How will the Ukraine war end?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skylog, Mar 6, 2015.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Rebels win,Eastern Ukraine goes independent

    83 vote(s)
  2. Putin invades Kiev, NATO doesn't move

    45 vote(s)
  3. Putin invades Kiev, NATO fights Russia

    9 vote(s)
  4. Rebels lose, Ukraine stays united

    27 vote(s)
  1. YarS

    YarS On ROPs


    May be, more correct is "we are moving history".
  2. So my little gopnik exactly how much glue have you sniffed today?

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. There were a series of diplomatic crises over the period preceding the war as Germany sought to split the UK-France-Russia alliance. Germany would pick out one of them and apply pressure to them in the hope the others would leave their ally hanging, effectively undermining the credibility of the alliance and breaking it. For example, the Germans inserted themselves into the Agadir question (a colonial carve-up deal between Britain and France) in an attempt to isolate France. Germany was attempting to establish themselves as the sole global military super-power, while the other major powers of Europe were aligning themselves in opposition to that. Churchill covers the subject quite well in the early chapters of "The World Crisis".

    The UK didn't have a formal treaty which explicitly required them to come to the aid of France and Russia in the event of a war with Germany, but the UK had come to a series of understandings with France which effectively amounted to the same thing. Britain's growing closeness to France was the result of common interests in a number of areas, but the creation of the German fleet was a major galvanising factor driving Britain even closer to France. US involvement in WWI came about in an effort to ensure that Germany did not come out supreme as a result of the collapse of Russia, as the US saw German global hegemony as against their own interests as well. The formal casus belli of course is not the same thing as the more fundamental reasons behind the action.

    The war is best viewed in the context of the previous century where countries would align with one another to prevent any one power from achieving absolute dominance over the others. The creation of the German Empire plus economic and demographic factors had tilted the balance in favour of a new power - Germany. So long as Germany exercised restraint, the situation remained stable. However, when the war party attained dominance within Germany, the war became inevitable, it only being a matter of which crisis would kick it off.

    Here's the famous and often referenced cartoon "Dropping the Pilot", referring to Bismark being forced to resign in 1890. Many historians view this event as the beginning of the drift towards war which led to WWI.

    • Like Like x 1
  4. Feel free. It is you who are arguing that it is allowable to rob the enemy, and the Reds were our enemy, as we were allies to the Whites. We were just removing goods from the path of the enemy.

    Just remember that we didn't murder the priests and congregation afterwards.

    Unlike you lot.
  5. [​IMG]

    Am I allowed to say "I would" in this forum?
  6. YarS

    YarS On ROPs

    That's what I mean. Brit is thief, and close acquaintance with British forces made people very anti-West. As now, Ukraine become more and more anti-NATO.
  7. Various sources put the famine as extending from Ukraine in the west across the northern Caucasus (the plains of southern Russia between the Don and the Caucasus Mountains), the lower Volga, Kazakhstan, and Western Siberia. Or to put it another way, all across the major grain producing areas of the USSR.

    The actual cause of the famine appears to have been the result of factors including crop failures combined with rigid production quotas. Or to put it another way, targets set in advance for turning over grain for redistribution were not lowered to take into account lower grain production. Or to put it even more simply, communism doesn't work.
  8. And would any of them happen to be Russian? Just asking - 'various sources' say the moon landings never happened
  9. The argument of the weak. Source or it's agitprop
    Russia surrendered and left allies in the lurch
  10. YarS

    YarS On ROPs

    Ha! Does it mean, that you never read "World in Crysis", my little uneducated friend?
    Such allies are worse that enemies.
  11. Sure. Were the British and Bolsheviks allies?
  12. Discussions on this could get philosophical. But in simplistic terms, not they're not. For a start the future hasn't happened yet, and the past no longer exists.

    Ok, maybe aspects of what you believe are the same as what he espouses

    No. History is past though versions of it will exist.

    That's a prediction not a certainty. What do you define as soon.
  13. YarS

    YarS On ROPs


    Communism works. Really before revolution there were mass famines every three-five years.
    There was no time for slow industrialisation (becouse of coming war), and there was no possibility to buy machines for gold becouse of "golden blockade" from West countries.
  14. YarS

    YarS On ROPs

    Both of them are exist in our brains. We are plan future victories, using our expirience of the past.

    And what about
    Future history - Wikipedia

    Before 2050. Very good chances that before 2030. 50/50 that before 2020.
  15. To right it does and that's why the USSR is the worlds premiere economic powerhouse today - and everyone's rushing to remodel their economies on communist lines.

    Oh hang on my mistake the USSR no longer exists - it collapsed under its own inefficient weight and became criminal central
    • Like Like x 2