The SAAF Forum

I'm not really someone for going into circles with these types of arguments. I think I have presented my case, and a source which is not the opinion of just one person, but a committee that did a lot of research. Their methodology is well laid out in the report itself and was very thorough, so I put a lot of weight into their conclusions. I do recommend you read it, Tally-ho - you may be surprised that contrary to your opinion of the House of Lords their report is still very scathing towards Russia - but it provides information to individuals and states interacting with Russia to better understand how the situation came to what it is now. If it eventually comes to war, that information will probably make little difference, but until then it will be valuable information for those choosing to continue along the diplomatic route.

So instead I will just briefly respond to the new points brought up, and maybe clarify one or two other points.

I have already addressed the current exercises within Russian territory, and we seem to agree (more or less, at least) that it is their right to do military exercises anywhere they want within their own territory. In the case of this latest exercise, most of it happens around Lake Ladoga which isn't even on the border. But to respond to your follow-on question:


There is not really any legal requirement about what equipment must be used when flights like those remain in international airspace, but the general agreement between all countries who participate in them is that these types of military flights will not endanger civilian air traffic. If there was the potential for a conflict with civilian traffic, it would be unacceptable. There was a serious incident recently where Sweden accused Russia of a near miss, which Russia denied (obviously) and also the airline involved later denied:

In the case of the flights along the UK coast, after the flight that was intercepted on 28 January, the UK complained because they said there was a disruption to civilian air traffic (although they did not state there was a danger) and they ended up calling in the Russian ambassador for a "talk". The flight on 18 February was apparently conducted without any disruption of, or danger to civilian traffic, so the UK MOD seemed to be much less concerned about that one.

These flights really are not something new and have continued throughout and after the end of the cold war. What is new is that they have recently increased significantly in frequency, they tend to fly closer to the airspace of European countries and, a much bigger concern due to the potential for a "misunderstanding", is that some of the flights have been escorted by fighters. It is clearly posturing by Russia, but just like the exercises over their own territory there is little that can be done as long as they do not actually cross into the sovereign airspace of other countries and they are conducted in such a way as not to present a danger to civilian air traffic. As I said, on the second point, the only serious complaint that I am aware of recently was the one by Sweden over the Scandinavian Airways flight. Here is more information about the Scandinavian Airlines incident, which happened in March 2014:
http://www.thelocal.se/20140508/sas-pla ... -near-miss

As for "how hard" the sanctions are biting: I respect your opinion, but I disagree based on the evidence I have seen so far. However, can you clarify this point maybe:


Where did you get that information? The graphs in the report I quoted only go up to August 2014, but because the sanctions are sectoral, it is very difficult for me to believe that the change has been so significant that the EU is now no more Russia's largest trading market. It could end up like that, but I don't think I have seen a claim being made in any study so far that they have already reached that point.

Here is an interesting recent report by the European Union Institute of Security Studies that outlines the various pros and cons of the sanctions:

http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/ ... ctions.pdf

It is not really conclusive about its effectiveness at all, although it makes some very strong points for both sides of the argument. It also doesn't suggest that sanctions by themselves have been particularly effective, and it also points out the cumulative effect of the weak oil price and weak rouble - without those two contributing factors I have my doubts about how effective the sanctions really would have been.


Just to remind the other readers what the context of my "allies" quote was:

Maybe "allies" (as sometimes used in the military sense) is the wrong term as my context is clearly economic, but outside the EU and USA, no-one is currently sanctioning Russia and trade is either continuing as before, or in fact increasing to make up for the lost trade with those two entities. BRICS, for example, accounts for almost 20% of the world's GDP, so as long as that alliance continues, Russia will continue to be able to function. It will come at a large economic cost - of that there is no doubt - but the point is that alternatives exist for Russia which diminishes the extent to which they can be punished or coerced through sanctions. Unless, as I said in my post, the whole world sanctions them, but I find it very unlikely that this will happen. Again I refer you to the report that I linked to above by the EU ISS - it makes many of the same points that I make. It also gives the pro-sanction side, so it provides ammunition for both sides of the argument.


I'm not sure where that statement came from: I re-read both my previous posts as well the House of Lords report, and couldn't find a place where I or anyone else was blaming the west for the fall of the communist system. Even if they were to blame, it wouldn't be relevant to the discussion because the debate about NATO expansion was in reference to what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union.


I still shudder when I consider what you seem to be suggesting: Namely, that it is time for a full-blown shooting war between NATO and Russia. I don't think it is. I don't think it will resolve anything, I don't think it will benefit anyone, there is no assurance as to how it will end and who will "win" (if a winner in such a conflict is even possible) and I cannot believe that either Russia nor the NATO members are seriously thinking of going there. Things would have to get much worse first, and even then I have my doubts.

i shudder too. i have posted some outlandish theories and some facts so we don't have such an anti russian look. i don't know how to say this but lets try understand things better. South Africa is very eurasia centred these days and a rift between populations going one side or the other, well, there is a thread on that. Ukraine.

Thank you Mods for keeping things nice and tidy.

i apoligise, it was just an image i had but tally, i am sorry if i offended you political topics do tend to always be a soft spot for a "someone" especially if there are more than two views of opinion.

like i said before though i have and do value most of your post. you just clearly have a stand on this matter that is not mine.

@Mfezi

As always you make a compelling argument on many points – thank you for taking the time to discuss and debate on difficult issues. I will read the House of Lords report in more detail. Thank you for drawing my attention to the fact that in your considered opinion, it does carry weight in pursuit of a diplomatic solution. I am by nature more a House of Commons man than a House of Lords gentleman.

As you say, and I agree, there is no point going around in circles when we have both set out our ‘stalls of opinion’. As in any complex discussion it is good to view matters from different and differing angles. I will in this post respond to points you made in your last post and also correct myself on a point where I have somewhat jumped the gun. First the correction:-

Russia and trade with the EU. I was wrong in saying that the EU is no longer Russia’s largest trading market. My submission was based on a forecast I saw on how things may look like further down the line, should the current difficulties continue and should even more stringent measures be put in place. That point has not been reached and I apologise for any confusion thus caused. I have edited same in my original post.

Russian Air Force flights – transponders et al. I would have thought that in the current stressed atmosphere the Russians Air Force would have done the ‘diplomatic’ thing and not escalate the existing tense atmosphere. Legally required or not, some common decency when transiting congested civilian airspace would be welcome, to say the least; the British Foreign Office told the Russian Ambassador as much.

Trade allies. Yes the BRICS alliance is there, but it cannot in my opinion, compete with good normal trade relations with the EU in all its shapes and forms. A Europe without Russian trade, and vice versa, is not good and I therefor share your sentiments on this issue.

The Communist system. My submission was in response to if Russia feels threatened on her borders by NATO expansion, it is because the former Warsaw Pact members, now NATO members, left what Russia took for granted as her comfort zone. They all wanted rid of Moscow. They voted for and made choices themselves in the best traditions of democracy. Putin must accept this reality, but he refuses. In time both the Ukraine and Georgia may well become EU and NATO members. And watch out for Belarus.

In summary: - I have not completely given up hope on some diplomatic solution to the escalating crisis between Russia and the West, but … ! It all looked so much better during Putin’s first term of office. He was one of few who visited George Bush Jnr on his ranch in Texas. And they got on well! Compare that to where we are today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1392791.stm

On to something very different!

Take a look at this webpage from The Aviationist website. It carries this very fresh article about a radio transmission between the Tu-95 'Bear' bomber and what is thought to be a ground station. It took place during the recent transiting of airspace near the UK. Any opinion Mfezi?

http://theaviationist.com/2015/02/20/au ... s-control/

we should have an answer on the mistrals come this week; here is also what i could find on russia's arms export sofar.
i read alot into deans post on the subs and also why i understand some people's mistrust on the ability to complete the said projects.
here is the latest of what ive found that has money values:
Rosoboronexport: Russia to fulfill $15 bln weapons export plan in 2015 despite sanctions: http://tass.ru/en/russia/779117

well, if we follow Kevin Freeman steps, this is a very important one and ive been waiting for this announcement to come somewhere since russian downgrade:

An official with Russian Foreign Ministry said Tuesday that his country looks forward to creating a system involving rating agencies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS), claiming leading western agencies downgraded his country's rating out of political motivation.
http://www.chinadailyasia.com/business/ ... 31033.html

Ratings agencies provide an indication of a country's financial and economic well being. Russia's financial system and currency, in conjunction with its current economic state, are performing poorly. No-one cares whether they or some official feeding the propaganda machine, invent some hocus-pocus waa-waa ratings agency. It will not solve Russia's problems.

Kevin Freeman deslikes russia very much just like you. its why i said it was a good read for you
hes not hocus pocus propaganda and works with the usa intelligence agencies. do yourself a favour and open the link i gave you in the ukraine thread.

and on a side note:
check out how badly the brazilian presidency is getting nailed in the press; bad press for zuma wouldnt effect the typical safrican in the least nor putin russia or china....but brazil, shes getting boiled in a pot of water. if your interested that is, the evidence is in the media

I see Zuma is holding onto the Chinese leaders hand, do we have a problem?


Saw a CBC documentary of Siberia's oil fields, the oil price is hurting and people blame the West for the sanctions. As I have seen in other documentaries in Russia, nothing mentioned about Ukraine for the reason of the sanctions.
I'm also under the impression people don't speak their minds out of fear, I'm not saying that is a fact.

cnn at its best

forgive me for the edits but i just figured out how to post video:

Kerry says US falling behind in media strategy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGlQk8kdcmY

For those interested, I found the 10 minute documentary now on youtube.
For me, I like seeing what the place looks like, towns built up and the people.
The businessman in blue jerry is Ukrainian, he says he understands conflicts between groups that are different, e.g. Quebec vs Canada etc, but does not understand this Russia vs Ukraine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBEUrrsQSnU

Was looking up Finland and came across this, no idea how seriously to should take this.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-wants-to-regain-finland-for-russia-adviser-says-9224273.html

Historical justice, we are going back in time.
How about Germany taking back what it had pre WW I.
Kalliningrad can revert to it's origional owneres who established it as Konigberg, after 70 years out of 770 of Russian rule.

No, I'm not serious about moving borders, the injustice of the past has been done, one has to move on to keep the peace.