War in Ukraine/Med Cruising

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by hedgeworth

Dockhead I think you are right. The Russians can’t not invade at this point.

Today we see increasing blood shed in the Donbas region.

Maybe you could help me with a question I have. Everyone keeps equating this with the Cuban missile crisis. Yet that was 60 years ago. It seems at least two important things have changed since then. First, we can fire missiles from a number of places, including submarines and Poland, that would leave the Russians with little to no advanced warning. We don’t need Ukraine to threaten Russia. So the missiles in my backyard argument seems kind of moot.

Second, the Ukraine is not part of nato. Nor do most observers think it will become a part of NATO anytime soon. During the Cuban missile crisis we had satellite photos of actual launch facilities being constructed. Nothing like that is even close to happening in Ukraine.

So should we view these so-called existential national security threats to Russia as perhaps pretextual reasons for their behavior when in fact the real reasons are more to do with the fact that Putin is getting old and he sees this as maybe his last best shot at knitting together the former Soviet union?

I worry a little bit about Taiwan and Xi gin ping for the same reason.

Well, I think the comparison with the Cuban missile crisis is appropriate. It wasn't just missiles; it was Soviet troops in Cuba which we refused to tolerate. And we have put missiles in Poland. If we were to make Ukraine a NATO member, the missiles would follow. Not that there is a snowball's chance in hell of Ukraine ever joining NATO, but the Russians don't know that.



Remember that it's not just the prospect of NATO troops in Ukraine (for centuries part of Russia), but it's our interference in their internal affairs, which bothers them. In 2014, we financed a violent coup that brought to power Poroshenko with significant neo-Nazi elements in the government, Svoboda and Right Sector, both openly neo-Nazi parties, who provided the Minister of Justice (the odious Azakov who only left office recently) and Deputy Prime Minister. Poroshenko posed with swastikas on his own facebook page.



That's your taxpayer dollars at work, spreading neo-Nazism, and calling it "our democratic allies". Do you think any one journalist at CNN knows anything abou this? The Russians, I think understandably (tens of millions of them died at the hands of the Nazis), went crazy that we would do such a thing, as did the Israelis: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/250641. That's what started the unfortunate chain of events in 2014.



In fairness, the neo-Nazis were pushed back somewhat after Poroshenko was voted out in 2019 in favor of Zelensky, a Russian-speaking Jew who is doing a surprisingly good job. But Poroshenko, the guy with the swastikas, is the guy our dollars put in office. This is significant context for the current situation.

[goboatingnow]

My view is the west is goading putin , this is not a good stance

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

My view is the west is goading putin , this is not a good stance

Explain.

You mean the west is goading Putin by allowing the Ukraine to stay where it is, in spite of Putin surrounding them with troops and equipment from what they claim is an unrelated military exercise?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

NATO will be supercharged by all this. I think chances of Sweden and Finland joining have lept. Europe, who was wavering, will be driven back into the arms of America.

None of this is good for Russia. But they don't care. Because -- as we stubborny refuse to understand -- keeping NATO out of Ukraine is an existential question, for which they will do ANYTHING. All of this is worth it for them.

First paragraph, correct.

Second paragraph, Putin narrative, to justify his expansionist view.

The Ukraine is a sovereign country by current international law. The appropriate forum is diplomacy, not invasion. Is there any recent event that Russia feels threatened by? Nobody is seriously thinking the Ukraine is joining NATO any time in the near future. On the other hand, Russia has a recent track record of making land grabs from it's neighbors.

If Russia truly feels threatened by the Ukraine, this should be a topic for the UN, not an excuse to invade after some fabricated event.

NATO is a defensive treaty alliance, not an invasion alliance. Which seems quite different from what Russia is doing in the Ukraine.

[Montanan]

Posted 12 hours ago.

https://liveuamap.com/

Kremlin reports on strategic forces exercise launches: Kinzhal missiles launched, Black Sea

and Northern Fleets ships and submarines launched Kalibr AShM and Tsirkon missile against onshore and offshore targets, Iskander BM launched from Kapustin Yar, ICBM Yars launched from Plesetsk to Kura, Tu-95MS launched cruise missiles to Kura and Pemboy ranges, Delta-IV Karelia launched SLBM Sineva from Barents Sea to Kura

[Island Time O25]

The "neo Nazis in the Ukraine govt" is a red herring and is actually part of Putin propaganda narrative. Unfortunately parroted by otherwise intelligent persons. Neo Nazi support inside the Ukrainian populace hovers just around 1-2%, of whom many (most?) are Kremlin shrills designed for the role of agents provacateurs. I believe they even failed to get any reps in the Rada for the past 2 or 3 elections. But for Russian aggression in the Donbass region there would be no far right batallions in Ukrainian army.

Russia does feel politically and otherwise slighted by the breakup of the USSR, its fall from one of only two world powers to a level of a "mere" regional power, by perception of being "just a gas station with nukes", etc., etc. But I do not see any fault of the West in the fact that for the past 15 of his 22+ or so years in power Putin chose to turn Russia away from cooperation and integration with the West and instead chosen time and time again a confrontational stance, which over time turned Russia's former political allies against her. Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine are good examples of that style of a bear in the china wares shop approach to regional politics.

Anyone who ever sailed to Russia in a private vessel will vouch for the absurd level of suspicion a foreign vessel receives from the officials. That is the legacy of 70 years of the Soviet rule as the Tsars' Russia was well integrated into Europe and accepted foreigners with much less hostility than the Soviets.

To blame the West for any post-Soviet lingering paranoia on the part of Putin is like blaming a random pedestrian for his attacker's paranoia induced attack.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Explain.

You mean the west is goading Putin by allowing the Ukraine to stay where it is, in spite of Putin surrounding them with troops and equipment from what they claim is an unrelated military exercise?

The west is hyping up the situation rather then defusing it. NATO’s could easily agree to deny any future Ukrainian request to join NATO . ( which is in fact the practical reality ) , but NATO refuses to consider this concession.

This alone would give Putin a way to back down

NATO continues to pour armaments into Ukraine and to station more and more troops in nearby countries yet everyone and his granny knows that NATO will not engage militarily in a conflict. It’s just a big “ posture “ a pissing contest.

The west needs to dial back the rethoric. , the Ukraine will be left to the wolves anyway. So why goad the wolves.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The west is hyping up the situation rather then defusing it. NATO’s could easily agree to deny any future Ukrainian request to join NATO . ( which is in fact the practical reality ) , but NATO refuses to consider this concession.

This alone would give Putin a way to back down

NATO continues to pour armaments into Ukraine and to station more and more troops in nearby countries yet everyone and his granny knows that NATO will not engage militarily in a conflict. It’s just a big “ posture “ a pissing contest.

The west needs to dial back the rethoric. , the Ukraine will be left to the wolves anyway. So why goad the wolves.

Firstly, Putin doesn't have the right to demand that the Ukraine never be admitted to the alliance, especially under threat of military action.

Secondly, NATO is just a convenient excuse, as NATO isn't in the position of immediately granting admittance to the Ukraine. You know this. I know this. And most of all Putin knows this.

Thirdly, NATO doesn't owe Putin a face-saving measure. He put himself in this position, so nobody owes him anything.

Countries are pouring in armaments to the Ukraine because Russia is threatening them with military force.

Nobody forced Putin into this situation. Like everything he does, it's a calculated move. It appears to be Putin trying to cement some kind of legacy. But I do applaud the UK and the US for casting a spotlight over his actions, and showing him for what he is.

If Putin does invade, a lot of lives will be lost, and history will not look kindly on him.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Firstly, Putin doesn't have the right to demand that the Ukraine never be admitted to the alliance, especially under threat of military action.

Secondly, NATO is just a convenient excuse, as NATO isn't in the position of immediately granting admittance to the Ukraine. You know this. I know this. And most of all Putin knows this.

Thirdly, NATO doesn't owe Putin a face-saving measure. He put himself in this position, so nobody owes him anything.

Countries are pouring in armaments to the Ukraine because Russia is threatening them with military force.

Nobody forced Putin into this situation. Like everything he does, it's a calculated move. It appears to be Putin trying to cement some kind of legacy. But I do applaud the UK and the US for casting a spotlight over his actions, and showing him for what he is.

If Putin does invade, a lot of lives will be lost, and history will not look kindly on him.

The US blockaded a sovereign country that decided to accept foreign missiles, a blockade is actually an act of war.

The US acted so, in its declared self interest. The situation was defused by the Soviet Union deciding not to proceed

Russia is in essence doing the same , and nato could respond just like the soviets did , by pragmatically agreeing a few rather meaningless concessions and allowing putin to walk away with “ face”

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

The "neo Nazis in the Ukraine govt" is a red herring and is actually part of Putin propaganda narrative.

No kind of red herring at all. It's a fact. Less so in the present government, but very much present in the Yatsenyuk government, then later in Poroshenko's.

A key element of the first Yatsenyuk government was the Svoboda party, the renamed Social-National Party of Ukraine, so the actual Nazi party, using swastikas and the SS Wolfsangel, with the leader calling the Holocaust "a period of light". These are facts. Three ministers in the post-coup Yatsenyuk government came from Svoboda, including the Deputy Prime Minister.

Then there is the Azov Movement, whose official emblem is the modified swastika which was the emblem of the SS Panzer Division "Das Reich". They use other Nazi symbols including the Totenkopf; you can see these in photos on Poroshenko's own Facebook page, where the smiling Ukrainian president is standing with these neo-Nazis wearing swastikas and Totenkoepfe. They use the "white power" motto. Azov was created by Andriy Biletsky, a real Nazi, and still a major figure in Ukrainian politics, who said publicly that the mission of Ukraine is "To lead the white races of the world in a final crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen" (see: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...neo-nazi-links).

Russian propaganda? Not at all. What is actually interesting is that these facts, which are so uncontrovertible, and so readily available, are so little known in the West. We get drunk on our OWN propaganda -- "our democratic allies". We gave them $5 billion, so they must be good guys, right?

To be fair, that was then. These elements are much less present now, and the current Ukrainian president, a good man in an impossible job, has no connection to these odious elements. But these facts are absolutely essential context for the events of 2013-2014, and for understanding the Russians' state of mind. Why have they become so hostile to us? We earned it. See here, in our own words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2XNN0Yt6D8

.

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Anyone who ever sailed to Russia in a private vessel will vouch for the absurd level of suspicion a foreign vessel receives from the officials. That is the legacy of 70 years of the Soviet rule as the Tsars' Russia was well integrated into Europe and accepted foreigners with much less hostility than the Soviets.

I've sailed my yacht to Russia. The officials were extremely nice, and not suspicious at all. I did get run out of the channel leading to Vyborg by a small Russian tanker -- apparently intentionally. But that is another story.

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

To blame the West for any post-Soviet lingering paranoia on the part of Putin is like blaming a random pedestrian for his attacker's paranoia induced attack.

Listen to Victoria Nuland, in the linked tape, musing over who the U.S. State Deparment is choosing for the new Ukrainian cabinet, and then take those words back. I think you may not be aware of what went down in 2013-2014. We spent $5 billion (again, admitted by Nuland) to overthrow the Ukrainian government. There is no paranoia at all.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

. . . The Ukraine is a sovereign country by current international law. The appropriate forum is diplomacy, not invasion.

Totally agree!! What is happening now is absolutely horrible!

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Is there any recent event that Russia feels threatened by? Nobody is seriously thinking the Ukraine is joining NATO any time in the near future.

Read up on the events of 2013-2014, where an elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine was overthrown with the help of a lot of money and help from the U.S.. Russia has never been threatened by Ukraine -- it's threatened by an aggressive and hostile U.S., and by NATO which has been moved up past the former borders of Russia.



I've said it before, but to understand how they see these, you have to look back at the Cuban Missile Crisis, or the Monroe Doctrine altogether. We don't tolerate hostile powers subverting our close neighbors (much less former parts of our country) and putting in military forces. Why in the world do we think that they should be calm about it?



We could deal with them, and make a mutually beneficial deal, and especially, a deal beneficial to Ukraine, which we use as a mere toy, much to their detriment, if we had half a brain in our heads and simply understand where they are coming from. Putin is an evil dictator, that is true. But he's not an idiot.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The US blockaded a sovereign country that decided to accept foreign missiles, a blockade is actually an act of war.

The US acted so, in its declared self interest. The situation was defused by the Soviet Union deciding not to proceed

Russia is in essence doing the same , and nato could respond just like the soviets did , by pragmatically agreeing a few rather meaningless concessions and allowing putin to walk away with “ face”

Indeed. Putin doesn't need "face" -- he needs us to keep our hands of Ukraine. Skillful diplomacy could make a deal which would keep Russia's hands off, too. None other than Henry Kissinger made a forceful argument for "Finlandization" of Ukraine, recognizing that the reality is that the Russians could never live with our moving into Ukraine. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...0b9_story.html.

An extraordinarily long list of the leading lights of our foreign policy thinking, wrote an open letter to President Clinton, opposing NATO expansion and predicting EXACTLY this result:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170217...one062697.html

Signed by Senators Sam Nunn, Gary Hart, Mark Hatfield, and Gordon Humphries, and by Ambassadors Jack Matlock, Arthur Hartman, and Paul Nitze (the last, Reagan's chief arms control negotiator), Robert McNamara (Sec of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson), Admiral Stansfield Turner (former Director of the CIA), former NATO ass. Sec General Phillip Merrill, the eminent anti-Communist historian Richard Pipes, and others.

"We, the undersigned, believe that the current U.S.-led effort to expand NATO, the focus of the recent Helsinki and Paris Summits, is a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability . . . "

Prophetic words. We are about to get the first big war in Europe since 1945 as a direct result of ignoring this warning.

[jmh2002]

Although some of the historical context was touched on by other posts (thank you to the other students of history here), here is another point of view, and one that has also been alluded to by President Putin and some of his various advisers over the course of many years.

Above and beyond all the other relatively modern factors such as defense/NATO issues (real or imagined), buffer state, rebuilding the USSR, election and domestic considerations, etc, etc, there is another major factor (perhaps even THE major factor) that is often missed in these discussions:

Modern day Ukraine is the true precursor and cradle of Russian history, religion, and civilisation, from 1000 years and more ago.

You could draw some parallels with Israel and Jerusalem, with Saudi Arabia and Mecca, and other similar examples.

Hundreds of years before Moscow or Russia even existed, Kiev and the state of Kievan Rus was the light, a great city of learning and culture, and the centre of military power, trade, and economy. Kievan Rus Princesses were married off to other European nobility to cement alliances and Kievan Rus was well integrated in wider Europe both to the West and the East of modern day Ukraine.

Kievan Rus was feared as both an economic as well as a military powerhouse.

Princess Olga of Kiev (Regent of Kievan Rus after her husband Igor of Kiev was killed) converted to Orthodoxy in about 957 in Constantinople (now Istanbul), and later her grandson Grand Prince Volodymyr I of Kiev (yes, after whom both current presidents of Ukraine and Russia are named) also accepted the Orthodox faith in the year 988 - he was baptised in Chersonesos (in modern day Crimea), and set about bringing the Orthodox religion to the greater Slavic population and formally Christianising the Slavic lands.

Again, there was no Moscow then (first mentioned/documented in 1147), there was no Russia then, there was only Novgorod (South of St Petersburg in modern day Russia), which was the northern outpost of Kievan Rus.

But there was the great city of Kiev, there was the centre of power, learning, and culture, and there was the conversion of the Slavic people to Orthodox Christianity, all of which took place in and around modern day Ukraine. The historical links to the modern day crises are unmissable for students of history.

So for some it remains a great tragedy that the cradle of Russian history, religion, and civilisation, from 1000 years and more ago, was created in what is now another country, remains in what is now another country, outside Russia, outside direct Russian influence, and is in fact looking further and further away from Russia as time passes. Amongst some this is considered a great wrong that must be righted, at any and all costs.

Looking back at the great wars in history, those facts alone should not be underestimated as reasons to start and continue yet another one.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Totally agree!! What is happening now is absolutely horrible!

Read up on the events of 2013-2014, where an elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine was overthrown with the help of a lot of money and help from the U.S.. Russia has never been threatened by Ukraine -- it's threatened by an aggressive and hostile U.S., and by NATO which has been moved up past the former borders of Russia.

I've said it before, but to understand how they see these, you have to look back at the Cuban Missile Crisis, or the Monroe Doctrine altogether. We don't tolerate hostile powers subverting our close neighbors (much less former parts of our country) and putting in military forces. Why in the world do we think that they should be calm about it?

We could deal with them, and make a mutually beneficial deal, and especially, a deal beneficial to Ukraine, which we use as a mere toy, much to their detriment, if we had half a brain in our heads and simply understand where they are coming from. Putin is an evil dictator, that is true. But he's not an idiot.

2014 was a long time ago. To be honest, I don't know that history in detail enough to know if your accusation is valid or not. But even if valid, it's not justification for a Russian invasion today. Are you suggesting that the current government in the Ukraine is illegitimate? Because anything short of that makes Russia wrong here. Even if the government were illegitimate, that's a UN problem to solve, not Russia.

Russia being unhappy that they aren't able to install a puppet government in the Ukraine is NOT justification for a military invasion that will kill a lot of people.

Are you accusing the U.S. of installing missiles in the Ukraine? That's what happened during the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy responded correctly. That would have been a defacto declaration of war. That's not an apt comparison for what is happening in the Ukraine today.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed. Putin doesn't need "face" -- he needs us to keep our hands of Ukraine. Skillful diplomacy could make a deal which would keep Russia's hands off, too. None other than Henry Kissinger made a forceful argument for "Finlandization" of Ukraine, recognizing that the reality is that the Russians could never live with our moving into Ukraine. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...0b9_story.html.

An extraordinarily long list of the leading lights of our foreign policy thinking, wrote an open letter to President Clinton, opposing NATO expansion and predicting EXACTLY this result:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170217...one062697.html

Signed by Senators Sam Nunn, Gary Hart, Mark Hatfield, and Gordon Humphries, and by Ambassadors Jack Matlock, Arthur Hartman, and Paul Nitze (the last, Reagan's chief arms control negotiator), Robert McNamara (Sec of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson), Admiral Stansfield Turner (former Director of the CIA), former NATO ass. Sec General Phillip Merrill, the eminent anti-Communist historian Richard Pipes, and others.

"We, the undersigned, believe that the current U.S.-led effort to expand NATO, the focus of the recent Helsinki and Paris Summits, is a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability . . . "

Prophetic words. We are about to get the first big war in Europe since 1945 as a direct result of ignoring this warning.

Some of that might be true, if Ukraine were being admitted into NATO.

But Ukraine ISN'T being admitted into NATO.

And I don't believe for one minute that this is Putin's actual motivation.