War in Ukraine/Med Cruising

[goboatingnow]

You ARE trivializing it. I'm disagreeing with you. Not because I don't know what you're saying. And not because I think the U.S. can do no wrong. I'm disagreeing because you're justifying it with a sort of moral equivalency that doesn't reflect reality. I'm disagreeing because I don't think a military invasion is justified. If Russia feels threatened, there is a diplomatic course which has not been exhausted, or even tried. There is no eminent threat of Ukrainian NATO membership that is provoking this response from Russia. This is Putin looking for an opportunity.

The west portrays Putin in a particular manner to suit their narrative

Russia has flagged the issues with Ukraine and its drift towards the west and its potential for western placement of armament on Russia's border

The west has largely simply engaged in rhetoric or not taken Russias concerns seriously

No one can justify invasion of course that's never stopped anyone who believed they could win !!!

[Montanan]

21 Cruise Ships Set to Sail in Black Sea in 2022

Published February 16, 2022 [Someone clearly being the optimist and a spokesperson for the cruise ship industry ].

Twenty one cruise ships from 16 brands are set to operate in the Black Sea in 2022, according to Cruise Industry News data.

Astoria Grande has the most capacity in the region, homeporting in Sochi with the ex-AIDAcara and targeting the Russian source market.

Similarly, Russian state-owned Black Sea Cruises (Rosmorport) also sails seasonally in the Black Sea, targeting Russian guests on the Prince Vladimir.

As for the mainstream cruise brands targeting North American and European guests, Azamara has three ships that will dip into the region, while Phoenix Reisen will have two ships in the Black Sea.

The region is known to command high ticket prices and strong shore excursion revenue.

Other key lines with significant capacity in the Black Sea include TUI, Silversea, Regent and Oceania.

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/c...a-in-2022.html

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You ARE trivializing it. I'm disagreeing with you. Not because I don't know what you're saying. And not because I think the U.S. can do no wrong. I'm disagreeing because you're justifying it with a sort of moral equivalency that doesn't reflect reality. I'm disagreeing because I don't think a military invasion is justified.. .

Sorry, you really don't know what I'm saying. Believe me. I agree that a military invasion is not justified. It's awful. I deplore it. I said that, but you don't listen.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

If Russia feels threatened, there is a diplomatic course which has not been exhausted, or even tried. There is no eminent threat of Ukrainian NATO membership that is provoking this response from Russia. This is Putin looking for an opportunity.

You didn't read what I wrote. The "diplomatic course" is exhausted; it is we who "never tried". We stated that things were off the table, which were deal breakers for them. Classic business failure.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You laugh at the Ukrainian military. I could be wrong, but I don't think it will be quite the same as the U.S military rolling over the Iraqis who are throwing rocks at the F-16s. My impression was that they have been building up their military since 2014. There will be casualties on both sides. .

I do not laugh at the Ukrainian military. On the contrary, I am in awe of the bravery of those boys. What I laugh at is the comparison of the Ukrainian, to the Russian military. The difference is bigger, than that between the U.S. and Iraqi militaries in 2002. No. 2 in the world vs. No. 22. The Iraqis in 2002 could put about a million soldiers into the field -- a top 10 military power. About 2000 tanks, about 300 combat aircraft. The Ukrainians can't even keep their regular forces together, without neo-Nazi militias. They have no significant equipment which is much less than 40 years old. They use WWII field telephones, with spools of wire. The Russians will do them much like we did the Iraqis -- with air power and cruise missiles, and airborne special forces. There will be little infantry combat and probably (please God) little blood. It will be over in a few days.

Of course there will be casualties on both sides. There always is in war. The Russians, of all people, know how to take some casualties for the cause.

[Montanan]

Presently Russia has issued a maritime exclusion zone for the coast along Ukraine, except within 1 kilometer of the shore.

The Ukranians promptly sent two survey ships out to perform a mapping of the depths on that one kilometer close to shore lane so as to provide for data for the cargo ships to continue to operate to and from the Ukraine along the 450 kilometer tract. That narrow tract had been surveyed previously as recently as 2017, but the commercial vessels needed more current depth charting in order to be compliant with their insurance policies. The data showed that there was at least 15 meters the entire way, adequate for most ships to transit, but a few iron ore vessels opted to transit with partial loading to keep their draft to a limited depth to insure safe voyaging. Safe at least from submerged rocks and groundings, not safe from surface warfare.

The insurance rates have increased by $1 to $2 per ton of cargo and likely will head towards $5 or $6 until greater threat of becoming targets in a war zone arise in which case commercial traffic will become curtailed putting a lot of economic harm to the Ukraine.

[goboatingnow]

You didn't read what I wrote. The "diplomatic course" is exhausted; it is we who "never tried". We stated that things were off the table, which were deal breakers for them. Classic business failure.

This is exactly my point, the West in complicit in arriving at the current situation , Boris and Biden are typically now positioning themselves as " calling out Russia", yet its they and NATO that helped push this problem to the brink its at now . Everyone has dirty hands here ( which is typical ) but you'd think we would learn from the WMD diatribe not to trust our own side, but no , were off beating about " bad " Russia

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The west portrays Putin in a particular manner to suit their narrative

Russia has flagged the issues with Ukraine and its drift towards the west and its potential for western placement of armament on Russia's border

The west has largely simply engaged in rhetoric or not taken Russias concerns seriously

No one can justify invasion of course that's never stopped anyone who believed they could win !!!

Exactly correct.

Putin is a nasty bugger -- no question about that. But noting that fact is not a substitute for actually applying some brainpower to the problem and coming up with some kind of actual solution. Scolding the Russians is not a solution.

I love what Henry Kissinger said about it -- "Demonization of Putin is not policy. It's an alibi for lack of any policy."

And that's exactly what we see today. We have no policy whatsover; we do nothing except emit hot air ("engage in rhetoric"). We either WANT Ukraine to be invaded, or we are utterly incompetent. Or both.

[goboatingnow]

Kissingers 2014 piece is very relevant

"Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers."

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Exactly correct.

Putin is a nasty bugger -- no question about that. But noting that fact is not a substitute for actually applying some brainpower to the problem and coming up with some kind of actual solution. Scolding the Russians is not a solution.

I love what Henry Kissinger said about it -- "Demonization of Putin is not policy. It's an alibi for lack of any policy."

And that's exactly what we see today. We have no policy whatsover; we do nothing except emit hot air ("engage in rhetoric"). We either WANT Ukraine to be invaded, or we are utterly incompetent. Or both.

That's not what the west is doing, though it's hard not to demonize a guy who is using a military exercise as a pretext to invade another country, and lying about it as we watch him do it. The west is calling a spade a spade, in real time. They're pointing out what Putin is doing, and it's not pretty.

And it's not that the U.S. doesn't have a policy. It's just not one Putin likes. The policy is to let the Ukraine find it's own way, and (I'm guessing) to neutralize any meddling by Russia. I dont think Trump really did anybody any favors with respect to Ukraine, so the situation just kind of sat there for four years. I can guess what Putin thought of Trump. I don't think Putin is seeing an eminent threat as much as what he thinks is an opportunity. He sensed potential for weakness in Biden. I don't think he's going to get a weak response.

As far as NATO membership, I'd agree with Kissinger in 2014. But prior administrations did not. They went in, full speed ahead, when cooler heads should have prevailed. It's clearly not an option right now. At the same time, the west OBVIOUSLY can't give Putin the assurances he wants while he's got the Ukraine surrounded with equipment and troops. That's never going to happen, under any administration in the U.S. That would be akin to negotiating with a terrorist.

The west doesn't want Ukraine to be invaded. And the west, while imperfect, is not incompetent. It would be reckless and untenable to fill the Ukraine with NATO troops. It's not a possibility.

It's not that I don't understand your opinion. It's not that I don't think you're informed. You clearly know a lot about the region. I just disagree with your conclusions, and your assessment of the U.S.

It's unacceptable for Putin to invade Ukraine. It would cause a lot of death and disruption. And it's not as a result of any eminent threat to Russia or the separatists in Ukraine.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

... yet its [the west] and NATO that helped push this problem to the brink its at now.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Putin is a nasty bugger -- no question about that. But noting that fact is not a substitute for actually applying some brainpower to the problem and coming up with some kind of actual solution. Scolding the Russians is not a solution.

... how, exactly, has the west brought this to the brink? What compelled Russia to move their troops to the border, NOW, instead of a year ago, or a year from now? Is there some deal with the west about to be done? Have the Ukraine and the West suddenly rushed into each others' arms, or been working on a secret pact? What immediate problem needs to be solved, by diplomacy or invasion?

That's what I am apparently missing. In the absence of such a provocation, it just looks like a not so subtle attempt to exploit global fatigue at the tail-end of COVID.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Kissingers 2014 piece is very relevant

"Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers."

I agree. I've criticized U.S. policy (which richly deserves it). But Putin has also screwed the pooch. His response in 2014 was the worst possible. He annexed Crimea and acted guilty about it, pretended he wasn't doing it. The worst possible way to do it. He should have either (a) stated boldly what he was doing (as it's not actually that shameful, and would have brought LESS infamy than sneaking around about it); OR better (b) he should have solved it diplomatically with the Ukrainians. The poorest and most corrupt country in Europe -- Crimea could have been simply bought for a few tens of billions, chump change for the Russians, money he wasted on the Sochi Olympics and then lost in the subsequent sanctions. Put a billion dollars into the right pockets in Ukraine and you could have a signature on ANYTHING, including a purchase-sale agreement on Crimea. Really bloody stupid how he went about it.


If say the Islamic Republic of Iran had spent $5 billion subverting, say, Mexico, overthrowing the democratically elected government there, and had installed a radical Islamist and avowedly anti-American government there, we would not have pussyfooted around like Putin did in Ukraine. The U.S. Army Airborne would be floating down into Mexico City the next day, and we wouldn't even apologize for it.


Putin would have a lot fewer problems today, than he has, if he'd done it like that, like we would have done it. In the event, he got all the oprobium, and all of the sanctions, without solving the problem.


Putin's other problem is that he lies all the time. Therefore, no one trusts him in any kind of diplomatic dialogue. It's tragic, but given this and all the other factors, the failure of diplomacy was basically forordained.


World War I started on the basis of a similar failure of communication and a similar failure of diplomacy. A poignantly sad fact about that conflict is that the monarchs of Britain, Germany and Russia at the time were all affectionate cousins, and all related to Queen Victoria. There was no fundamental conflict of interest which made that conflict inevitable. See Robert K Massie on the subject. We are living through, I am afraid, a similar time. It will not end well for anyone concerned.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... how, exactly, has the west brought this to the brink? . . .

Man, read the thread. The historical facts have been presented. We spent $5 billion subverting Ukraine and turning it against Russia. Then we teased Ukraine with future NATO membership which we would never give them. We financed a violent coup which overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and installed a government with 3 neo-Nazis among the ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister. We poured billions into the coffers of the odious Pavel Poroshenko, whom even the Ukrainians are now going to arrest. Our diplomats have confirmed the authenticity of audio tapes on Youtube where they are determining who will go into the cabinet of the new government.

What would we do in an analogous situation? What if the Islamic Republic of Iran had done all that say in Mexico? Would we tolerate that? Of course not. Why do we expect the Russians to tolerate it?


At the end of the day, which would be funny if it were not so tragic -- the Ukrainians will hate us even more than the Russians do. Your tax dollars at work!!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Man, read the thread.
....

yes, sorry I haven't yet done that. I realize there's been meddling with the Ukraine, I am just looking for the straw that broke the camel's back. Why now, in other words. If it's obvious from the thread, I will find it. Thx

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Man, read the thread. The historical facts have been presented. We spent $5 billion subverting Ukraine and turning it against Russia. Then we teased Ukraine with future NATO membership which we would never give them. We financed a violent coup which overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and installed a government with 3 neo-Nazis among the ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister. We poured billions into the coffers of the odious Pavel Poroshenko, whom even the Ukrainians are now going to arrest. Our diplomats have confirmed the authenticity of audio tapes on Youtube where they are determining who will go into the cabinet of the new government.

What is your most credible source for that?

I don't mean the audio of Victoria Nuland. I accept that recording. But that doesn't prove all of the rest of what you're saying. Where is your credible source for the rest of that? A source I've heard of and would trust.

[jmh2002]

Why now is I think answered by the coinciding of different events such as:

- US pivoting to China
- Europe in general also trying to pivot to Asia
- Europe appearing disunited (real or imagined)
- Russia having built up it's war chest
- Nord Stream 2 finished construction and waiting approval and use
- Alternative energy production shortage in Europe last year
- Low amount of stored gas in Europe last year
- High demand for energy from China (Russia has an alternative market)
- Russian military at it's highest state of ability for decades

etc, etc.

So whilst Russia will have been preparing for this for years, as they have prepared various scenarios for Ukraine for years, including what happened in 2014, they of course wait if possible, for a more appropriate moment to implement a scenario.

Also Russia has learnt lessons from their Crimea and Donbas adventures, which were only partially successful, and how the world reacted, how Ukraine reacted, what has changed since, and how to better counter that.

Ukraine and the West have learnt some lessons too of course, and you can see a changed approach from them as well, which may well be causing the Russian's to be taken aback, but probably won't ultimately deter them.

So I don't think there is any one thing that broke the camels back, but rather through various world events now is a convenient moment for Russia to 'push back' so to speak.

As a side note, Eastern Europeans tend to be stubborn minded in general and have suffered much over decades and centuries. They are hardened against most things in life, and especially against normal Western thinking. They simply shrug their shoulders at many things and carry on. Tough, hard people - and that's just the babushkas...

But this doesn't only apply to the Russian's of course. Ukrainians are equally if not more so.

I don't believe that there will be a total invasion of the entire country because Russia can't hold the entire country (and nor do they really need to). I believe instead that there will be targetted strikes and incursions to acheive strategic goals.

But if there is a major incursion by land the Ukrainians will fight like hell, to the death, and take tens of thousands of young Russians boys with them, which will not go down well back in Russia.

Many great armies and great empires have fallen in the past when fighting partisans who are defending their families, their homes, and their land.

There are enough AK47s and other soviet era weapons in Ukraine to arm the entire population. They may be old technology, but they still kill. If things go badly wrong Ukraine will arm everyone - men, women, teenagers, pensioners. I believe the 'call to arms' will be beyond anything we have seen in modern history.

Let's hope it does not come to that. That will be extremely bloody, and extremely brutal, for everyone.

And would personally affect me too. In fact it already has.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

What is your most credible source for that?

I don't mean the audio of Victoria Nuland. I accept that recording. But that doesn't prove all of the rest of what you're saying. Where is your credible source for the rest of that? A source I've heard of and would trust.

I cited many good sources above for different pieces of this picture. There is abundant information, freely available.


Of course we characterized the $5 billion (another Nuland video shows her bragging about this at a conference) as "aid to democracy", and it even is, to some extent, but it's directly aimed against Russia and directly towards making Ukraine hostile to Russia and more friendly with the West. The real purpose of it is geopolitics, not democracy. It's exactly analogous to what the Soviets did in Western countries during the Cold War, except the Soviets never had such deep pockets.



As to the three neo-Nazi linked ministers -- it's a matter of public record. The political party "Svoboda" is the renamed Social-Nationalist Party of Ukraine, swastikas and all. Matter of public record. Azov Brigades, the the recently ex Minister of the Interior of Ukraine -- look it up. Stepan Bandera's record is a matter of public record -- Wiki has a good article. Photos of the odious Poroshenko with paramilitaries proudly displaying the SS Death's Head emblem -- I believe still on his own Facebook page! We poured billions into all of that -- how can anyone be surprised that the Russians, who lost tens of millions of people to the Nazis, went crazy?



Once again, for good order -- none of this means Ukraine deserves to be invaded. It's an explanation, NOT justification, for Russia's positions.


It's Diplomacy 101, and also Business 101 -- you can't deal with another party, can't make a deal, can't solve any problem, if you don't understand that other party's fundamental interests. We are failing abysmally at that.