Russia Blocks Kerch Strait

#329
#329
Since there was a post about what ships or military personnel are in the Black Sea region here is the list.

 
#330
#330
NorthDallas40 said:
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
Click to expand...
yeah Yanukovch was still in charge when crap hit the fan.
 
#331
#331
05_never_again said:
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.
Click to expand...
agreed for the most part. but if NATO was going to pull any real shenanigans it would have done so during the collapse. its also a defensive alliance, per the rules if the US declared on Russia first (or took first action) NATO wouldn't have to follow. now there are close ties so some probably would, but its not a cornerstone of NATO. its fear mongering from the Russians that think its about taking over Russia

to the underlined, why? NATO wouldn't require it. Pretty sure there is/was a treaty in place giving Russians the right to use it. joining NATO wouldn't end that. also Russian ships have, and probably will dock at NATO nation ports. so its not like they couldn't continue to use it. as far as I have read they haven't had any issues doing so. and considering the battle lost at PD-50 maybe they should consider it moreso.

and to the first Russia was playing the same game. its how they came out on top of all of this. Yanukovych was clearly bought and paid for, and protected by the Russians. and if there is a populist movement/riot because of sudden switch of policy TO Russia, do you think the resulting government is going to come out neutral or pro-Russian. Of course it is going to swing the other way. sure we did our part, but you are giving our government too much credit if you think they pulled off something this big under Russia's nose. and if it was a true false flag you would have seen a lot more of the nation resist the change instead of a small enclave of Russian dependent Ukrainian miners armed with the latest and greatest of Russian tech.
 
#336
#336
Velo Vol said:
By what measure?
Click to expand...
Well for one thing Georgia continues to work with the MAP on a plan to get into compliance at which point NATO can consider an invite. While since Yanukovych put it on ice I believe Ukraine is thus far giving them the Heismann pose? I think that’s the case anyway.
 
#338
#338
Velo Vol said:
By what measure?
Click to expand...
Georgia is in the second to final stage to join NATO. Intensified Dialogue. The last step is a Membership Action Plan which Georgia has developed but has yet to activate. Ukraine has yet to get to that stage. Georgia also contributes about 1,000 troops in Afghanistan supporting NATO operations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velo Vol
#339
#339
carlos86 said:
Georgia is in the second to final stage to join NATO. Intensified Dialogue. The last step is a Membership Action Plan which Georgia has developed but has yet to activate. Ukraine has yet to get to that stage.
Click to expand...

As much as I would like to see Georgia join I really don't see NATO approving that without them ceding the occupied territories officially.
 
#340
#340
Burhead said:
I love following international affairs. It is interesting to watch leaders and nation-states pit themselves and their own interests against each other.
Click to expand...

Sure. The rise of China really is the international story, though.
 
#341
#341
carlos86 said:
Georgia is in the second to final stage to join NATO. Intensified Dialogue. The last step is a Membership Action Plan which Georgia has developed but has yet to activate. Ukraine has yet to get to that stage. Georgia also contributes about 1,000 troops in Afghanistan supporting NATO operations.
Click to expand...

Is UKR even engaged in the process to join? It's been a while, but the last I saw it was deliberating the possibility.
 
#342
#342
LouderVol said:
agreed for the most part. but if NATO was going to pull any real shenanigans it would have done so during the collapse. its also a defensive alliance, per the rules if the US declared on Russia first (or took first action) NATO wouldn't have to follow. now there are close ties so some probably would, but its not a cornerstone of NATO. its fear mongering from the Russians that think its about taking over Russia

to the underlined, why? NATO wouldn't require it. Pretty sure there is/was a treaty in place giving Russians the right to use it. joining NATO wouldn't end that. also Russian ships have, and probably will dock at NATO nation ports. so its not like they couldn't continue to use it. as far as I have read they haven't had any issues doing so. and considering the battle lost at PD-50 maybe they should consider it moreso.

and to the first Russia was playing the same game. its how they came out on top of all of this. Yanukovych was clearly bought and paid for, and protected by the Russians. and if there is a populist movement/riot because of sudden switch of policy TO Russia, do you think the resulting government is going to come out neutral or pro-Russian. Of course it is going to swing the other way. sure we did our part, but you are giving our government too much credit if you think they pulled off something this big under Russia's nose. and if it was a true false flag you would have seen a lot more of the nation resist the change instead of a small enclave of Russian dependent Ukrainian miners armed with the latest and greatest of Russian tech.
Click to expand...
Yes, a defensive alliance is the stated goal. But as Putin sees it expanding, particularly into territories that were part of the Soviet Union, he perceives it as a threat. Frankly, I understand why he sees it that way. As for Crimea and having his port there, he absolutely sees it as a threat that this territory where they have military assets is in an alliance with an adversarial entity.

Of course Russia is playing the same game. Yanukovych was Putin's man in Ukraine. Ukraine is seen as in both NATO and Russia's spheres of influence, and they are fighting over it. Both sides are involved and both sides play games. NATO and Russia will try and tell you that the other side is purely the aggressor, and that just isn't true.
 
#344
#344


I can't remember back in 2014 (and I don't have time to go back and look) but this may be the first official of the "land bridge" idea by Poroshenko that the Russians need to keep Crimea. The Sea of Azov and Mauripol are gems that Putin probably desperately want.
 
#345
#345
lawgator1 said:
That is a perfectly valid reason for us not to get involved. And if that were the considered policy response of the US military in consultation with a commander in chief acting in good faith, having worked with our allies on the situation and reassuring them of our commitment to them, I can see it being a reasonable conclusion.

But we don't have that, do we? No, we have a POTUS who cozies up to Putin after Putin worked to help him win election. A POTUS indebted to Putin at many levels, some known, some hidden from us. A POTUS who has lied to us about his links to Putin. And a POTUS who actively undermines the efforts of other parts of the US government to put the brakes on Putin. A POTUS who repeatedly downplays our interests in helping our allies, some of whom are not that far from this situation.

There is plenty of reason to wonder out loud about our POTUS' motivations to side with Putin in this situation, and you can bet I'll be here every step of the way making sure you are reminded of it.
Click to expand...
screeeeeeech
 
#346
#346
05_never_again said:
Yes, a defensive alliance is the stated goal. But as Putin sees it expanding, particularly into territories that were part of the Soviet Union, he perceives it as a threat. Frankly, I understand why he sees it that way. As for Crimea and having his port there, he absolutely sees it as a threat that this territory where they have military assets is in an alliance with an adversarial entity.

Of course Russia is playing the same game. Yanukovych was Putin's man in Ukraine. Ukraine is seen as in both NATO and Russia's spheres of influence, and they are fighting over it. Both sides are involved and both sides play games. NATO and Russia will try and tell you that the other side is purely the aggressor, and that just isn't true.
Click to expand...
NATO was only able to expand because those countries wanted to join. some like Poland, have a legit reason not to trust Russia. and if Russia really has moved on they shouldn't care what happens in the old USSR. either they are Soviets, or they aren't.

again NATO hasn't been involved with squat for actual aggression. even if they are behind the scenes getting leaders approved, the real trigger action is by Ukraine (not NATO) and Russia. so to put NATO on the same level as Russian involvement doesn't ring true.
 
#347
#347
LouderVol said:
NATO was only able to expand because those countries wanted to join. some like Poland, have a legit reason not to trust Russia. and if Russia really has moved on they shouldn't care what happens in the old USSR. either they are Soviets, or they aren't.

again NATO hasn't been involved with squat for actual aggression. even if they are behind the scenes getting leaders approved, the real trigger action is by Ukraine (not NATO) and Russia. so to put NATO on the same level as Russian involvement doesn't ring true.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you. My whole point in this isn't to say that NATO is expanding into territories where the governments of those countries don't want it. You're absolutely right that countries like Poland and the Baltic states (Latvia/Estonia/Lithuania) have great reasons not to trust Russia.

However, look at it from Putin's perspective. He sees NATO has having been created for an express purpose, to act as a check on the power of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union no longer exists. In his mind, the system of formal alliances that is NATO should have also dissolved or at the very least ceased expanding. NATO gave the Russians assurances (nothing binding, but told them) once the Cold War was over that that NATO wouldn't expand, but it has and has continued to creep closer to their border over the years. He's skeptical of US missile batteries being put in places like the Czech Republic and Poland - he doesn't think they are there to shoot down a missile from Iran like we say (and I believe him). Russia has moved on from the Soviet days in terms of they don't want that economic system again, but they do still think they should have a sphere of influence outside of its borders as all the other powers of the world do.

He sees it as part of an effort to claim old pieces of "their" empire, within their sphere of influence, and bring them under US/NATO influence, and leave Russia flapping in the wind in a compromised position.
 
#348
#348
05_never_again said:
I don't disagree with you. My whole point in this isn't to say that NATO is expanding into territories where the governments of those countries don't want it. You're absolutely right that countries like Poland and the Baltic states (Latvia/Estonia/Lithuania) have great reasons not to trust Russia.

However, look at it from Putin's perspective. He sees NATO has having been created for an express purpose, to act as a check on the power of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union no longer exists. In his mind, the system of formal alliances that is NATO should have also dissolved or at the very least ceased expanding. NATO gave the Russians assurances (nothing binding, but told them) once the Cold War was over that that NATO wouldn't expand, but it has and has continued to creep closer to their border over the years. He's skeptical of US missile batteries being put in places like the Czech Republic and Poland - he doesn't think they are there to shoot down a missile from Iran like we say (and I believe him). Russia has moved on from the Soviet days in terms of they don't want that economic system again, but they do still think they should have a sphere of influence outside of its borders as all the other powers of the world do.

He sees it as part of an effort to claim old pieces of "their" empire, within their sphere of influence, and bring them under US/NATO influence, and leave Russia flapping in the wind in a compromised position.
Click to expand...
they have tried to bring Russia into NATO before. in the early 2000s Putin even brought up the idea of joining NATO.

if he sees it as the aggressor it is purely for political reasons.
 
#349
#349
Velo Vol said:
I saw a tweet that Putin is at or near a low approval rating. I always wonder how accurate those Russian polls are.
Click to expand...
Is there anything the people of Russia could really do about it? Would any potential threats to Putin just get offed?
 
#350
#350
LouderVol said:
they have tried to bring Russia into NATO before. in the early 2000s Putin even brought up the idea of joining NATO.

if he sees it as the aggressor it is purely for political reasons.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I don't think it was ever a serious option, and to put it mildly the situation has changed dramatically since those days. Russia was coming out of a debt and currency crisis in the late 90s/early 2000s and probably honestly considered hooking up with NATO and Europe at that point because they were so weak. Then in the early 2000s oil prices rose, which really helped them financially, Putin became very personally popular, so he shot the bird to NATO and decided he would try and run his own coalition.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top