War in Ukraine/Med Cruising

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I'm pretty sure that's a quote from Mein Kampf, and was used by Hitler to justify annexing Czechoslovakia.

His argument for that invasion was that the Germans needed the land to feed themselves. They needed it for their very survival.

Now your being silly..

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Muaddib1116

You've stated your disapproval of Russian behavior, but the way you word your analysis of the situation really seems to inject approval and disapproval that you claim not to be giving

That's fair comment actually DH. To be honest I had been thinking the same about some of your posts and considering how to raise it - @Muaddib1116 did so very eloquently.

Thank you @Muaddib1116

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Muaddib1116

Off topic, but I'm really curious what your stance on Taiwan is. If China makes aggressive demands after military intimidation, would you recommend that Taiwan disarm and cede the Kinmen islands? After all, western influence in Taiwan has surely forced China's hand?

The answer is simple (I will joke a little, to relieve some of the stress over Putin et al ):

China should 'give itself back to Taiwan'.

And Russia should also 'give itself back to Ukraine'.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It's all predicated on credible enforceability. If it's not possible to guaranty that whatever is agreed is really effectively guaranteed, then it's all out the window. As I wrote already!

Crimea is a fait accomplis, which the whole world has acquiesed in for 8 years. Crimea, as a simple fact, is never going back to Ukraine. Crimea never had anything to do with Ukraine anyway; Crimea does -- let's be honest -- belong to Russia. It's horrible, abhorrent, how the Russians went about it, but the result is neither illogical nor unjust. Let them just pay for it, I would propose. $50 billion or so should do it.

The rest of it is completely reasonable, and is fully compatible with Kissinger's list. Ukraine merely has to be neutral. Within that limitation -- just like Finland after WWII, and Austria -- Ukraine is free to develop in its own way as Kissinger intended.

It's a bloody good deal for Ukraine, something we might have proposed ourselves if we were a little smarter. Unlike our proposals, it is carefully crafted to respond to the needs and the real red lines of the other side. This is deal making.

No surprise that I disagree with your assessment. These demands are arbitrary, and what's to stop Putin from coming up with a new set next week?

"Cede the territory I already took, and make yourself weaker, or I'll take some more" doesn't sound like that much of a bargain. There isn't any justification for it.

And this statement from you "Crimea never had anything to do with Ukraine anyway; Crimea does -- let's be honest -- belong to Russia" is complete and utter B.S. Again, that's an arbitrary assessment and certainly would open the world to a lot of chaos if that became universal.

You keep bringing up Kissinger, but he certainly doesn't agree with your assessment regarding Crimea. What about the two regions that Putin invaded yesterday? Do they now belong to Russia? Did they always? That certainly would align with the statement that Putin made last night. And if you agree with Putin, then so what about Ukraine? They're not a real state anyway.

Ukraine can do what it wants, but if "might makes right" is your philosophy, what stops Russia from slicing and dicing that whole region? Why shouldnt they just demand all of the old Soviet states to just come on home where they belong, against their will?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Now your being silly..

Not as silly as you think. Germany felt bullied by the world, and absolutely justified in annexing surrounding territories.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Not as silly as you think. Germany felt bullied by the world, and absolutely justified in annexing surrounding territories.

I was referring to your bit about being a Mien Kampf quote.. its from a school playground..
As for what they did.. Hitler was set on European domination from day one.. the only one he did not want to take on was GB.

Did Hitler have any respect for England?
Hitler clearly had considerable respect for “England” (as he generally referred to Great Britain or the British Empire) in a number of ways. Once he became Germany’s dictator, he continually tried to conclude an alliance, or at least some form of understanding, with the island nation.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I was referring to your bit about being a Mien Kampf quote.. its from a school playground..

Well, perhaps...

[atoll]

Originally Posted by Muaddib1116

To the first part, there are many reasons. Some are that Russia has a much more powerful military than Iraq did, they have nukes, and the American people have no interest in getting into more wars, after spending 20 continuous years in the Middle East.


Edit: Also, Russia has over 3 times the population of Iraq, and let's not forget that invading armies historically tend not to do well in Russia.


To the second, who says that these things don't bother us? The topic has been Russian and the Ukraine, so that has been the focus of the conversation for the most part.

Probably better just to wait a bit and let Putins own people take him out,as is the Russian way

[Montanan]

Well the Russian ruble is tanking, with tanks invading eastern Ukraine. As well as Russia's stocks.

Russian stocks plunged and the ruble slid closer to a record low on Tuesday as investors reacted to President Vladimir Putin's decision to order troops into eastern Ukraine, CNN reported. Moscow's MOEX stock index dropped 1.5 per cent after shedding more than 10 per cent on Monday, bringing losses so far this year to about 20 per cent.Shares in Russian oil company Rosneft were hardest hit on Tuesday, dropping 7.5 per cent. In total, more than $30 billion has been wiped off the value of Russian stocks this week alone, the report said.

The ruble fell towards 81 versus the US dollar on Tuesday, its weakest level in more than a year, and close to its record low.

The moves prompted Russia's central bank to announce measures to support banks, including a provision that will allow them to use last Friday's prices for stocks and bonds when reporting their financial positions. More pain could be on the way. "We expect further declines near-term in the Russian stock market," analysts at JPMorgan Chase wrote in a note to clients on Tuesday. Russia would pay a higher price if further aggression causes the West to respond with punishing sanctions that could cut the country's banks off from the global financial system and make it difficult to export oil and natural gas, the report said. Analysts at Capital Economics said on Tuesday that the most commonly-discussed sanctions could knock 1 per cent off Russia's gross domestic product, but more aggressive measures such as blocking Russia from the SWIFT global payments system could reduce economic output by 5 per cent, CNN reported.

https://news.webindia123.com/news/Ar...3/3910461.html

[atoll]

Pretty good analysis by mercoulis here if you have time,looks like coal fired steam might be making a comeback in europe together with bio gas production,traditional phone lines and the abbacus due to lack of micro chip materials.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI678QCZ1kU

[Elzaar]

Difficult to say, but using 2014 (and other Putin Russia moves) as a guide to make recommendations, I suggest:

1. Crimea in 2014 didn't significantly impact the Med, so this probably won't either. It should not impact Black Sea even as much as Crimea did. This assumes Putin does what seems most probable and only takes the Donetsk region and areas in dispute since 2014.

2. If it turns out Russia is really going to fight it out for all of Ukraine, that may have an impact in Eastern Med especially near Greece and Turkey, but given we have no treaties with Ukraine it will probably be very localized and relatively short lived at the strategic level. Moldova will be even easier and in some respects seems more probable than trying to take all of Ukraine. I'd stay out of the eastern Med if Russia moves beyond Donetsk region - and keep in mind we only *think* Ukraine gave up all its nukes (in exchange for US/Russian promise they would never need them). Last I heard - more than a decade ago - there were still at least a few tactical nukes from the former USSR unaccounted for. In that event, wind direction is important.

3. If Putin decides to try to take back former Satelites now in NATO, well, all bets are off. I personally don't see that happening in the next two years, but if I could forecast Russian intentions that well would I be on Cruisers Forum today?

Fuel will likely be more expensive for a while - again, especially in Eastern Med as tankers will avoid the area.

My guess would be traveling in Med will continue to be more noticeably impacted by Covid-related stuff for at least the next year.

My ancient degree is in Soviet History and Politics. My final thesis was on Eastern Europe (Hungarian uprising specifically). I've never been to Ukraine, but have spent time in Moldova, Romania, Hungary, and Turkey all in the past ten years. I spent more than a decade training to fight the Soviets in Europe and could probably still draw a contour map of Fulda Gap in my sleep. I've followed this whole thing pretty closely and my brilliant insight is this: I have no idea and no business pretending I do. Only Putin knows what Putin is going to do and how he is going to do it. Putin likely believes all this is totally justified, and if you look at it through a non-US centric lens, it isn't hard to see why. I'm not endorsing it, but I'm not saying its completely baseless either. If you look at it that way, the risk analysis is a good bit easier.

[Elzaar]

For the endless arguments over Ukraine-Russia-US ... Could you start a separate thread to argue your take on Geo-Politics?

I was more curious about the same thing the OP was asking: Will Ukraine situation make the Med unsafe for travel? Does anyone recall any specific issues in 2014? I don't.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

No surprise that I disagree with your assessment. These demands are arbitrary, and what's to stop Putin from coming up with a new set next week?

The demands are the furthest thing in the world from "arbitrary". They reflect the core interests of Russia in this, pared right down to their essence.

But I did write that "the devil is in the details" -- particularly, how to guaranty that this is it and whatever agreement is reached will hold. That's the hard part (as usual).

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

. . .And this statement from you "Crimea never had anything to do with Ukraine anyway; Crimea does -- let's be honest -- belong to Russia" is complete and utter B.S. Again, that's an arbitrary assessment and certainly would open the world to a lot of chaos if that became universal.

I was opposed to the Crimea annexation, and particularly deplored the way it was done. I absolutely agree that this should not ba a precedent, and this should not be the way border disputes are settled. I wrote, in fact, "borders should be respected".

However, Crimea really is a special case of a territory which really, factually, never had anything to do wtih Ukraine, which really ought to be in Russia. It was a freak accident of history that Crimea ended up inside Ukrainian borders in 1991.

Crimea was conquered by Catherine the Great from Turkey in the 18th century, and was legally and administratively part of Russia for hundreds of years. Crimea was part of the Russian Soviet Federated Republic within the USSR. Then in the 50's, it was reassigned to The Ukrainian Soviet Republic as a purely bureaucratic shuffle. At the time of annexation, almost no one even spoke Ukrainian there. Russia's single most important military installation lies on the peninsula. Of course Crimea should be Russian.

And by now Crimea has been Russian again for 8 years. There's nothing more to do about it. Recognizing this fact costs nothing -- Crimea will never again be in Ukraine, as everyone knows.

The right way to stop the clumsy and stupid Russian annexation of Crimea from being a precedent, and to save some face over it, will be to have Russia pay Ukraine for Crimea. Ukraine desperately needs cash anyway. Let Russia maybe even apologize for doing it that way, and sign a purchase-sale agreement and pay them. Then take sanctions off. Win, win, win.

Crying and stamping one's feet and unrealistically insisting that Crimea is Ukrainian, on the other hand, is utterly pointless. This will never lead to anything other than giving yourself some feeling of moral satisfaction.

Ukraine, and the world, need concrete results. Hot air, rhetoric, scolding, posturing, moral outrage, are not concrete results, and don't bring anything useful to the Ukrainian people. What is needed is a deal.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You keep bringing up Kissinger, but he certainly doesn't agree with your assessment regarding Crimea. . .

Wrong again. https://www.mintpressnews.com/kissin...russia/223534/

Kissinger's last advice on the matter, during the Trump administration, was to make a deal quite similar to what Putin is proposing now, recognizing Crimea as part of Russia but getting the Russians to agree to withdraw from Donbas and Luhansk.

It's a real chance for peace. Ukrainian politics are of course an unpredictable factor, but I think we have a real chance for peace now. I have never been so optimistic since all this started. I think it's a deal they can't refuse, if the details can be worked out.

There are plenty of people in the West who would gladly stand by and watch Ukraine be destroyed, so that Russian can be demonized and isolated in a final way. They will be urging Ukraine to stand on principle! Whilst standing at a safe distance of course, with nothing to lose from the ensuring destruction. But this is not the result that those of use who actually do care about Ukraine, desire.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Elzaar

For the endless arguments over Ukraine-Russia-US ... Could you start a separate thread to argue your take on Geo-Politics?

We're quite comfortable here, thanks.

Originally Posted by Elzaar

I was more curious about the same thing the OP was asking: Will Ukraine situation make the Med unsafe for travel? Does anyone recall any specific issues in 2014? I don't.

We moved on from this question because it was pretty well answered in the early stages of the discussion.


The situation in Ukraine will have zero effect on the situation in the Med. Go and have fun and don't worry about it.


I think even cruising the Black Sea would be fine as long as you stay away from the Northern coast.


The reason is that the NATO allies have made it absolutely clear that they will not respond militarily. So war, if it comes, will stay in Ukraine. The Med is a long, long way from there, and anyway Ukraine has no navy, so there will be no naval dimension of any conflict.

[Elzaar]

You may be right.

You realize you are in an argument that will just go round and round with no resolution, right?