US, NATO Troops Parade Near Russian Border in Estonia

polgara · Mar 2, 2015

Montecresto said:
You mean to say that you think EU countries will drive Putin out of Crimea!!!!!!????? If I were Putin lol. I support Putin's long standing opposition to NATO expansion. He has laid down his line. It's laughable that people think Putin is on some crusade, that Europe is threatened, the foolish comparisons to him and hitler, current events and the late 1930's, all bs. Putin has been giving speeches about his position on NATO expansion for years now. When do Westerners listen to what other leaders want? Those that have, like the senior fellow at CFR, John J. Mearsheimer have, and understand this quite well. But in ignorance and belligerence, most will advance a false narrative that could lead to unintended consequences.

Oh no, Monte. I think the opposite will happen. I believe the EU will go along with Putin on Crimea - the Crimeans did vote to go back under the Russian umbrella, after all - so that's not an issue, IMO. What I meant was the EU countries will try to find a way to encourage the Ukraine to allow a "land bridge" through their country so Russia can get to their Crimean seaport - maybe a forgiveness of some of the billions of debt they owe for the oil and gas Russia has provided over the years? Most of the Ukrainean people do speak the Russian language so it's not like a totally new foreign country is involved, and the Ukraine was always a part of the Russian empire until Khruschev gave them autonomy. I don't know how all this will play out, but that's my thoughts today - subject to change, of course. :lol:

Rogue Valley · Mar 2, 2015

polgara said:
Oh no, Monte. I think the opposite will happen. I believe the EU will go along with Putin on Crimea - the Crimeans did vote to go back under the Russian umbrella, after all - so that's not an issue, IMO.

As I believe I explained to you in a different thread, the only legal way Crimea could be returned to Russia is if *all* Ukrainians voted in a referendum to do so. The Crimean peninsula legally belongs to all of the 46 million Ukrainian people, not just the 2 million who happen to live there. How can a mere 4% of citizens decide the fate of land that belongs to 100% of the citizens?

polgara said:
What I meant was the EU countries will try to find a way to encourage the Ukraine to allow a "land bridge" through their country so Russia can get to their Crimean seaport - maybe a forgiveness of some of the billions of debt they owe for the oil and gas Russia has provided over the years?

A) If the Russians had not taken Crimea by force in 2014 then, B) they would not now need a land bridge to Crimea in 2015 ... B does not naturally nor legally follow A.

polgara said:
Most of the Ukrainean people do speak the Russian language...

Although most Ukrainian people 'can' speak the Russian language to various degree, Ukrainian is still the predominant (65%) national language.

polgara said:
...so it's not like a totally new foreign country is involved, and the Ukraine was always a part of the Russian empire until Khruschev gave them autonomy.

Khrushchev didn't give Ukraine autonomy. By decree of the Supreme Soviet, he gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Ukraine became an independent nation with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. All of the former SSR republics and the Baltic States became independent nations when Mikhail Gorbachev signed the papers dissolving the USSR on 25 December 1991. At this time, all parties agreed that Crimea was legally a part of Ukraine.

On 26 December 1991, the Russian Federation was born as a new nation, and so was Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Lithuania, Turkmenistan, Latvia, and Estonia.

flogger · Mar 2, 2015

Simpleχity;1064374028 said:
It's not up to Putin to decide what is best for another nation. If he wants that power, then let him run for political office in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, etc.

Indeed. As article 2 of the UN charter clearly states.

"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations"

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf

polgara · Mar 2, 2015

Simpleχity;1064374268 said:
As I believe I explained to you in a different thread, the only legal way Crimea could be returned to Russia is if *all* Ukrainians voted in a referendum to do so. The Crimean peninsula legally belongs to all of the 46 million Ukrainian people, not just the 2 million who happen to live there. How can a mere 4% of citizens decide the fate of land that belongs to 100% of the citizens?

A) If the Russians had not taken Crimea by force in 2014 then, B) they would not now need a land bridge to Crimea in 2015 ... B does not naturally nor legally follow A.

Although most Ukrainian people 'can' speak the Russian language to various degree, Ukrainian is still the predominant (65%) national language.

Khrushchev didn't give Ukraine autonomy. By decree of the Supreme Soviet, he gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Ukraine became an independent nation with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. All of the former SSR republics and the Baltic States became independent nations when Mikhail Gorbachev signed the papers dissolving the USSR on 25 December 1991. At this time, all parties agreed that Crimea was legally a part of Ukraine.

On 26 December 1991, the Russian Federation was born as a new nation, and so was Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Lithuania, Turkmenistan, Latvia, and Estonia.

Good morning, Simplexity. :2wave:

I always look forward to reading your posts! :thumbs:

Do you have what might be a workable solution to this problem? Is Putin "testing the waters," so to speak? Honestly, I'm about ready to make a dartboard at this point, and let the Fates decide the outcome of not only this, but every other foreign problem we seem to have gotten involved in! :mrgreen: I'm not an isolationist, but we do have sufficient domestic problems to handle to keep us occupied for a long time! Getting our grid and other infrastructure repaired/updated/ - whatever word you want to use, would be a priority for me. It would provide jobs, and benefit all of us in the long run. We're spending money all over the world to help beleaguered people, and that's noble, but when does our country get added to the "to-do" list?

austrianecon · Mar 2, 2015

Luftwaffe said:
The mission being overseen by the CIA means nothing, at the end of the day, the SEALS were the ones who carried out the entire mission, and they did so successfully.

Actually, it means a great deal. Intelligence apparatus (CIA, MI6, BND, you name it) stick with their tier one forces on those kinds of operations. Rarely do they shop a tier one mission out. CIA and ST6 are buddy buddy and have been for years. Basically longer then you've been alive. Lot of ex-SEALs in SAD (Special Activities Division) and Camp Peary and Harvey Point are facilities they both use (Camp Peary and Harvey Point) are just down the road from Little Creek so it was given it would go to ST6. Harvey Point is where they trained for the OP. Also SEALs were designated the northeastern provinces on the border with Pakistan, meaning that was their AO and it would have taken CIA or JSOC commander to override that and that wasn't gonna happen as I explained before.. McRaven is a SEAL guy and CIA love them to death.

CAG (Delta), 75th, SF, or even MarSoc could have been tapped with that mission if needed and done it. It was a cookie cutter operation that every one of those units do in training all the time. Remember that mission was barely successful and the pucker factor was quiet high. So in that Operation.. ST6 killed Bin Laden, got some intel.. but failed to completely destroy a stealth Blackhawk.. I am sure those operators from ST6 wouldn't call it a success all around as they let stealth tech get into the hands of Pakistan who probably allowed a few countries have a look see.

Luftwaffe said:
You really are ignorant as to how to judge a unit.

Coming from a kid, I'll take that as a compliment. Btw.. you said Special Operations forces use the SCAR-L/H and they are just glorified infantry.. well SEALs (include ST6) aren't infantry and why they usually have the 75th go with them in QRF form or joint operations.

Weapon wise.. Special Operations get their pick of the litter so to speak. Delta Force is using the H&K416/417 as that's their baby (went to H&K to design it). Special Operations in general tossed SCAR systems a few years back after SEALs and Rangers found issues with it. It's still in the inventory but not highly used. Most are using M4A1 with conversion kits from H&K that gives the ability of the H&K416. Fact is they are using a weapon system that Marines have (M27). Fact is the weapon that killed Bin Laden was an H&K416.

Rogue Valley · Mar 3, 2015

polgara said:
Good morning, Simplexity. :2wave:

Good Morning polgara

polgara said:
I always look forward to reading your posts! :thumbs:

Thank you kindly. I have lived extensively in both Crimea and mainland Ukraine. I speak both languages (Ukrainian/Russian) well enough to get along. I am very familiar with Ukraine, so if you have any questions just ask.

polgara said:
Do you have what might be a workable solution to this problem?

Crimea is lost. Not legally, but via force applied by a neighbor with nuclear weapons and a far superior military. The international community should continue to isolate Crimea and maintain sanctions against Russia until either Crimea is returned to its rightful owner or an agreed-to compensation is paid by the Russian Federation for Ukraine's territorial loss.

Donbass is problematic. Although the majority of people in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions speak Russian as their first language, 'ethnic Russians' are a minority. What you have then, is a situation where ethnic Russians are trying to militarily impose their will on all Russian speakers in these regions, even though the ethnic majority are Ukrainian. In addition, the border here is open, so Russia can freely supply the rebels with manpower and armaments at will. IMHO, unless Putin abandons his ambition of creating a land-bridge to Crimea, a peaceful and comprehensive settlement is impossible. It is also impossible unless the rebels abandon their stated ambition of creating a modern 'Novorossiya'. The original Novorossiya (New Russia-1764–1873) was territory in present day Ukraine that was administered by Governor-General Grigory Potemkin on behalf of Czarina Catherine the Great. The image below denotes the modern Novorossiya that is a rebel goal. This includes all land up to the Dneiper River and the entire Sea of Azov/Black Sea coastline of Ukraine. The map below could very well be the result if Ukraine did not confront the rebel/Russian forces.

polgara said:
Is Putin "testing the waters," so to speak?

Definitely. Georgia was the first test in 2008. Today it is Ukraine. If this test is not rebuffed, yet another will follow. I would wager either Moldova, Latvia, or Estonia.

polgara said:
Honestly, I'm about ready to make a dartboard at this point, and let the Fates decide the outcome of not only this, but every other foreign problem we seem to have gotten involved in! :mrgreen: I'm not an isolationist, but we do have sufficient domestic problems to handle to keep us occupied for a long time! Getting our grid and other infrastructure repaired/updated/ - whatever word you want to use, would be a priority for me. It would provide jobs, and benefit all of us in the long run. We're spending money all over the world to help beleaguered people, and that's noble, but when does our country get added to the "to-do" list?

I realize and appreciate your concerns. But aggression left unchecked yields more aggression and eventually far greater costs by kicking the can down the road. As is obvious, Obama's 'Russian reset' policy of 2009 is an abject failure. Without a determined reorientation, Putin will continue to test our resolve at every opportunity with ever-increasing costs.

polgara · Mar 3, 2015

Simpleχity;1064377681 said:
Good Morning polgara

Thank you kindly. I have lived extensively in both Crimea and mainland Ukraine. I speak both languages (Ukrainian/Russian) well enough to get along. I am very familiar with Ukraine, so if you have any questions just ask.

Crimea is lost. Not legally, but via force applied by a neighbor with nuclear weapons and a far superior military. The international community should continue to isolate Crimea and maintain sanctions against Russia until either Crimea is returned to its rightful owner or an agreed-to compensation is paid by the Russian Federation for Ukraine's territorial loss.

Donbass is problematic. Although the majority of people in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions speak Russian as their first language, 'ethnic Russians' are a minority. What you have then, is a situation where ethnic Russians are trying to militarily impose their will on all Russian speakers in these regions, even though the ethnic majority are Ukrainian. In addition, the border here is open, so Russia can freely supply the rebels with manpower and armaments at will. IMHO, unless Putin abandons his ambition of creating a land-bridge to Crimea, a peaceful and comprehensive settlement is impossible. It is also impossible unless the rebels abandon their stated ambition of creating a modern 'Novorossiya'. The original Novorossiya (New Russia-1764–1873) was territory in present day Ukraine that was administered by Governor-General Grigory Potemkin on behalf of Czarina Catherine the Great. The image below denotes the modern Novorossiya that is a rebel goal. This includes all land up to the Dneiper River and the entire Sea of Azov/Black Sea coastline of Ukraine. The map below could very well be the result if Ukraine did not confront the rebel/Russian forces.

Definitely. Georgia was the first test in 2008. Today it is Ukraine. If this test is not rebuffed, yet another will follow. I would wager either Moldova, Latvia, or Estonia.

I realize and appreciate your concerns. But aggression left unchecked yields more aggression and eventually far greater costs by kicking the can down the road. As is obvious, Obama's 'Russian reset' policy of 2009 is an abject failure. Without a determined reorientation, Putin will continue to test our resolve at every opportunity with ever-increasing costs.

Thank you for a most excellent explanation and map! :thumbs: Putin still feels he needs the Crimean seaport, though, so that hasn't changed. However, if I'm reading the map correctly, the Ukraine will have no access to the Black Sea if the rebels succeed in their goal to make a "New Russia." Since the Ukraine is largely farmland, and probably serves as the breadbasket for the region, and since the rebels seem to be aligned more with Russia than Kiev, what is the Ukrainian government to do? They have little choice but to negotiate to keep what's theirs, and I think the world agrees with them. Putin is not a careless man in planning his chess moves, so what's next?!

Further, since the rebels didn't honor the cease-fire they agreed to, there's a big lack of trust to overcome to begin with. It will be interesting to see what solution is found.

flogger · Mar 3, 2015

polgara said:
Thank you for a most excellent explanation and map! :thumbs: Putin still feels he needs the Crimean seaport, though, so that hasn't changed.

Russia had already leased the port of Sevastopol from Ukraine until at least 2042 so there was little threat there. This lease was a continuation of one agreed to back in 1997

Kharkiv Pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further, since the rebels didn't honor the cease-fire they agreed to, there's a big lack of trust to overcome to begin with. It will be interesting to see what solution is found.

Putin uses these bogus cease fires to rearm and resupply his proxies for the next round of the fighting. The Ukrainian forces on the other hand are running out of everything with no commensurate resupply.

polgara · Mar 3, 2015

flogger said:
Russia had already leased the port of Sevastopol from Ukraine until at least 2042 so there was little threat there. This lease was a continuation of one agreed to back in 1997

Kharkiv Pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Putin uses these bogus cease fires to rearm and resupply his proxies for the next round of the fighting. The Ukrainian forces on the other hand are running out of everything with no commensurate resupply.

Greetings, flogger. :2wave:

I thought that we were considering arming them - is that still on? The EU needs to step up to the plate, too, with something more than rhetoric... like paying for some of the cost. I think that Merkel and company tried to defuse the situation, and I commend that, but when the rebels immediately broke the cease-fire that they had agreed to, we saw that they were neither serious nor honest. What next?

flogger · Mar 3, 2015

polgara said:
Greetings, flogger. :2wave:

I thought that we were considering arming them - is that still on? The EU needs to step up to the plate, too, with something more than rhetoric... like paying for some of the cost. I think that Merkel and company tried to defuse the situation, and I commend that, but when the rebels immediately broke the cease-fire that they had agreed to, we saw that they were neither serious nor honest. What next?

Hi polgara

I all honesty even though the US is best placed to arm Ukraine, I'd say for the sake of political expediency it should stay out of it altogether. By all means let the Europeans themselves do the arming. In Russia they demonize the US at every turn so don't give them the excuse to do so some more. The UK and France have quite sophisticated weaponry that would be more than a match for anything Russia can field. Diplomacy is not going to solve this I'm afraid and if we don't become a lot more proactive its the Baltics turn next for the same Russian subversion tactics

Montecresto · Mar 3, 2015

polgara said:
Oh no, Monte. I think the opposite will happen. I believe the EU will go along with Putin on Crimea - the Crimeans did vote to go back under the Russian umbrella, after all - so that's not an issue, IMO. What I meant was the EU countries will try to find a way to encourage the Ukraine to allow a "land bridge" through their country so Russia can get to their Crimean seaport - maybe a forgiveness of some of the billions of debt they owe for the oil and gas Russia has provided over the years? Most of the Ukrainean people do speak the Russian language so it's not like a totally new foreign country is involved, and the Ukraine was always a part of the Russian empire until Khruschev gave them autonomy. I don't know how all this will play out, but that's my thoughts today - subject to change, of course. :lol:

Ah, I see. Sorry to have misunderstood you. I agree with you on that.

Montecresto · Mar 3, 2015

flogger said:
Well you have a number of problems there

a) Providing any evidence that the West armed or financed the Maidan revolt
b) That the majority of Ukrainians living in Donetsk and Luhansk are not ethnic Russian
c) That the Ukraine was not just about to join NATO but was negotiating EU membership

But don't let these inconvenient facts get in the way of your usual tedious anti Western/US rant

No, you have problems. But too many have tried to help you. Best to let you ramble about. Still tickled that Putin rubs such a rash on you, lol.

Montecresto · Mar 3, 2015

Simpleχity;1064374028 said:
It's not up to Putin to decide what is best for another nation. If he wants that power, then let him run for political office in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, etc.

Nor are any such decisions up to you or Obama.

Montecresto · Mar 3, 2015

Jack Hays said:
I completely agree that Putin's move on Crimea was a response to Ukraine's westward turn. That turn was not the product of Western interference, but reflected the aspirations of Ukrainians. Putin's objectives are to break the Ukrainian government, cow the EU and destroy NATO.

I just don't know why you think Putin wants anything more than a freeze on NATO expansion.

flogger · Mar 3, 2015

Montecresto said:
No, you have problems. But too many have tried to help you. Best to let you ramble about. Still tickled that Putin rubs such a rash on you, lol.

By all means keep cuddling up to your pet despot. Why should anyone else care given its only your own credibility you are trashing by doing so.

flogger · Mar 3, 2015

Montecresto said:
Nor are any such decisions up to you or Obama.

Thats right . They are up to the Ukrainians and they don't want the Russians back again but want to join the EU, not that you care a jot about their aspirations

Montecresto · Mar 3, 2015

flogger said:
Thats right . They are up to the Ukrainians and they don't want the Russians back again but want to join the EU, not that you care a jot about their aspirations

The Ukrainians should do as they wish. And you should understand your position.

Jack Hays · Mar 3, 2015

Montecresto said:
I just don't know why you think Putin wants anything more than a freeze on NATO expansion.

If that were all he wanted there would not have been (and still be) continuing violence in eastern Ukraine. I will concede that if our policy were led by Henry Kissinger rather than the current crowd a proposition along those lines would have been put in front of Putin.

Montecresto · Mar 3, 2015

Jack Hays said:
If that were all he wanted there would not have been (and still be) continuing violence in eastern Ukraine. I will concede that if our policy were led by Henry Kissinger rather than the current crowd a proposition along those lines would have been put in front of Putin.

How is it that Russia supporting those whom seek self determination in Eastern Ukraine is different than those that seek the same in countries farther south that the US has armed to continue their violence in an attempt to realize their self determination. Also, it was agreed over twenty five years ago during negotiations between Gorbachev and Bush 1 that there would be no NATO expansion, nevertheless, there have been at least eleven. At this point, bitching about it isn't going to accomplish anything. Putin has given speeches for years complaining about this subject, and the events in the fall of 2013 appear to have been the last straw with him. Seemingly, he has laid down his non-symbolic red line, and he's not budging. Seems to me, Western powers should accept the fact that Russia won't be tolerating any further NATO or EU influence on its borders. And, it's really not unreasonable either.

Jack Hays · Mar 3, 2015

Montecresto said:
How is it that Russia supporting those whom seek self determination in Eastern Ukraine is different than those that seek the same in countries farther south that the US has armed to continue their violence in an attempt to realize their self determination. Also, it was agreed over twenty five years ago during negotiations between Gorbachev and Bush 1 that there would be no NATO expansion, nevertheless, there have been at least eleven. At this point, bitching about it isn't going to accomplish anything. Putin has given speeches for years complaining about this subject, and the events in the fall of 2013 appear to have been the last straw with him. Seemingly, he has laid down his non-symbolic red line, and he's not budging. Seems to me, Western powers should accept the fact that Russia won't be tolerating any further NATO or EU influence on its borders. And, it's really not unreasonable either.

There was never agreement not to expand NATO. And those seeking self-determination in eastern Ukraine are Russian troops.

Montecresto · Mar 4, 2015

Jack Hays said:
There was never agreement not to expand NATO. And those seeking self-determination in eastern Ukraine are Russian troops.

Sure, apparently Gorbachev failed to trust but verify!

Second, NATO’s expansion antagonized Russia, which thought its goodwill in ending the Cold War had not been reciprocated. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov referred to this sentiment when he wrote that “various attempts are being made to contain Russia, including through the eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in vio- lation of previous assurances given to Moscow.”3

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-608.pdf

What were these assurances? Russians, with some American support, insist that when the Cold War ended and they agreed to the reuni- fication of Germany within NATO, they received verbal assurances that NATO would not expand further. “Any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable,” Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev told Secretary of State James Baker in 1990. “I agree,” Baker replied.4 But there is some confusion about what the discussions actually meant, especially since positions changed over time. The Russians were furious they had been careless or, worse, misled. “The current collision between Russia and NATO could have been avoided if the Soviet leadership had at that time . . . codified [American and German] intentions not to expand NATO,” observed foreign affairs ana- lyst Alexei Pushkov. “The Russian leadership is saying that it will not be fooled again.”5

Brush up on just who the separatists in eastern Ukraine are, and what it is they're fighting for.

http://time.com/74405/exclusive-pro-russian-separatists-eastern-ukraine/

Thoreau72 · Mar 4, 2015

Wiggen said:
Russia did it for decades in Cuba until it became such a economic parasite that they got the hell out.

Are you old enough to remember the showdown between JFK and the Kremlin?

flogger · Mar 4, 2015

Jack Hays said:
There was never agreement not to expand NATO. And those seeking self-determination in eastern Ukraine are Russian troops.

Like I've said often before. Why should Russia's security concerns take precedence over those of her neighbours ? Historically Its not like Russia does not have some form in this area after all. In light of what has happened to Ukraine I view the alliance of these smaller Eastern European nations as very prudent move on their part. They knew it would only be a matter of time before the return of the Russians and life as a 'buffer zone' was a none too utopian experience for them last time.

Rogue Valley · Mar 4, 2015

Montecresto said:
Russians, with some American support, insist that when the Cold War ended and they agreed to the reuni- fication of Germany within NATO, they received verbal assurances that NATO would not expand further.

What I find odd (and extremely hypocritical) is your insistence that NATO honor a verbal agreement when you have no problem with Russia violating signed documents.

United Nations Charter
Declaration No. 142-Н of the Soviet of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union
Belavezha Accords
The Alma-Ata Protocols
Helsinki Final Act
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

Wiggen · Mar 4, 2015

Henry David said:
Are you old enough to remember the showdown between JFK and the Kremlin?

Not only do I remember it - I more or less lived it. My dad was stationed at a SAC base in North Dakota and I went to sleep at night listening to the B-52's orbiting the base, waiting for the go signal.

US, NATO Troops Parade Near Russian Border in Estonia

polgara

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

flogger

polgara

austrianecon

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

polgara

flogger

polgara

flogger

Montecresto

Montecresto

Montecresto

Montecresto

flogger

flogger

Montecresto

Jack Hays

Traveler

Montecresto

Jack Hays

Traveler

Montecresto

Thoreau72

flogger

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

Wiggen