COUP IN KYIV?

I was too busy watching England beat Denmark 1-0.

O.K. But, if one has one concern, does one want two concerns?

Regardless, I just think the Ukraine deserves to be under Russian hegemony. It must be in my DNA? To be candid, I prefer the EU, under the masterful tutelage of Germany, not enjoy hegemony over the Ukraine. In my opinion, the Ukraine and Russia deserve each other, if you get my drift.

If one can't watch Doc Martin and enjoy it, I care less for political hopes and desires. My concern is for U.S. citizens and then those that speak English as their native language, in that order. If one's ancestors came from a non-English speaking country, I have my reservations about that person. God am I honest. Give me an A+ for honesty.

Your waffle does nothing to mitigate your ignorance, it only confirms it.

Why did you think the Baltic states weren't 'fully fledged' NATO members?

Let me ask you this, iz. Suppose Putin had only one warm water port. Due to the Reagan / Gorby meeting, Reykjavik, Star Wars et al... he's left with, not only a remnant of the land mass he had to deal with, but he's missing basic trade utility - an effing port that is usable year-round. Crimea was the Florida of the USSR, filled with former Soviet / Russian citizens who got stuck there due to the Soviet collapse.

What if he just wants that port?

What if the majority of citizens really do want to be connected to Russia?

What if Putin stops there?

Is that ok?

As you consider that, remember as most standing countries constituted, they rolled in on other people. (IE the US on natives and Mexicans....)

Can it be justified?

I think Putin's banking on it. Crimea's status is what this is all about and it will change. The problem Putin has, is that undisciplined irregulars are easy to set off, they're not so easy to stop once in action. It's one thing kidnapping and threatening UN special envoy Robert Serry. If they then feel emboldened to go after ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars, then Putin will lose control of what's going on. God only knows how that will pan out.

He has Taganrog, east of the Crimean, which was Russia's first naval base in 1698, and which is entirely located on Russian territory. He has Vladivostok, which the Russians acquired in 1860. Russia has warm water ports. Sebastopol is not a very good port. It is basically a flooded fjord, long and narrow with steep sides. There is very little natural shore line for port facilities and it is expensive to maintain. The Crimean is symbolic more that utilitarian. Putin is playing to Russian nationalism, and is intent on keeping the Ukraine out the European orbit. Frankly, i don't he's think doing very well in that second project. Time will tell.

Thanks for your expertise, Set. The map seems to show a severe detriment to someone forced to use Vladvostock if their primary shipping interest is Europe. Taganrog is a seven hour difficulty. Can anyone else look at the map and perhaps understand why Putin may consider the Russian-loving Crimea port MUCH more desirable?

Perhaps Putin is using the Crimea to send warning signals to those in west Russia who are becoming attracted to the EU for various reasons that it won't be a pushover while he calls the shots.

In the Russo-Turkish War of 1853, usually referred to as the Crimean War, the French and the English weren't really doing much. The Turks managed to turn back a Russian invasion of the Principalities (think, Romania). Then the Black Sea fleet fought a pitched battle with the Turkish Fleet, and thousands were killed, including many wounded, murdered out of hand, or men in the water killed by grape shot from the Russian ships. This was par for the course for the Russians and Turks however. (The Brits would later be appalled by the Russians killing the wounded on the battlefield.) So the Angl0-French Fleet chased the Black Sea Fleet into Sebastopol, which was mostly a case of running for the first port they could enter. Suddenly, the Allies had a cause--they would avenge the Turkish sailors. Thus began the Crimean War.

Tagenrog, near Rostock on Don, was a much better naval base, and could easily get supplies from the Russian interior via the Don River. It is not that much farther east than Sebastopol, and has a better capacity. But the Russians were now committed to defending the fleet in Sebastopol. By the time that war had ended, the Russians lost more than a million men. Certainly not all of them died in the Crimean, most died o f disease, but all armies faced that in the 195h century, including the French and the British, who were dropping like flies at Varna before the invaded the Crimen.

So the French and the British landed north of the Alma River, fought a pitched battle with the Russians who thought they could hold their position for at least a week. Redcoats launched bayonet attacks against Russian positions where they were outnumbered by five or six to one, and drove the Russians off. The Allies then marched on Sebastopol. Without going into the detail of why, The British ended upon the right flank, where the Russians would inevitably attack. So they did, and a Highland Battalion, the 93rd, formed a double line, and disdained to form square, the usual formation to meet a cavalry charge. Col. Campbell told them that their backs were to the Black Sea (only slightly histrionic) and that they must die where they stood. Russell, the Times correspondent, described them as "a thin red streak." The Russian cavalry (and their cavalry was the best part of their army) charged them at a gallop, uncommon in those days. The Highlanders fired three volleys, the first just about worthless, but the second and third emptied so many saddles, that the Russians retreated. That "thin red streak" has come down to us as "the thin red line of heroes." Then Scarlett's Heavy Brigade, 600 troopers, charged the Russian cavalry on the Causeway Heights, where they had retreated--between 2000 and 3000. They were charging uphill, from a standing start, and the Russians counter-charged, going downhill. Scarlett's Heavy Brigade cut their way through the Russians (literally, they were using sabers), turned, and cut their way out again. That was followed by the incredible stupidity of the charge of the Light Brigade, going into the wrong valley against the massed Russian artillery. They were cut to shreds. As they retreated, the Chausseurs d'Afrique covered their retreat which saved the remnants, many of them wounded and most of them on fott. Incredibly (from the Russian point of view), the Light Brigade covered themselves with glory. The Russians justifiably felt that they had won a significant victory. A week later, they attacked again in the battle of Inkerman. Once again, the redcoats, heavily outnumbered turned back the Russian attack. Menshikov had failed to lift the siege of Sebastopol.

Eventually, the French launched an all-out, coordinated attack (in the following year) and took Sebastopol. The Russians told themselves that they had done everything right (a doubtful proposition), and yet they had lost. They were deeply humiliated. They developed a "never again" attitude, and made Sebastopol the main naval base for their Black Sea fleet. With more than a million men lost in that war, it became a symbol out of all proportion to its worth as a naval base. Putin can no more give up Sebastopol than the United States would allow Fort Sumter to be taken, if they could help it.

Putin dare not back down on the Crimean. That doesn't mean that he has to start a war, though.

Sevastopol has been a seat of Russian naval power from the imperial 18th century onwards.
The Russians built a new naval basis -after Ukraine got parts of Sevastopol- in Novorossisk (that's near Sochi). But Sevastopol remains the navy’s preferred base in the Black Sea region because of its size, location, navigational situation and infrastructure.
I'm rather sure that the Black Sea Fleet will be modernised/enlarged as a support fleet to the Russian Mediterranean task force.
So Sevastopol is and was the first choice base.

and that lunatic Khrushchev is not going to gum this up.......

Good post, Set. It certainly helps explain the Russian mindset.

The Guardian has a pretty good guide about the political and historical context of the crisis and why Ukraine and Russia are at loggerheads of Crimea: Ukraine's revolution and Russia's occupation of Crimea: how we got here

Crimea's status as a Russian base was never under threat.

First time I've read something about the Crimean War without reference to Florence Nightingale. Thanks for sparing us that.

You wouldn't believe how many of us confuse Florence Nightingale with Clara Barton and Louisa May Alcott in the American Civil War.

Love your history lessons Set.

you are wrong, as per usual..


http://www.stripes.com/news/analysts-black-sea-port-in-ukraine-still-key-to-russia-s-naval-interests-1.270904

Great article, Walter, thanks. (I say "the" Ukraine because that's how i've heard it all my life. I guess that's no longer politically correct.)

According to a (otherwise unconfirmed) news by RIA Novosti, Russian and Ukrainian diplomats will start talks today.