Russia Blocks Kerch Strait

#304
#304
LouderVol said:
agreed. they were in no danger of losing it. either before or after their coup.
Click to expand...
That was why Sevastopol was still in Russian hands after the breakup. Only way it would go down no way Russia gives it up and we would be foolish to posture otherwise. I think NATO should have gone out of their way to telegraph no intentions of denying Russia access to Sevastopol (I’m not saying they did or didn’t). After all you still have the bottleneck at the Bosporus for them to deal with.
 
#305
#305
Velo Vol said:
Oh.

Click to expand...



Which is why I laugh at the fools here trying to give Trump credit for what Hailey said, when Trump could not bring himself to utter the words that Russia had done the wrong thing.

Ah well, perhaps he will hold a press conference and squirm and read from a piece of paper explaining that when he said "both sides" what he really meant to say was "not both sides."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velo Vol
#306
#306
NorthDallas40 said:
That was why Sevastopol was still in Russian hands after the breakup. Only way it would go down no way Russia gives it up and we would be foolish to posture otherwise. I think NATO should have gone out of their way to telegraph no intentions of denying Russia access to Sevastopol (I’m not saying they did or didn’t). After all you still have the bottleneck at the Bosporus for them to deal with.
Click to expand...
considering NATO wasn't involved at all, any involvement would have been inferred by Russia only.
 
#307
#307
LouderVol said:
considering NATO wasn't involved at all, any involvement would have been inferred by Russia only.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree I just didn’t communicate it well. Once the breakup occurred there should have been clear statements on Sevastopol I mean. In hindsight you have to wonder why Russia even allowed Crimea to leave as they will never give up Sevastopol. That in no way validates a decision now to take it back by force though! That ship has sailed and their presence in Crimea is nothing short of hostile occupation.
 
#309
#309
NorthDallas40 said:
Yeah I agree I just didn’t communicate it well. Once the breakup occurred there should have been clear statements on Sevastopol I mean. In hindsight you have to wonder why Russia even allowed Crimea to leave as they will never give up Sevastopol. That in no way validates a decision now to take it back by force though! That ship has sailed and their presence in Crimea is nothing short of hostile occupation.
Click to expand...
The citizens of Crimea certainly don't seem to mind their presence. Ukrainians living in Crimea and eastern Ukraine have always considered themselves to be more Russian than Ukrainian. A significant portion of the population in those areas speaks Russian, in some cases they only speak Russian.
 
#310
#310
05_never_again said:
The citizens of Crimea certainly don't seem to mind their presence. Ukrainians living in Crimea and eastern Ukraine have always considered themselves to be more Russian than Ukrainian. A significant portion of the population in those areas speaks Russian, in some cases they only speak Russian.
Click to expand...
A) it isn’t our problem and I’m not advocating to make it our problem

B) then why I’m the bloody hell didn’t they stay with Russia in the first damn place and avoid all this?! Honest question. Why did Crimea leave with Ukraine when the crown jewel of the island/peninsula effectively will always be Russian?
 
#311
#311
NorthDallas40 said:
A) it isn’t our problem and I’m not advocating to make it our problem

B) then why I’m the bloody hell didn’t they stay with Russia in the first damn place and avoid all this?! Honest question. Why did Crimea leave with Ukraine when the crown jewel of the island/peninsula effectively will always be Russian?
Click to expand...
I would argue they never truly left Russia. Crimea very narrowly voted to become part of Ukraine after the Soviet Union fell and became part of a new, independent Ukraine, but Russia continued to have their Black Sea Fleet stationed there. That's a really odd arrangement if you think about it and kind of renders Crimea only semi-independent, IMO. What if after the Revolutionary War we negotiated a deal with Great Britain for them to keep a huge fleet of ships in a location of strategic importance for a price, like Boston Harbor. That allows them to maintain influence in a certain region.
 
#312
#312
05_never_again said:
The citizens of Crimea certainly don't seem to mind their presence. Ukrainians living in Crimea and eastern Ukraine have always considered themselves to be more Russian than Ukrainian. A significant portion of the population in those areas speaks Russian, in some cases they only speak Russian.
Click to expand...
a large portion does because the Soviets ran huge social programs to get Russians there and kill off/bury the local culture.
 
#314
#314
LouderVol said:
a large portion does because the Soviets ran huge social programs to get Russians there and kill off/bury the local culture.
Click to expand...
It's been majority Russian for a very long time, even in the days of the Czars. They consider it theirs, just as the United States would consider some part of Jamaica or the Dominican Republic ours if there was some little enclave where Americans lived, spoke English, had American culture, and where military assets were located as part of an agreement with the country in question.

Not excusing the behavior, but I am saying that what they are doing is not beyond the pale or something that another country wouldn't do in the same situation. They view what they are doing as defensive actions in response to NATO encroachment/meddling/interference, and we view what they are doing as aggressive actions on an ally.
 
#315
#315
05_never_again said:
It's been majority Russian for a very long time, even in the days of the Czars. They consider it theirs, just as the United States would consider some part of Jamaica or the Dominican Republic ours if there was some little enclave where Americans lived, spoke English, had American culture, and where military assets were located as part of an agreement with the country in question.

Not excusing the behavior, but I am saying that what they are doing is not beyond the pale or something that another country wouldn't do in the same situation. They view what they are doing as defensive actions in response to NATO encroachment/meddling/interference, and we view what they are doing as aggressive actions on an ally.
Click to expand...
there was no NATO meddling to be responding too. NATO didn't even get brought up until after Russia invaded.
 
#316
#316
LouderVol said:
there was no NATO meddling to be responding too. NATO didn't even get brought up until after Russia invaded.
Click to expand...
Ukraine petitioned to join the NATO Membership Action Plan in 2008 which is the first step to joining NATO. This was most definitely perceived by Russia as hostile to its interests in Sevastopol. When Yanukovych was elected in 2010 he shelved all talks. Then Euromaidan... then Russia invading... then Crimea breaking away forming its own republic... then Crimea joining Russia.

If Ukraine hadn’t dragged their feet maybe... but still no way Russia would willingly leave Sevastopol.

Ukraine–NATO relations - Wikipedia

Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again
#317
#317
LouderVol said:
there was no NATO meddling to be responding too. NATO didn't even get brought up until after Russia invaded.
Click to expand...
Sure there was. When the Ukrainians decided to forego an economic agreement with the EU in favor of signing one with Russia, civil unrest in opposition to the Russian agreement flared up, which was fomented by NATO. If you think NATO didn't play a role in seeing the current Poroshenko-led, Western-friendly government come to power, you're naive.

NATO enlargement is something Putin and the Russians are acutely aware of. It drives basically every foreign policy action they take. I'm not saying Russia is a pure and noble actor in this - far from it - but I get why they are concerned about NATO enlargement and view it as a threat. They view NATO as having been created for an express purpose. That express purpose is now gone, yet not only does NATO remain, but it has expanded into old Soviet territories since the end of the Cold War. I see how they perceive NATO expansion as a Western-run New World Order in which the United States and its European allies control everything and reap the spoils, meanwhile Russia is relegated to irrelevancy. Let's face it - they are headed towards irrelevancy anyway regardless of what NATO does, but Putin isn't going to go down without a struggle.

A candidate for future NATO expansion is Ukraine, which is right on their doorstep. If Ukraine went into NATO, they'd lose their Black Sea Fleet port at Sevastopol.
 
#318
#318
lawgator1 said:
Just got to love the Trumpsters defending his being a Putin stoogie by complaining about Obama, who at the time they said was not tough enough on Russia.
Click to expand...

Didn’t realize Trump told Russia he could be more flexible after his election. Nor do I recall him drawing red lines that nobody respected.
 
#319
#319
lawgator1 said:
Which is why I laugh at the fools here trying to give Trump credit for what Hailey said, when Trump could not bring himself to utter the words that Russia had done the wrong thing.

Ah well, perhaps he will hold a press conference and squirm and read from a piece of paper explaining that when he said "both sides" what he really meant to say was "not both sides."
Click to expand...

Guess he should’ve called it “workplace violence”.
 
#320
#320
NorthDallas40 said:
The West would indeed love to block Sevastopol from Russia as that would remove their primary warm water port that gives them 12 month naval support capability.

Russia couldn’t give two ***** about Crimea or the people of Crimea. Russia desperately cares about the naval facility at Sevastopol and will fight to insure its continued control over it. They will go to war over Sevastopol I believe.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree..
 
#321
#321
Burhead said:
Putin could be doing one of three things:

1. These are really just normal, yearly tasks but just fell at the wrong time.
2. Putin is causing a provocation by holding these exercises right after the Ukrainian President says he has reports saying an imminent invasion is coming and hoping Kiev makes a costly miscalculation.
3. Putin is really going to invade and using this as cover to hide the mobilization of Russian troops on the border.

Either way Putin is clearly antagonizing Ukraine with these.
Click to expand...

How is Putin antagonizing Ukraine? Ukrainian ships broke protocol...sailors admitted such...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top