31
   

COUP IN KYIV?

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 06:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
begrudging Russia the right to correct a situation that only took place when Crimea was under the Soviet Union, and therefore it might not have mattered if it was part of the Ukraine, or not. Today Crimea's identity is quite important, and Russia is just using a democratic referendum to prove that over 90% of Crimeans want to be part of Russia. Otherwise, it is the Ukraine that has the "Iron Curtain."


The argument goes that the negotiations and agreements reached upon the death of the Soviet Union was Russia's one and only chance to seek the return of Crimea, that once Russia signed on to a set of lines it must forever hold its peace.


I am not so idealistic to think that that is the case. And, it is not Russia that is voting in the referendum. It is just Ukranians that want to be Russian and not Ukranian. It is the old story of a man being seduced by a beautiful woman, even though he is married, in my opinion.
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 06:49 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

...What's important is he stops there or tries to get parts of Eastern Ukraine as well.


However, if one is a Russian speaking Ukrainian, in another part of the Ukraine, one might feel that one is living in the wrong country. So, you are talking as a Brit with no dog in the hunt. Typical, in my opinion.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 06:58 pm
It appears to me that parts of Europe do tend to think of Russia as the proverbial boogey man. However, it really has nothing to do with our current administration. Perhaps, Europe needs to find another Marshall for the conclusion of this saga. This situation might also prove that Britain should never have joined the EU. The same entangling alliances that resulted in WWI???
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 10:02 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Sebastopol has never been a good site for a base. Because of their humiliation and their sense of betrayal in 1854-55, they have held on to it. The anchorage is long and narrow, with steep sides. Even today, under conventional attack it would be a nightmare for the Russian navy. Because the anchorage is long and narrow ships could not easily maneuver to avoid air or missile attack. The ships could not sortie easily, and would very likely only be able to sortie one at a time. It proved a trap for the Black Sea fleet in 1854--they were unable to support the besieged troops from the French and British ground attacks. Although those conditions no longer obtain, it would still be a trap for them today. The Black Sea fleet is based there for historical reasons, not because it's a good place for such a base.

My understanding is that they make a big deal over the place because it is their only warm water naval base that is accessible to the Atlantic.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 10:03 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
I'm just hoping it doesn't get out of hand. But if there were no MAD I wouldn't be all that hopeful.
MAD really does save lives. They are all itching to send men to the front. I think they might well dream about it.

Speaking of MAD, Mr. Obama is planning some really nice changes for the US nuclear arsenal.

We're going to be coming up with these things called "interoperable warheads" that can be freely changed from ICBM use to SLBM use and back again. That certainly sounds like a good idea, but there is an additional upgrade being slipped into the mix unadvertised. A good number of these "interoperable warheads" will use the 455kt secondary design from the W88. That will make them significantly more powerful than most of the warheads that they will be replacing.


We're also going to be getting a nice usable tactical bomb. We used to have usable tactical nukes during the Cold War, but we scrapped them soon after it ended.

This new bomb maxes out at only 50kt and has a clean-ish yield (mostly fusion). And it will be highly precise due to built in GPS guidance and seamless integration with F-35 targeting systems.

None of these planned upgrades are a response to Russia's current actions. But if there is a new Cold War in the offing, we're going to have a lot of fun new hardware to surround the Russians with.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 11:31 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
None of these planned upgrades are a response to Russia's current actions. But if there is a new Cold War in the offing, we're going to have a lot of fun new hardware to surround the Russians and Chinese with.


fixed.
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 11:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
None of these planned upgrades are a response to Russia's current actions. But if there is a new Cold War in the offing, we're going to have a lot of fun new hardware to surround the Russians and Chinese with.


fixed.


I was thinking the same thing.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 11:42 pm
@Wilso,
Wilso wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
None of these planned upgrades are a response to Russia's current actions. But if there is a new Cold War in the offing, we're going to have a lot of fun new hardware to surround the Russians and Chinese with.


fixed.


I was thinking the same thing.

this is maybe the second time in 7 years that we have agreed on anything.

Noted.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 02:11 am
@Foofie,
And you're talking as an ignoramus with no idea of what's going on. Plenty of Russian speaking Ukrainians want to stay in Ukraine. The true is far more nuanced than your monochromatic, primitive brain can comprehend.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 02:23 am
@oralloy,
Not keeping up? The oldest Russian naval base is at Taganrog, near Rostock on Don. It is a much more suitable base in terms of tactical defense. There is also the base we were discussing earlier that the Ukrainians are currently using. It is also likely to be much more defensible on tactical grounds. Both of those bases are on the Black Sea, and therefore, more accessible to the Mediterranean. The Russians have never had a warm water port which is directly accessible to the Atlantic, because that is a geographical impossibility.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 02:27 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Obama and West NEED to be careful, a coalition of Iran, Russia and China would be a bitch to deal with if they decided to take on the West. Even worse would be if the muslims of the Mid East joined.


Yes, because they all get on so well. Aren't the Sunnis and Shias joining hands and singing songs of love in Syria right now?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 03:46 am
@Setanta,
The oldest Russian Navy formation is the Baltic Sea Fleet (founded shortly after the base in Taganrog was founded).

Main Russian navy bases are at Kaliningrad (HQ), Baltiysk, and Kronshtadt.
Not only due to less distance but alos to the seize of the fleets, you'll found and find more Russian warship from the Baltic Sea Fleet in the Atlantic than from the Black Sea Fleet.

http://i1334.photobucket.com/albums/w641/Walter_Hinteler/a_zps7ee0ec09.jpg

Sea ice in the Baltic Sea isn't such a problem as it was decades ago.
From a study (Proc. Estonian Acad. Sci. Eng., 2007, 13, 3, 189–200):
T
Quote:
he dates of the formation of the first sea ice, of fast ice and of young ice
have shifted to a later time during the 55-year period. At the same time, the dates
of the break-up of fast ice and of the final disappearance of sea ice have moved
earlier even more rapidly. As a conclusion, the number of days with sea ice in the
winter season has decreased significantly.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 03:56 am
You are wrong, Walter. Kronstadt was established after the foundation of St. Petersburg, in 1703. From the Wikipedia article on Kronstadt:

Quote:
Kronstadt was founded by Peter the Great, who took the island of Kotlin from the Swedes in 1703.


The Baltic coast of Ingria, Livonia and Courland (modern Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) were still under Swedish control in 1703.

From the Wikipedia article on Taganrog:

Quote:
The first Russian Navy base, Taganrog was officially founded by Peter the Great on September 12, 1698 and hosted the Azov Flotilla of Catherine the Great (1770–1783). This flotilla subsequently became the Russian Black Sea Fleet. (emphasis added)


Perhaps your confusion arises from the treaty Petr Alexeevitch made with the Turks, handing Taganrog over to them in order to secure peace in the Black Sea region while he pursued his part in the Great Northern War. Yekaterina II, commonly known as Catherine the Great, took it back.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 03:57 am
Ah, i see you wrote the oldest formation. That is arguable, but i won't take the time to argue that.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 04:25 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
This is the "reset" action Obama took that erased Bush's attempt to keep Putin in line.

Excerpt -

Many Poles and Czechs supported entry into the Western alliance eagerly, indeed passionately, as the guarantee that they would never again lose their independence to Germans, Russians, or anyone else. Because they cherish their American security ties as the key to their countries' future safety and freedom, the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic aimed to strengthen those ties through their missile-defense agreements with the United States.
Obama, however, apparently decided that those agreements were less important than the goodwill he might buy with Russia by cancelling them. Maintaining solidarity with allies that look to America as the leader of the free world has never been an Obama administration priority.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/16/how_the_russian_reset_explains_obama_s_foreign_policy



I can't get over how ridiculous the article quoted by Lash is. Overblown rhetoric aside, it's full of completely misleading information. It may play well with the Tea Party faithful, but it would get short shrift anywhere else. Admittedly the Poles and the Czechs don't like the Russians very much, but it doesn't follow that they even like Americans let alone "cherish" their security ties. As far as a lot of them are concerned the West hung them out to dry after WW2. That feeling is even stronger in the Czech Republic; we, (the British) may have left the Poles to the Soviets, but at least we went to war over Poland. The Czechs were handed over to the Nazis in the last great act of appeasement, and they remember it.

Quote:
Maintaining solidarity with allies that look to America as the leader of the free world has never been an Obama administration priority.


This has to be the most ridiculous comment in the whole excerpt. What did Bush do to maintain solidarity? Over Iran, he declared you're with us or against us, rode roughshod over international law, refused to give UN weapons inspector Hans Blix the time he needed. He demonised the French, (Freedom Fries) and his bullying manner not only increased anti Americanism throughout Europe and most of the world, it made it almost obligatory.

As for Mitt Romney, his visit to the UK as part of his presidential campaign will be remembered for one thing only, his slagging off the London Olympics. With a few short words he went from being someone nobody had ever heard, of to being hated with a passion. Conservative prime minister David Cameron expressed relief when Romney did not get in.

Obama is still very popular over here, mostly because he's not Bush. If Obama had spent his entire presidency jacking off on chat roulette, he'd still be more popular than Bush. You fail to realise how much damage Bush did to America's reputation/standing, it's going to take a lot more than two terms of a decent president like Obama to fix it. Maybe if Hilary does two terms, and then another Democrat gets in for two terms your reputation/standing may be back to where it was during Clinton's presidency, but even that's still asking a great deal.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 04:25 am
@Setanta,
The Baltic Fleet was established on 18 May 1703, in Kronshtadt.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 04:36 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Petr Alexeevitch had a fleet built for his campaign against Azov. From Wikipedia:

Quote:
The second campaign involved both ground forces and the Azov fleet, which was built in Moscow Oblast, Voronezh, Bryansk and other regions between winter 1695 and spring 1696. In April 1696, the army of 75,000 headed by Aleksei Shein moved to Azov by land and by ship via the Don River to Taganrog. In early May, they were joined by another fleet led by Peter I. On 27 May, the Russian fleet blocked Azov by sea. On 14 June, the Turkish fleet tried to break the blockade but, after losing two ships, retreated to the sea. After intensive bombardment of the fortress from land and sea, on 17 July the Russian army broke the defense lines and occupied parts of the wall. After heavy fighting, the garrison surrendered on 17 July. After the war, the Russian fleet base was moved to Taganrog and Azov, and 215 ships were built there between 1696 and 1711. In 1711, as a result of the Russo-Turkish War (1710–1711) and the Treaty of the Pruth, Azov was returned to Turkey and the Russian Azov fleet was destroyed.


Your remarks about the Baltic Fleet are only accurate if you say that it is the oldest continuously existent naval formation. It is not the first Russian fleet. The more than 200 ships built at Taganrog and Azov before the 1711 treaty with Turkey constituted a major naval force.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 05:45 am
@Setanta,
Okay.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 05:48 am
As the crisis in Crimea continues, Ukrainian men and women are increasingly signing up for so-called volunteer defense forces. They want to back up their country's army should there indeed be war with Russia.
Enlisting to defend Ukraine
Quote:
Ukraine has since November when protests began against former president Victor Yanukovych, who later bowed to the pressure and fled to Russia. At his request, armed Russian troops descended on the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea to "protect the ethnic Russian community there," according to Moscow.

For Ukraine this show of force was a declaration of war, setting many Ukrainians on the defensive. As a result, young Ukrainians are flooding army recruitment centers. Hundreds of self-declared defense forces have sprung up around the country.

"The National Guards arrive when the army is not effective," Igor Didkovskiy, coordinator of The National Guards of Ukraine said. "We have 3,000 people now from all of Ukraine. We have total mobilization in recruiting centers."

Men and women alike are preparing for grave consequences. To learn more about these young Ukrainians' motives, Natalie Carney spoke with new recruits in Kyiv. [Her report at link above.]
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 06:00 am
I don't think that this really surprises anyone:
Quote:
15:46 18/03/2014
MOSCOW, March 18 (RAPSI) The 1954 decision by leader Nikita Khrushchev to hand over the Crimean peninsula to Ukraine was unconstitutional, President Vladimir Putin said in an official address to federal and regional officials Tuesday.

Crimea, a largely Russian-speaking republic within Ukraine, was part of Russia until it was gifted to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954. President Putin said in his address that the decision was made with evident violations of the constitutional norms prevailing at the time.

The Russian President added that Sunday’s referendum, which resulted in Crimea professing its independence from Ukraine, was conducted in full accord with democratic principles and international law.

Putin added that one must be familiar with Crimean history to understand the desire of its people to reunite with Russia.

The president further added that Ukraine appealed to the UN Charter when declaring independence from USSR, and pointed out that Crimea acted similarly.

President Putin drew parallels between the struggles for independence in Crimea and Kosovo, and accused the West of employing double standards.
Putin signed a decree Monday recognizing Crimea as an independent state, following a referendum Sunday that saw voters overwhelmingly support secession from Ukraine and reunification with Russia.
Source: Russian Legal Information Agency

So, Putin formally asks the parliament to annex Crimea and the City Of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation ... which is the first time since weeks (as far as I remember!) that Putin/Russian acknowledges the special (legal) situation of Sevastopol officially.
More at RT
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » COUP IN KYIV?
  3. » Page 68
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.89 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 02:59:54