War in Ukraine/Med Cruising

[SaltyMetals]

A bit of thread-drift but fascinating. Impresssive how some know so much more about the history of those countries.

I agree w some of the others for the original question. Go for it but you might prefer to stay out of Eastern Med, also simply bec i think you will find yr insurance costs will be higher. I am in the Adriatic right now, happy to be there and find plenty to do & see without going anywhere else.
Andrew

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Well I doubt Putin's too worried about the EU Army..

By the time Brussels decides what to do and who should be in command he'll be dining at Le Cinq or Le Meurice..

There’s isn’t an EU army whether one should exist or not is a debate that has yet To happen. Personally I think a rapid reaction force using French command would be useful. But these days it’s all cyber warfare anyway

[goboatingnow]

There isn’t going to be a war, much to Bidens disappointment. He must be in trouble as he’s scheduled a state visit to Ireland !!

[boatman61]

GBN... It was a tongue in cheek comment.. aka extracting the urine..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Dockhead, I am thouroughly familiar with the subject. Perhaps we differ on our interpretation of Asiatic but Byzantine Empire was "Roman" in name only. It had none of the Roman values. At least in Classical Rome sense. And it split from Rome proper at about time the Western Roman Empire was dying and being overran by the barbarians. They did not even speak Latin for the most part, only Greek. How more "un-Roman" can that be?. .

I think the Romans of Constantinople would strongly disagree with this.


They called it the Roman Empire (for over a thousand years, right up until 1453) and called themselves Romans, Constantinople (at first called Nova Roma) was the capital of the entire Roman Empire from about 333 after the Emperor Flavius Valentinus Constantinus moved the capital to there from Rome. The Senate was seated there and Roman law prevailed. The Empire was split into East and West only later, as the barbarians started to overrun Italy.



Sure, the "classical values" faded, but that's pretty understandable since classical antiquity itself ended, and this was a gradual and natural process of evolution which started centuries before in Old Rome. The Republic was overthrown in 27 BC already. Culture and laws evolved; the Empire was being steadily Christianized (despite occasional efforts to stamp out Christianity) long before the capital was moved to New Rome. But what we think of as Roman Law, the basis for most European legal systems, was promulgated under Justinian in Constantinople during the 6th century. Different languages were used throughout the Empire since its founding. Greek and Latin were both used just like in the Old Rome (the Emperor Claudius referred to Greek and Latin as "our two languages"; and altogether we refer to "Greco-Roman Culture"). Greek evolved into Koine and very slowly replacing Latin, but only officially replaced Latin more than 200 years after the capital was moved.


The Roman Empire, as the continuation of the Roman Republic, lasted more than 2000 years. Naturally it evolved over that immense stretch of time.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by boatman61

GBN... It was a tongue in cheek comment.. aka extracting the urine..

I answered it seriously. It’s a serious point. There’s definitely a need for the EU to up its game collectively in defence , not a popular stance here in Ireland. As to what size makeup and intent should be. who knows.

[Clivevon]

We wait to see what happens in Ukraine - looks to me like it could go either way. I read in the UK's Sunday Times that Putin's constituency is really the 500 richest oligarchs who own more than the rest of the Russian people combined, & they have all hedged their bets with their money outside Russia so will probably be OK either way.

If you keep poking the bear eventually it will roar - Nato &/or EU expansion into places like the Baltic States, Romania & Bulgaria is definitely poking the bear. On the other hand, the issue seems to be how much you believe that the people of now sovereign states have the right to choose their own paths, despite Russia "behaving like a creepy ex-husband (or wife) who just won't let go & move on..."

My personal belief is that you cannot give someone their freedom - they have to take it for themselves. Many sacrifices were made & much blood was shed over many centuries in England as the people struggled towards achieving more freedom. The responsibility for the freedom of any nation must surely lie primarily with its own people. That which you are prepared to tolerate, you are fated to endure.

Its almost 30 years since I read "Dreadnought" - great book - but my enduring take from it was that the First World War became almost inevitable in 1905 when the German Navy planned to widen the Kiel Canal to allow Dreadnought size battleships out to the North Sea. The job was finished in 1914.

Personally I blame Bismarck. Until then the petty German princelings were too busy squabbling among themselves while Spain, France, Portugal & Great Britain were getting on & colonising the world. Once Germany was unified, they wanted their own "day in the sun" & in their own way they have been playing catchup ever since.

And then there's Taiwan (Tibet being long forgotten..)

Some perspective is good - I like this Billy Joel song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTL...=billyjoelVEVO

[CFS Klopas]

Minor nit, Napoleon did take Moscow, though he didn't hold it for very long. He left without a fight when Russia did not sue for peace afterward.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by CFS Klopas

Minor nit, Napoleon did take Moscow, though he didn't hold it for very long. He left without a fight when Russia did not sue for peace afterward.

Yes, you're right!


i should have said -- took and HELD. The Poles were there long enough to get their king elected Tsar.

[Van Der Beek]

Let the English give the Ukrainians a war guarantee, and then, when the Russians attack Ukraine, the English respond by attacking Germany instead but not Russia. It's a version of WWII 2.0

Common, gotta have some humor going in all this mess.


On a more serious note.
Germany is dependent on Russian gas and is also Russia's 2nd largest trade partner, that I did not know. I had no idea.

In other words.
It looks like Mother Russia has the Fatherland by the balls, and by extension, the European Union, since other European member states, to a greater or lesser degree, are dependent on Germany for their own trade.

And as previously mentioned. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, therefore if attacked no NATO country has any obligation to come to its aid, since Russia would be attacking a none NATO member, the European countries that are members of NATO have a way out "Oh well sorry, cough, I mean, what can we do, you're on your own"

The way I see it, if Russia wanted to help itself to Ukraine, it could.

[more]

Denis Scheler from Zagreb fought in Ukraine for six years. He went there as a volunteer and returned last year.

He has often commented on the situation there on Facebook in recent weeks. In an earlier post, he explained why he believes there will be no large-scale war.

"Given that lately people often ask me about the situation in Ukraine, motivated by bombastic articles in the media and assessments of various so-called military strategists and geopoliticians, or the conclusions of our journalists - who mostly take information from various sources, including the media. which, like ours, do not aim to convey real, neutral information, but to publish as sensationalist a title as possible - I will try to give brief information on what is happening in (and around) Ukraine and possible developments.

So let's go in order ", Scheler begins his post on Facebook.

Below is his post.

"100,000 soldiers at the border is nothing new, there is always an army there"
To begin with, Scheler writes that tens of thousands of Russian troops along the border with Ukraine are nothing new.

"1. All this hysteria over 100,000 Russian soldiers around the Ukrainian border, stationed mostly in the west and southwest of the Rostov region and partly southwest of the city of Voronezh, is nothing new for most Ukrainians. In part, along the border between Ukraine and Russia, since 2014, Russian forces have been constantly found, alternating in regular cycles of rotation and numbering around 70,000.

In 2017, an even larger force was concentrated there, more precisely about 170,000 soldiers, about 2,000 combat aircraft, about 2,000 tanks (of which 800 T90 tanks as a strike echelon), hundreds of artillery weapons, etc.

So, nothing new.

In 2014 and 2015, artillery and rocket attacks were carried out on units of the Ukrainian army and police from these areas, and since 2014, combat equipment, ammunition, equipment ... have been delivered to separatists through canals in that area.

"Volunteers from Russia and other countries were trained at the separatists on the training grounds in the Rostov and Krasnodar regions before leaving for the battlefield in Donbas," Scheler writes at the beginning of the announcement.

[more]

"Russian troops have already helped separatists in these areas."
Well he explains in detail.

"Russian units (landing units, tank and mechanized units) used these areas to enter Ukraine to help the separatists, ie to do work that the separatists were not able to (large-scale offensive operations of maneuvering armored and mechanized units), after which they would simply withdrew back and left positions to the rebels, i.e. the separatists.

Thus, the interconnection of the border with the area in Ukraine where the war conflicts are taking place, Russia has made the most of.As any other state would do in a state of war.

In addition, the Russian Federation certainly, despite the fact that there is thousands of evidence of its direct involvement in the war in Ukraine, used the same border to carry out close to it what any country would do if in a neighboring country, close to its borders. , is waging war - it has justified the deployment of these forces by protecting its borders and its interests, to which it is entitled given that the army is within its borders.

That she used that fact as a factor to intimidate, deliver equipment, equipment, fighters, logistical supply to the rebels, treat and rehabilitate the wounded rebels, is another matter. "Under international law, he has the right to keep his army within its borders," he wrote.

"Army along the border for Ukrainians is a normal thing"
Below is the rest of his analysis. We just added subtitles.

"And so for 8 years, so the numbers of 70, 80 or 100,000 soldiers along the border have long been a normal thing for Ukrainians.

In addition, Russia, given the multinational population structure and state structure (many smaller states, ie republics within the Russian Federation, in which there are also certain movements aimed at independence and sovereignty), simply has to constantly show teeth and strength to prevent any thought of the possibility of creating anything that is not part of the RF and under the strict control of Moscow. Otherwise, a dozen more "new Chechens" could happen.

Of course, there are services that deal with information gathering, analytics, strategy, operational, strategic and tactical levels of leadership, planning, forecasting and they certainly do their job.

In short, the war, ie the mass conflict between the Russian and Ukrainian armies and Russia's open aggression against Ukraine, could have started at any time in the past 8 years. Specifically, they could have continued given that Russian troops played a major role in 2014 and early 2015 in the conflicts in eastern Ukraine.

The current situation should be seen in the context of greater Western involvement in the conflict in Ukraine, ie increased interest of both Russia and the West in Ukraine, as a space for territorial expansion, with Russia so far making certain aggressive moves sanctions and condemnations of the West.

[more]

"The West has decided to go into battle more decisively"
The West has decided to embark more decisively on, let's call it by its real name, the battle for Ukraine (of course, not because they like Ukrainians or something like that, but because of interest). Russia cannot remain restrained, that is, fall after the first blow, but must act, for which it is in a more or less better position for now.

In general, the maps have already opened and it is easy to notice that both the West and Russia are talking less and less about the conflict in Donbas, as an isolated conflict, but about the whole of Ukraine, which is of great importance in the context of strained relations between Western powers and Russia.

In short, neither of them is satisfied with the crumbs, but they want the main course, that is, they have discovered all the cards.

1.1 *** In order to understand the complete situation, we need to go back to 2014, when the Russians, with the help of inserted saboteurs, the so-called volunteers, led by some military and intelligence generals and officers, with attached local separatists, tried to separate eastern Ukraine, believing that Ukraine had no ability, strength or manpower or trained soldiers to oppose them.

When Ukrainian forces stabilized, launched and returned within a month 70% of the area occupied by the separatists, who were on the verge of destruction, the Russian army intervened with some of its elite units (Pskov Airborne Infantry Division, e.g.) and entered Ukraine to prevent the destruction of separatist forces. Just then, two major attacks were carried out, which the separatists themselves, due to the complexity of operations and the necessary manpower and equipment, could not report - Ilovaisk and Debaltseve.

It was in these operations that the Russian forces suffered a lot of losses, which, primarily human, were impossible to justify in Russia. And they realized that the original plan of aggression and the occupation of half of Ukraine would not pass, so they turned to another, the so-called a hybrid way of warfare with the wholehearted help of the separatists in the ways already described.

Chaos in Donbass
2. Donbass, ie the part currently occupied by the separatists, Russia does not really need in such a form. Completely devastated areas with destroyed infrastructure, former industrial and mining centers where factories were looted, scrapped, mines sunk or mined, crime and systemic divisions - every battalion, regiment or brigade commander has his own territory, Abkhazia their own, domestic, Russian, and the like - are not what Russia needs.

It is good for Russia that this Donbass is conditioned by fueling the conflict and helping the separatists to prolong the conflict for several reasons:

to have an excuse for so many troops on the frontiers
to directly affect Ukraine's non-admission to Euro-Atlantic integration (NATO does not accept countries in conflict or have unresolved territorial issues)
to get rid of old weapons and ammunition, equipment and resources, given that they are spent in large quantities during the war
to get rid of "problematic types" and extremes at home, who, instead of doing problems at home and then sitting in prisons at the expense of the state, offer freedom with the obligation to fight in the Donbass
due to the war situation in eastern Ukraine, it is easier to find channels for the work of counterintelligence services
keeps the entire Black Sea basin in tension and turns Crimea into an island-fortress with strategic continental and intercontinental missiles
criminal activities lead to the so-called. black money, out of the budget, needed to fund various games of various services
systematically squeezes Ukraine, which due to all the circumstances can not join any international political, military association or alliance, and at the same time constantly spends resources for the needs of the country's defense.
3. Russia, as the country that is known as the largest gas supplier to Europe, has an interest in showing its teeth every now and then, especially since gas is used as one of the main arguments in all negotiations, whether related to Ukraine or RF relations. in Europe.

4. It is very, very important to emphasize that both Russian President Putin and his administration, when talking about Russia, do not mean Russia within today's borders, but the borders of the former USSR (which they do not hide) and that their policy is imperialist , as, after all, of all the great powers.

[more]

Why is Putin thinking within the borders of the USSR?
Why within the borders of the USSR? The answer is logical and clear - in the military defense doctrine of the USSR, its western borders, ie the Baltic countries, Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia, were the areas where, in the event of war with the West, combat operations would take place. , a kind of buffer zone.

Everything east of the Don and Dnieper rivers must not be surrendered, destroyed or endangered at any cost. All the heavy industry, the military industry of the USSR, was built just east of the Dnieper River, which is a difficult-to-pass natural barrier and border.

The Baltic countries are already members of NATO, Poland as well, the entry of Ukraine and Georgia into it would be literally a knife in the stomach of Russia, which would thus be left without these zones and de facto, as in the Baltics, had NATO troops on its borders.

In the security sphere, when we know how opposed the positions and thoughts of Russia and NATO are, we do not need to describe in detail what that would mean for Russia (defeat) and what for NATO (final victory and expansion into the castle of the fiercest rival).The key importance of Turkey
Also, we must not forget another extremely important thing, ie the entity that in the event of a conflict between NATO and Russia becomes extremely important - Turkey.

In that case, annexed Crimea, which now houses a bunch of Russian troops, and all the infrastructure that is being built - and being built primarily for military purposes (such as the Crimean bridge) - becomes an island in the middle of the lake. Literally lakes because Turkey can close the Bosporus for warships even now, especially if tensions between NATO and Russia increase or escalate. Then that fleet becomes completely unusable, that is, an expensive toy, which is surrounded by NATO or allies and can be neutralized relatively quickly.

In addition, Turkey has never hidden its dissatisfaction with the loss of Crimea in the Russo-Turkish war, in which the majority of the population was Tatar for centuries, which is closest to the Turkish ethnic group in religion, ethnicity and all other elements.

[more]

Turkey, as a country with imperialist pretensions (striving for the unification of all countries close to the Turkish ethnic group in the Caucasus), would very much like to reach Crimea and it is not difficult to conclude what goals it would set in case of escalation between NATO and Russia.

All in all, a real "Bosnian pot", as they say in our country, and the question is who will have stronger arguments politically, who will be more cunning, calmer, who will have stronger nerves ...

"Russia's aggression against Ukraine is out of the question, there are several reasons for that"
Russia's aggression with the goal of capturing Ukraine, with 100,000 soldiers, is out of the question for several reasons.

1. Ukraine currently has more than 300,000 people under arms in official structures, and we know what the balance of power must be in offensive operations.

In addition, Ukrainian forces were buried in the east of the country and it would be impossible to break the trenches without great casualties.

Breakthrough from the northeast - either through Chernihiv or Kharkiv, into the body of Ukraine, to cut off troops at the front from the body and cut the supply line - is somewhat of a variant, but in that case the Russian army remains unprotected, which will within hours attack units located in or near these areas. Colossal casualties are inevitable.

If I add about 600,000 disbanded veterans, almost all of whom have legalized long arms and are under territorial defense and are ready for rapid organization and guerrilla warfare, as well as hundreds of different organizations and movements whose members also rule respectable arsenals and wills, it is clear this attempt turned into a slaughterhouse.

If we add to that the fact that several million cities (Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhya), several half a million cities (Sumy, Poltava, Cherkasy), several cities with 200-300 thousand inhabitants (Kremenchuk, Konotop, Roma) would be in that direction of attack. , which should be left in the vicinity due to a successful attack and then suffer a counterattack, such an action will require much more than 100,000 soldiers, and in such a development, according to Russian doctrine of war, should count on losses of at least 50%.

So, with these forces, it will be difficult for Russia to launch a major offensive operation. Eventually, he can launch an attack in eastern Ukraine to drive Ukrainian forces from the Donbas as far as possible towards the Dnieper, which will again result in heavy casualties, but this time certainly with the punishment of the world community.

Why to the Dnieper?

The Dnieper is a natural border 300-400 km away from the Russian border, which, in addition to all that has already been written, would provide Russia with a zone in case NATO joins Ukraine, ie Ukraine joins NATO, as well as a land corridor to the peninsula. Crimea (with Russia it is now connected by a bridge in Kerch, at the junction of the Azov and Black Seas, and we all know what bridges mean in case of war).

Naval landing is possible, but it is very difficult
The long coast of Ukraine (800 km) along the Black and Azov Seas does not exclude the possibility of maritime landings, but it should be borne in mind that most of these are steep earthen incisions along the sea of ​​several tens of meters, extremely difficult to pass, with constant landslides, and that landing is possible only in certain places. He would, in most cases, be a kind of reprise of Iwo Jima, Okinawa and other Pacific islands, where the losses of landing forces were terrifying. If we add modern weapons to that, the effect can be even greater.

It should be added that landings on the Sea of ​​Azov are almost impossible in winter because from November to the end of March it has an ice cover of several tens of centimeters of ice.

The eventual preparation of the terrain with fire from rocket launchers or medium-range and short-range missiles is possible, but in this case it would open an opportunity for Ukraine to do what it was not allowed to do in 2014.
So, again, there would be, very likely, a lot of casualties on both sides, but they would also give Ukraine the right to respond.