War in Ukraine/Med Cruising

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Interesting opinion on the possible motivations behind Putin's move on Ukraine.

It's pretty much in accord with DH's take.

(bolding mine)

From outside the alliance, Putin has seen [NATO] expand continually. He says he does not seek a revived Soviet Union but a buffer zone that would be, as he put it in a long essay last year, “not anti-Russia”. John Kennedy wanted a similar cordon sanitaire when Khrushchev tried to put nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. Putin suggested on Tuesday that Ukraine should return to the strategy of neutrality that was in the Ukrainian constitution until the “coup” that toppled the Yanukovych government in 2014, and brought pro-US nationalists to power. After all, a majority of Ukrainian MPs then believed that the country’s fragile unity would be more secure if it was not pulled and pushed by rival pressures from Moscow and the west.

Nato’s stance over membership for Ukraine was what sparked Russia’s takeover of Crimea in 2014. Putin feared the port of Sevastopol, home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, would soon belong to the Americans. The western narrative sees Crimea as the first use of force to change territorial borders in Europe since the second world war. Putin sees this as selective amnesia, forgetting that Nato bombed Serbia in 1999 to detach Kosovo and make it an independent state.

Convinced that Nato will never reject Ukraine’s membership, Putin has now taken his own steps to block it. By invading Donetsk and Luhansk, he has created a “frozen conflict”, knowing the alliance cannot admit countries that don’t control all their borders. Frozen conflicts already cripple Georgia and Moldova, which are also split by pro-Russian statelets. Now Ukraine joins the list. There is speculation about what will happen next but from his standpoint, it is not actually necessary to send troops further into the country. He has already taken what he needs.

A non emotional frank analysis..

[laird]

Originally Posted by Rubicon King

We can only hope Ukraine stands for themselves with all of the weaponry that the US has sent them. Make swiss cheese out of about 300 tanks with the 2500 javelins, eliminate about 40,000 soldiers and Vlad will have problems at home. We will see shortly how good US arms are against the Modern Russian Bear. To keep this post about Sailing, I would advise against sailing in the black sea. for a while

What about the UK and other NATO allies ? We have sent arms and trainers to Ukraine ,is this another rewriting of history by US media ?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Interesting opinion on the possible motivations behind Putin's move on Ukraine.

That's no surprise, as DH's take = Putin's take on this. The article is about what Putin is basically saying, and I don't think anyone would dispute that this is his position.

It's also reminiscent of what Hitler did in WWII. It's the same kind of game plan, only with a lot stronger international community in place.

Putin has now recognized the separatist areas, invaded them, declared that Ukraine isn't a sovereign state, and made further demands.

It all appears to be just an excuse for a hostile takeover of another country. He didn't win politically, like he did in Belarus, so now he's taking the Ukraine militarily.

This was all unnecessary, and doesn't improve the security of Russia. If anything, it degrades and further isolates it.

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by laird

It's not just the Russians who will find sanctions punative , how long will Germany accept no gas for their heating etc and Turkey which has Russian weapon systems receives 45% of its gas supplies from Russia

Is it all part of Putin's end game to widen cracks in NATO ?

Nobody has cutoff Russian gas exports, largely because Germany is utterly addicted to them. The sanctions involve preventing expansion of Russian gas exports something that likely is a good idea even if they didn't invade Ukraine.

I don't see in cracks in NATO realistically nobody in Europe spends enough to ensure they couldn't be invaded by Russia without assistance and assistance from US and Allies comes through NATO. Europe overall should be spending a lot more on defense.

Anyone who left NATO would absolutely not be rescued by NATO if they get invaded. Doing so would undermine NATO (why be part of NATO if NATO will rescue non-members). So anyone leaving NATO right now would be sending a signed letter to Putin that they are free to invade now.

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You keep mentioning that the U.S. overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2013.

It sounded curious to me, so I did a little digging.

This is what the Washington Post says about that:

In 2014, RT, the Russian propaganda channel, twisted a statement by a State Department official to claim that the United States had spent $5 billion to support the protests. The official, in 2013, had referred to $5 billion in U.S. aid given to Ukraine since it became independent in 1991.



.

Is this a true fact? This has been one of the cornerstones of DH’s arguments about why we should accept/understand Russia’s behavior.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by hedgeworth

Is this a true fact? This has been one of the cornerstones of DH’s arguments about why we should accept/understand Russia’s behavior.

I asked DH for a credible source for it. This was what I found in the Washington Post discussing it.

If you google it, you'll find lots of sites with similar wording, but I couldn't find any reliable source. Not any site that I would trust, anyway. I don't believe it just because someone published it on their own site on the internet. It seems the original source is RT.

[Rubicon King]

I don't think so, I'm just not sure what others have sent, so i cannot comment. If its on the same lethality level as the US Arms, the Ukranians will give Vlad a pretty fat lip and black eye for sure... IF they fight

Originally Posted by laird

What about the UK and other NATO allies ? We have sent arms and trainers to Ukraine ,is this another rewriting of history by US media ?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

This was all unnecessary, and doesn't improve the security of Russia. If anything, it degrades and further isolates it.

If the article and DH are correct that Ukraine membership in NATO was imminent, then it's a very understandable move. Otherwise, why have the US, NATO and Ukraine not acknowledged that Ukraine joining NATO is off the table? Ukraine was self-professedly neutral prior to 2014.

Every country on Russia's western edge - except Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine - ARE NATO members. Strong arguments for the conclusion in that piece.

[Muaddib1116]

My guess is because there's a big difference in never intending to bring the Ukraine into Nato, and stating it officially because Putin demands it.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If the article and DH are correct that Ukraine membership in NATO was imminent, then it's a very understandable move. Otherwise, why have the US, NATO and Ukraine not acknowledged that Ukraine joining NATO is off the table? Ukraine was self-professedly neutral prior to 2014.

Every country on Russia's western edge - except Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine - ARE NATO members. Strong arguments for the conclusion in that piece.

What's the source for it being imminent? Membership in NATO is voted on, and has an effective date. Requires unanimous support from all 30 NATO members. It's not like they're going to do it in the middle of the night. No announcement like this had been made.

Russia could have just as easily said "If you admit Ukraine, we'll consider that an act of war". Instead, they're now saying "Ukraine looks like they want to join Europe, so they're not a state," and invading militarily.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Muaddib1116

My guess is because there's a big difference in never intending to bring the Ukraine into Nato, and stating it officially because Putin demands it.

BINGO

There's diplomacy, and there's showmanship.

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I asked DH for a credible source for it. This was what I found in the Washington Post discussing it.

If you google it, you'll find lots of sites with similar wording, but I couldn't find any reliable source. Not any site that I would trust, anyway. I don't believe it just because someone published it on their own site on the internet. It seems the original source is RT.

Russia Today doesn’t seem like a very unbiased news source. Especially not for something so important to the argument DH makes about Russia’s position. He’s obviously a very knowledgeable guy. I mean $5 billion over 30 years is just a whole bunch of nothing to the United States.

Surely though DH was just misinformed and not telling porky pies

[letsgetsailing3]

A senior U.S. defense official said Wednesday that 80 percent of the Russian forces arrayed near Ukraine’s borders have moved into forward operating positions, suggesting that an invasion could take place if and when Russian President Vladimir Putin gives an order to strike.




---- Washington Post

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If the article and DH are correct that Ukraine membership in NATO was imminent, then it's a very understandable move. Otherwise, why have the US, NATO and Ukraine not acknowledged that Ukraine joining NATO is off the table? Ukraine was self-professedly neutral prior to 2014.

Every country on Russia's western edge - except Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine - ARE NATO members. Strong arguments for the conclusion in that piece.

Ukrainian membership in NATO is not imminent. The process has many many steps and even if Ukraine met all of them they are so far from the finish line it would be a decade or more.

Ukraine doesn't even have a Membership Access Plan yet. Something Bosnia had four years ago and still hasn't completed. Hypothetically once Ukraine completed their MAP it would still have to be voted on by the NATO nations which means bringing it to the various governments. In the US alone the process of ratification might take years (has to pass both House and Senate and be signed by the President and no things like reconciliation couldn't get around the 60 vote requirement in the Senate).

Anyone saying it was imminent is just buying into Putin garbage used as a pretense for an invading and annexing a non-hostile neighbor.

In comparison here is the timeline for North Macedonia (the most recent member to join NATO)
Event Date
Partnership for Peace 15 November 1995
Membership Action Plan 19 April 1999
Invitation to join 11 July 2018
Full membership 27 March 2020

So 25 years from first informal joint activity and 21 years from starting its formal Action Plan. Even once it was granted an invitation it took another 2 years for it to be ratified by member states so it could become a member that Article V ("attack on one is attack on all") would apply.

If Ukraine had a MAP they might be a member in 10-20 years but they don't even have that they aren't anywhere close to meeting the requirements for entry into NATO. Maybe in the 2040s or 2050s.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by OldAlaskanSalt

The Ukrainians have hated the Russians for a thousand years...

You embarass yourself with a distinct lack of knowledge on the subject.

Russia didn't exist 1000 years ago.

Russians didn't exist 1000 years ago.

So it's impossible for 'Ukrainians to have hated Russians for a thousand years'.

1000 years and more ago the region (of mixed people) was ruled by Kivean Rus, from what is now modern day Kyiv, in modern day Ukraine.

There was no Moscow, there was no Russia, and there were no Russians.

On the territory of modern day Russia there was only Novgorod, which was a lesser city of Kievan Rus.

Even now, in general, Ukrainians do not hate Russians.

Ukrianians may hate Putin though, and the Russian government's actions towards Ukraine and Ukrainians...