi Arabia in Yemen like the rest of the Arab World is Shiite against Sunni. Or put it another way a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. North Korea has stayed within its borders and hasn't shown signs of expansion, just regular incursions into S Korea which it sees as belonging to the North

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jeba said:

Vice admiral Schönbach stepped down because of his remarks that the Crimea peninsula is lost for the Ukraine and that Putin merely wants respect and recognition as equal, not to start a military conflict.

He may well be right, though. In my view, "the West" should acknowledge the status quo because there is no way to change it anyway. Sanctions aren´t helping and are usually hitting innocent Joe Sixpack´s Ukrainian equivalent who has no control over things anyway, while hurting the economies of both sides. What´s the point of shooting oneself in the foot if there is nothing to win?

 

A few days ago I heard an interview with Harald Kujat, the retired highest-ranking German general who said the media hype about Russian troops deployment at the Ukrainian border is blown out of proportion, In reality those troops are hundreds of kilometres from the border and he isn´t aware of any signs of an imminent attack.

I remember you welcomed refugees from Syria and Kosovo wars, right?

 

1. Germany refused to sell arms to Ukraine citing "history". It seems German government are Reichsbürger and think that the Stalin-Hitler agreement of 1939 is still valid.

2. Germany block military planes from the UK for Ukraine from transiting its territory, it also did not allow Estonia to supply arms to Ukraine. 

 

Well, you deserve 10 million war refugees because you do everything in your power to create them. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, French bean said:

Now tell me again, it's all a storm in a tea cup.

If you so wish: it´s all a storm in a tea cup. As both Kujat and Schönbach, two Generals I deem to be in the know, said: there is no reason to assume Russia is preparing for an invasion. Irrespective of the media hype making you think they are right next to the border and already warming up the engines of their tanks.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all energy related. We need a multi-decade program to replace gas and diesel boilers and stop sending money to the assholes in the world (Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc)

 

Russia's revenues come mainly from oil & gas (36%) and they know they have no future in that. In 20 years they could be in a shitty situation, so they know they have to do something now. As wars (real and informational) are easier to do than to actually try to diversify the economy, they will keep the aggression.

 

We need urgently a plan to:

  • forbid new gas and diesel home/office heating. Subsidize heat pumps if needed!
  • accelerate EV adoption
  • stop Nordstream2
  • solar + battery investment

I don't believe in nuclear as a solution any more because it would come too late, not much public support and solar + batteries is technically better and cheaper.

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

This is all energy related.

I´m not so sure. While energy is part of the puzzle, there are other reasons. E.g. that there are lots of Russians living in Crimea or that Russia feels betrayed by NATO approaching it´s borders even though there was a gentlemen´s agreement (according to Kujat a promise made by then US foreign secretary Baker at the time of the iron curtain coming down) that this wouldn´t happen.

If I try to put myself in Putin´s shoes, I can see why he´s pissed. He just wants to keep a buffer zone, which doesn´t seem unreasonable to me.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jeba said:

In reality those troops are hundreds of kilometres from the border and he isn´t aware of any signs of an imminent attack.

 

Some are closer and Russia is giving arms to eastern Ukraine.

Quote

 

The images from Maxar Technologies, obtained by Reuters, show Russian armored personnel carriers, trucks and other military equipment massed at a storage facility in the city of Klimovo, approximately 20 miles from the border with Ukraine.

Other images show military vehicles, troop tents, tanks and artillery support equipment in the Yelnya military training area, about 160 miles from Ukrainian territory.

 

 

I'll never understand why the U.S., Europe and all NATO nations allowed Putin to waltz in and take over the Crimea in the first place.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fraufruit said:

 

I'll never understand why the U.S., Europe and all NATO nations allowed Putin to waltz in and take over the Crimea in the first place.

Because there wasn´t much they could have done? Especially, as Ukraine isn´t part of NATO.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jeba said:

I´m not so sure. While energy is part of the puzzle, there are other reasons. E.g. that there are lots of Russians living in Crimea or that Russia feels betrayed by NATO approaching it´s borders even though there was a gentlemen´s agreement (according to Kujat a promise made by then US foreign secretary Baker at the time of the iron curtain coming down) that this wouldn´t happen.

If I try to put myself in Putin´s shoes, I can see why he´s pissed. He just wants to keep a buffer zone, which doesn´t seem unreasonable to me.

Mikhail Gorbachev, has said, there was not gentlemen's agreement over the boarder country's, and he was a key figure at the time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

 

I'll never understand why the U.S., Europe and all NATO nations allowed Putin to waltz in and take over the Crimea in the first place.

Because Ukraine is not part of NATO, so Russia has not attacked a NATO country. I remember in 2014 it was said, that the West should not go to war with Russia on this issue because the situation could escalate to full scale nuclear war. That's why the west went for sanctions.

 

Sure I do not want Russia to take over Ukraine but, but I have to agree that I am not willing to go to full scale nuclear over the issue either.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jeba said:

 

If I try to put myself in Putin´s shoes, I can see why he´s pissed. He just wants to keep a buffer zone, which doesn´t seem unreasonable to me.

This is part of the Russian Psyche, they have been invaded so many times over the centuries they really do believe in having a buffer zone, hence Stalin's occupation of Eastern Europe post WW2. Putin grew up and still lives in that Soviet world.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK have a buffer state, but that means in the end, Ukraine has no real right to freedom, Russia will also call the shots there.  Why is it that you think you should have the right to freedom, living in central Europe, but you think that we should accept that the buffer states, should never have the rights a freedoms we have ?

 

yes, we must go to maximum on Russain trade, but not war.

 

The thinking in the west, is you never directly go into a fight, with a country that has nukes, its just too  dangerous, yes fight proxy wars, like when USA was helping Afghanistan, 1980's, but no American will ever come face to face with a Russian and fight - that could lead in very bad directions

 

That's why max sanctions are the only way to go, and hope its enough, so Russia will pull back and let Ukraine has more freedom

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, jeba said:

I´m not so sure. While energy is part of the puzzle, there are other reasons. E.g. that there are lots of Russians living in Crimea or that Russia feels betrayed by NATO approaching it´s borders even though there was a gentlemen´s agreement (according to Kujat a promise made by then US foreign secretary Baker at the time of the iron curtain coming down) that this wouldn´t happen.

If I try to put myself in Putin´s shoes, I can see why he´s pissed. He just wants to keep a buffer zone, which doesn´t seem unreasonable to me.

 

Is it really surprising that Russia wants to keep Ukraine out of NATO?

 

Nato-1.jpg.11170f71954b5bee3294f115f005e

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yesterday said:

Mikhail Gorbachev, has said, there was not gentlemen's agreement over the boarder country's, and he was a key figure at the time.

 

Gorbachev is widely viewed as a traitor for what he did to the Soviet Union. I wouldn't give too much weight to what he says about it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Eric7 said:

 

Gorbachev is widely viewed as a traitor for what he did to the Soviet Union. I wouldn't give too much weight to what he says about it.

By whom, a lot of Russians were pleased with what he did, they had elections, they had basic freedoms, they could take part in a free economy, travel, elect their own candidates for government and not fear repression for what they believed in. Post Gorbochov with Yeltsin, who was an alchoholic and not really in control, had the pace of change gone too quickly leading to high unemployment, starvation and a total collapse of the Russian state. What has filled the vacuum is the rise of a one party state, ruthless removal of dissent and a return to the state functions such as the Police and law courts doing the bidding of the Oligarchs. Those that pine for the older system are the older generations who had a stable existence under the old system. Putin and co have a habit like all leaders of one party states /dictatorships of rewriting history to suit their own agenda. After all at the fall of the USSR, Putin was a KGB colonel based in the former East Germany not in the centre of political decision making.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, French bean said:

By whom, a lot of Russians were pleased with what he did, they had elections, they had basic freedoms, they could take part in a free economy, travel, elect their own candidates for government and not fear repression for what they believed in. Post Gorbochov with Yeltsin, who was an alchoholic and not really in control, had the pace of change gone too quickly leading to high unemployment, starvation and a total collapse of the Russian state. What has filled the vacuum is the rise of a one party state, ruthless removal of dissent and a return to the state functions such as the Police and law courts doing the bidding of the Oligarchs. Those that pine for the older system are the older generations who had a stable existence under the old system. Putin and co have a habit like all leaders of one party states /dictatorships of rewriting history to suit their own agenda. After all at the fall of the USSR, Putin was a KGB colonel based in the former East Germany not in the centre of political decision making.

 

You are believing the propaganda of how bad things were before 1991. My wife (Russian with Ukrainian grandmother) finds it hilarious to read things like you have written.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Eric7 said:

 

You are believing the propaganda of how bad things were before 1991. My wife (Russian with Ukrainian grandmother) finds it hilarious to read things like you have written.

 

French bean said: before Gorbochov and only a small period (Yeltsin) until 1991...

So everything's golden with Putin? Seriously?

Obviously not (from your own reply cited here) - nice that your wife has kept a sense of humor.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now