quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I also did some reading on the Black Sea and the Montreux Convention. I found out some of what I thought I knew was wrong, and there's more to the pact than I had known.

The Black Sea is probably the most restricted international body of water in the world. The Convention is one of the oldest continuous sea-control treaties in the world, and was observed even by Hitler when he was in a life-and-death struggle with the USSR.

Bottom line, the USN cannot operate carriers in the Black Sea. It cannot operate submarines there. Even if it could it is impossible to covertly enter the Black Sea. The tonnage restrictions on surface combatants in the Convention are extremely restrictive and the permitted time-on-station just a few weeks. Getting into the Black Sea, past and through the center of Istanbul, is one of the most difficult navigations in the world.

Russia, as a riparian power, has much more freedom to use the Black Sea militarily than any NATO power except Turkey. Power projection into Ukraine from the sea is really not an option.

Anyway, it's a naval subject. Google it and read away. Really interesting body of history.

That really is the crux of the poor position the West is in. Unless they form a fairly united NATO (unlikely!), there's nothing the US can do to posture other than blow diplomatic gusts. No carriers, no power projection.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Part of what makes the situation so difficult to control is that Sevastopol still is the main base for the Russsian Black Sea Fleet, and close to 60% of the population of the Krim peninsula are Russians. This combined is the major reason why the situation escalated so quickly there.

Paired with the fact that about 16%-17% of the total population of the Ukraine are ethnical Russians, and probably 1/3rd of the population are decidedly pro-Russia, the current conflict sadly has the potential for civil war, with or without Russian involvement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Also from the BBC news, which battle gets to the top of the popular news items for the day;



[image]local://upfiles/37283/1B4488B0BB194272B9208B9684878A3D.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrKane

BTW: Does anyone notice that Putin is coping exactly scenario used by Adolf Hitler in 1938/39 to take over Czechoslovak ?
- Phase one: He sent saboteurs & troops wearing uniforms without marking to simulate riot in place.
- Phase two: He has used a few unhappy Ukraine politics(with Russian citizenship) to cry that Russian citizen are suffer from very bad Ukrainian's nationalists.
- Phase three: He has sent military forces to invade Crimea to protect Russian citizens.
- Phase four: Western Europe & USA will do nothing, nobody in EU and USA want to die for Crimea.
- Phase five: (I really hope we will not see it) He will takeover remnant parts of demoralized country without any resistant after a few months.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

I know my Eastern European history

Its a history that doesn't come out too well for the subject peoples of the USSR, or its neighbours, or anyone who gets in their way

There are far too many parallels here with what has happened before, and a Russian power that ignores territorial agreements it guarantees, treaties it signs and the borders of its neighbours is one that Europe needs to be afraid of.

The "Might to right" policy was wrong when we did it, wrong when Germany did it, wrong when the USA did it and its wrong when Russia do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Here's a question more in keeping with the nature of the forum , strategy versus politics. IF NATO , or the USA , or the western powers DID agree to oppose this action by Russia, short of a nuclear strike , what could they do? [&:]

Steve, the answer to this question (which is a very relevant question) is 1) lose or 2) nothing. It's way beyond our (US/NATO) effective reach. Every NATO division could be put on the ground there, and outnumbered 10 - 1 in a matter of days, given that it is in Russia's front yard.

The only options in this situation are diplomatic (likely to be ignored by Russia) and economic (likely to take quite a long while before they become effective).

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrKane

BTW: Does anyone notice that Putin is coping exactly scenario used by Adolf Hitler in 1938/39 to take over Czechoslovak ?
- Phase one: He sent saboteurs & troops wearing uniforms without marking to simulate riot in place.
- Phase two: He has used a few unhappy Ukraine politics(with Russian citizenship) to cry that Russian citizen are suffer from very bad Ukrainian's nationalists.
- Phase three: He has sent military forces to invade Crimea to protect Russian citizens.
- Phase four: Western Europe & USA will do nothing, nobody in EU and USA want to die for Crimea.
- Phase five: (I really hope we will not see it) He will takeover remnant parts of demoralized country without any resistant after a few months.

Maybe, and then I start to think...
Manchuria '31
Ethiopia '35
Austria '38
Albania '39
So, if the above (quoted) scenario turns out to be true can we afford to do nothing? OTOH can we afford to do something?[&:]

Next was Poland.
It not end well for world

What history learn my country is never ever trust Russia government. Never.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Here's a question more in keeping with the nature of the forum , strategy versus politics. IF NATO , or the USA , or the western powers DID agree to oppose this action by Russia, short of a nuclear strike , what could they do? [&:]

Steve, the answer to this question (which is a very relevant question) is 1) lose or 2) nothing. It's way beyond our (US/NATO) effective reach. Every NATO division could be put on the ground there, and outnumbered 10 - 1 in a matter of days, given that it is in Russia's front yard.

The only options in this situation are diplomatic (likely to be ignored by Russia) and economic (likely to take quite a long while before they become effective).

Since no one else has recommended positive , active steps , let me take a swing at the ball.

If I were POTUS , I'd...
1) dispatch two ABM equipped aegis cruisers/destroyers to Polish ports as a temporary "missile defense shield". Then begin immediate re-opening of a permanent in country shield. Open this to other countries.
2) Request NATO to offer temporary membership to affected countries in the area and begins talks toward permanent membership. Offer a mutual assistance/defense treaty to the Ukraine.
3) Extend an invitation to Putin to visit DC and discuss "currant mutual matters".
4) Say nothing specific to the press. DO say something like "Russia will do whatever Russia must do. And we will do whatever we must do". Nothing specific , nothing threatening , yet in itself very challenging. Basically saying "We won't tell you what to do. BUT you won't tell us what to do either".
5) Do nothing official to screw up economic relations or trade with Russia. But since the USA is a big , inefficient, bureaucratic democracy , "paperwork confusion happens". [:D]

And to totally drive Putin nuts , offer him full NATO membership and a mutual defense treaty with the USA. To further "gore his ox" , attach it to a "most favored trade status" with the US.

How's this guys? [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


Since no one else has recommended positive , active steps , let me take a swing at the ball.

If I were POTUS , I'd...
1) dispatch two ABM equipped aegis cruisers/destroyers to Polish ports as a temporary "missile defense shield". Then begin immediate re-opening of a permanent in country shield. Open this to other countries.
2) Request NATO to offer temporary membership to affected countries in the area and begins talks toward permanent membership. Offer a mutual assistance/defense treaty to the Ukraine.
3) Extend an invitation to Putin to visit DC and discuss "currant mutual matters".
4) Say nothing specific to the press. DO say something like "Russia will do whatever Russia must do. And we will do whatever we must do". Nothing specific , nothing threatening , yet in itself very challenging. Basically saying "We won't tell you what to do. BUT you won't tell us what to do either".
5) Do nothing official to screw up economic relations or trade with Russia. But since the USA is a big , inefficient, bureaucratic democracy , "paperwork confusion happens". [:D]

And to totally drive Putin nuts , offer him full NATO membership and a mutual defense treaty with the USA. To further "gore his ox" , attach it to a "most favored trade status" with the US.

How's this guys? [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I also did some reading on the Black Sea and the Montreux Convention. I found out some of what I thought I knew was wrong, and there's more to the pact than I had known.

The Black Sea is probably the most restricted international body of water in the world. The Convention is one of the oldest continuous sea-control treaties in the world, and was observed even by Hitler when he was in a life-and-death struggle with the USSR.

Bottom line, the USN cannot operate carriers in the Black Sea. It cannot operate submarines there. Even if it could it is impossible to covertly enter the Black Sea. The tonnage restrictions on surface combatants in the Convention are extremely restrictive and the permitted time-on-station just a few weeks. Getting into the Black Sea, past and through the center of Istanbul, is one of the most difficult navigations in the world.

Russia, as a riparian power, has much more freedom to use the Black Sea militarily than any NATO power except Turkey. Power projection into Ukraine from the sea is really not an option.

Anyway, it's a naval subject. Google it and read away. Really interesting body of history.

That really is the crux of the poor position the West is in. Unless they form a fairly united NATO (unlikely!), there's nothing the US can do to posture other than blow diplomatic gusts. No carriers, no power projection.

No naval power projection. Lots of routes in from NATO nations such as Poland.

quote:

It's not a NATO matter unless NATO makes it one. ( See "Libya.") I do not expect they will unless fighting came toward the border of a NATO country. If western Ukraine forces, fighting Russia, asked for supplies, logistics, intel, and medical would NATO respond with a yes? I don't know. I don't think it would be a simple on/off switch situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Here's a question more in keeping with the nature of the forum , strategy versus politics. IF NATO , or the USA , or the western powers DID agree to oppose this action by Russia, short of a nuclear strike , what could they do? [&:]

Steve, the answer to this question (which is a very relevant question) is 1) lose or 2) nothing. It's way beyond our (US/NATO) effective reach. Every NATO division could be put on the ground there, and outnumbered 10 - 1 in a matter of days, given that it is in Russia's front yard.

The only options in this situation are diplomatic (likely to be ignored by Russia) and economic (likely to take quite a long while before they become effective).

Since no one else has recommended positive , active steps , let me take a swing at the ball.

If I were POTUS , I'd...
1) dispatch two ABM equipped aegis cruisers/destroyers to Polish ports as a temporary "missile defense shield". Then begin immediate re-opening of a permanent in country shield. Open this to other countries.
2) Request NATO to offer temporary membership to affected countries in the area and begins talks toward permanent membership. Offer a mutual assistance/defense treaty to the Ukraine.
3) Extend an invitation to Putin to visit DC and discuss "currant mutual matters".
4) Say nothing specific to the press. DO say something like "Russia will do whatever Russia must do. And we will do whatever we must do". Nothing specific , nothing threatening , yet in itself very challenging. Basically saying "We won't tell you what to do. BUT you won't tell us what to do either".
5) Do nothing official to screw up economic relations or trade with Russia. But since the USA is a big , inefficient, bureaucratic democracy , "paperwork confusion happens". [:D]

And to totally drive Putin nuts , offer him full NATO membership and a mutual defense treaty with the USA. To further "gore his ox" , attach it to a "most favored trade status" with the US.

How's this guys? [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Here's a question more in keeping with the nature of the forum , strategy versus politics. IF NATO , or the USA , or the western powers DID agree to oppose this action by Russia, short of a nuclear strike , what could they do? [&:]

Steve, the answer to this question (which is a very relevant question) is 1) lose or 2) nothing. It's way beyond our (US/NATO) effective reach. Every NATO division could be put on the ground there, and outnumbered 10 - 1 in a matter of days, given that it is in Russia's front yard.

The only options in this situation are diplomatic (likely to be ignored by Russia) and economic (likely to take quite a long while before they become effective).

Since no one else has recommended positive , active steps , let me take a swing at the ball.

If I were POTUS , I'd...
1) dispatch two ABM equipped aegis cruisers/destroyers to Polish ports as a temporary "missile defense shield". Then begin immediate re-opening of a permanent in country shield. Open this to other countries.
2) Request NATO to offer temporary membership to affected countries in the area and begins talks toward permanent membership. Offer a mutual assistance/defense treaty to the Ukraine.
3) Extend an invitation to Putin to visit DC and discuss "currant mutual matters".
4) Say nothing specific to the press. DO say something like "Russia will do whatever Russia must do. And we will do whatever we must do". Nothing specific , nothing threatening , yet in itself very challenging. Basically saying "We won't tell you what to do. BUT you won't tell us what to do either".
5) Do nothing official to screw up economic relations or trade with Russia. But since the USA is a big , inefficient, bureaucratic democracy , "paperwork confusion happens". [:D]

And to totally drive Putin nuts , offer him full NATO membership and a mutual defense treaty with the USA. To further "gore his ox" , attach it to a "most favored trade status" with the US.

How's this guys? [:D]

You'd offer a mutual defense treaty with Ukraine? You know Russian troops are active in the Crimea? Ukraine would be justified in calling for the US to mobilize if there was a treaty in place. What would you do to honour your new treaty?

If you aren't willing to fight Russia on the ground I do not think it is a good idea to bluff. Putin will just laugh and let internal politics take down the president for having his bluff called.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Here's a question more in keeping with the nature of the forum , strategy versus politics. IF NATO , or the USA , or the western powers DID agree to oppose this action by Russia, short of a nuclear strike , what could they do? [&:]

Steve, the answer to this question (which is a very relevant question) is 1) lose or 2) nothing. It's way beyond our (US/NATO) effective reach. Every NATO division could be put on the ground there, and outnumbered 10 - 1 in a matter of days, given that it is in Russia's front yard.

The only options in this situation are diplomatic (likely to be ignored by Russia) and economic (likely to take quite a long while before they become effective).

Since no one else has recommended positive , active steps , let me take a swing at the ball.

If I were POTUS , I'd...
1) dispatch two ABM equipped aegis cruisers/destroyers to Polish ports as a temporary "missile defense shield". Then begin immediate re-opening of a permanent in country shield. Open this to other countries.
2) Request NATO to offer temporary membership to affected countries in the area and begins talks toward permanent membership. Offer a mutual assistance/defense treaty to the Ukraine.
3) Extend an invitation to Putin to visit DC and discuss "currant mutual matters".
4) Say nothing specific to the press. DO say something like "Russia will do whatever Russia must do. And we will do whatever we must do". Nothing specific , nothing threatening , yet in itself very challenging. Basically saying "We won't tell you what to do. BUT you won't tell us what to do either".
5) Do nothing official to screw up economic relations or trade with Russia. But since the USA is a big , inefficient, bureaucratic democracy , "paperwork confusion happens". [:D]

And to totally drive Putin nuts , offer him full NATO membership and a mutual defense treaty with the USA. To further "gore his ox" , attach it to a "most favored trade status" with the US.

How's this guys? [:D]

At which point, Putin accepts NATO membership and the mutual defence treaty, carries on in the Ukraine regardless, and shouts loudly to the press of how "Russia and America now have a common understanding on European affairs". NATO members promptly riot in collective disbelief at American stupidity and the integrity of the NATO Charter is utterly undermined.

Congratulations, America has just thrown away seventy years of work building up mutual defence in Europe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Here's a question more in keeping with the nature of the forum , strategy versus politics. IF NATO , or the USA , or the western powers DID agree to oppose this action by Russia, short of a nuclear strike , what could they do? [&:]

Steve, the answer to this question (which is a very relevant question) is 1) lose or 2) nothing. It's way beyond our (US/NATO) effective reach. Every NATO division could be put on the ground there, and outnumbered 10 - 1 in a matter of days, given that it is in Russia's front yard.

The only options in this situation are diplomatic (likely to be ignored by Russia) and economic (likely to take quite a long while before they become effective).

Since no one else has recommended positive , active steps , let me take a swing at the ball.

If I were POTUS , I'd...
1) dispatch two ABM equipped aegis cruisers/destroyers to Polish ports as a temporary "missile defense shield". Then begin immediate re-opening of a permanent in country shield. Open this to other countries.
2) Request NATO to offer temporary membership to affected countries in the area and begins talks toward permanent membership. Offer a mutual assistance/defense treaty to the Ukraine.
3) Extend an invitation to Putin to visit DC and discuss "currant mutual matters".
4) Say nothing specific to the press. DO say something like "Russia will do whatever Russia must do. And we will do whatever we must do". Nothing specific , nothing threatening , yet in itself very challenging. Basically saying "We won't tell you what to do. BUT you won't tell us what to do either".
5) Do nothing official to screw up economic relations or trade with Russia. But since the USA is a big , inefficient, bureaucratic democracy , "paperwork confusion happens". [:D]

And to totally drive Putin nuts , offer him full NATO membership and a mutual defense treaty with the USA. To further "gore his ox" , attach it to a "most favored trade status" with the US.

How's this guys? [:D]

At which point, Putin accepts NATO membership and the mutual defence treaty, carries on in the Ukraine regardless, and shouts loudly to the press of how "Russia and America now have a common understanding on European affairs". NATO members promptly riot in collective disbelief at American stupidity and the integrity of the NATO Charter is utterly undermined.

Congratulations, America has just thrown away seventy years of work building up mutual defence in Europe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think this is a great discussion, although personally I think you are being a bit soft. I would bomb the B****** back to the stone age.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think this is a great discussion, although personally I think you are being a bit soft. I would bomb the B****** back to the stone age.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Warspite, your attempts to get get this thread locked with your comments are quite childish. Just go back to "your" forum will you?