swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,984
- Jun 25, 2013
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
one 45's ex-officials said that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine as 45's policies regarding NATO and Europe were very much to Putin's likingDo the citizens of the existing NATO countries have a say? As a Canadian and Brit I fully support welcoming both Finland and Sweden into NATO. But we should consider that the wider NATO spreads the more likely the West's sons and daughters will be sent into the grinder. I'm alright with that, but are America's parents willing to sacrifice their sons for the seemingly distant places like Finland, or even existing members like Bulgaria? This POTUS? No question, but the last POTUS and maybe the next POTUSes (is that POTI?) I'm not so sure. While my southern neighbour doesn't shirk from bombing Muslim despots and intervening where they perceive interest, they also have a strong isolationist streak.
It's now history rather than contemporary politics so I think it's safe (from Moderator sanction) to wonder here how POTUS45 would have reacted to Putin's invasion of Ukraine and how he would have dealt with Europe, NATO and its expansion.
That seems like a reason TO invade, to strike while the opportunity presents itself. Mind you, POTUS44 didn't do much when Russia took Crimea, nor POTUS43 when Russia annexed part of Georgia. So, maybe Putin figured no matter the POTUS the US wouldn't care what he did in Ukraine.one 45's ex-officials said that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine as 45's policies regarding NATO and Europe were very much to Putin's liking
one 45's ex-officials said that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine as 45's policies regarding NATO and Europe were very much to Putin's liking
That seems like a reason TO invade, to strike while the opportunity presents itself. Mind you, POTUS44 didn't do much when Russia took Crimea, nor POTUS43 when Russia annexed a good part of Georgia. So, maybe Putin figured no matter the POTUS that the US wouldn't care what he did in Ukraine.
Turkey is not allowing any warships through - any, meaning none.More issues for lawyers to get rich, since the Montreux Convention is the only paper with an international approval. - what Turkey independently decides is not really of international significance. Since Bulgaria and Rumania border the Black Sea and are NATO members as well already invalidates such a law enactment. That Erdogan is "unofficially" supporting another dictator is no secret and he's got his own war-crimes to justify.
Preventing expansion of NATO was one pf Putin's stated war aims. Since of of 45's oft-stated opinions was his disdain for NATO and his willingness to pull out, Putin could have just waited for 45 to destroy NATO, and he could restore the Russian hegemony that predated the collapse of the USSR and the end pf the Russian Empire.That seems like a reason TO invade, to strike while the opportunity presents itself. Mind you, POTUS44 didn't do much when Russia took Crimea, nor POTUS43 when Russia annexed part of Georgia. So, maybe Putin figured no matter the POTUS the US wouldn't care what he did in Ukraine.
Sorry, I don't understand this argument. It is based on what? Neither USSR nor RF dared to attack any NATO country or to engage NATO forces directly in any serious confrontation, with some exceptions such as air battles during the early Cold War. Or, the most recent - Battle of Khasham.But we should consider that the wider NATO spreads the more likely the West's sons and daughters will be sent into the grinder
So far, the loss of Mi-14 and two pilots were confirmed in Ukraine. Since Mi-14 is an antisubmarine warfare helicopter, it could be involved in both transport missions and ASW operations.More on Russian claims. Notice how Ukrainian loses for same event grow day to day.
This is related to the supposed Ukrainian assault on Snake Island. No evidence of it has been shown other than Ukrainian vids showing they attacked the Russians there, with visually confirmed Russian loses. Maybe they did and failed, but so far Russians provided no evidence only claims.
View attachment 668083
A few days later:
View attachment 668084
And sometimes they add a few ships too:
View attachment 668085
It was confirmed in Ukraine. Colonel Ihor Bedzai and Captain Serhi Muschitsky were buried today in Mykolayiv.Did I miss something on this thread, or has the western media confirmed that Colonel Ihor Bedzai, Deputy Commander of the Navy for Aviation, died in the Ukrainian sky. He is better known as the former commander of the 10th Naval Aviation Brigade from Novofedorivka, near Saky, Crimea. Shot down in his aircraft Mi-14 by a Russian missile.
30,000 to 50,000 left Crimea for mainland Ukraine since the 2014 occupation. How many went to other countries, remained unknown. About 500,000 arrived in Crimea from all over the Russian Federation.Did Russia "replace " Ukrainians with more compliant Russians in Crimea? If so, then Ukraine will have big problems trying to reclaim its territory.
With the morale problem Russian troops have, are the Separatists in the same boat?
No apology necessary. If your position is that pre-expansion NATO and new NATO abutting against the Russian border have the exact same, presumably zero risk of Russian aggression, then you won't.Sorry, I don't understand this argument.
I don't know were you derive this from, we had held that discussion already and I will forward the respective articles again.Turkey is not allowing any warships through - any, meaning none.
Russian, Georgian, Romanian, Bulgarian, French, Canadian South Korean, etc., etc., etc.
They have done this to maintain absolute neutrality. Allowing Russian warships through would be an indication of supporting Russia.
Allowing any NATO ships through would indicate favoritism (Bulgaria and Romania are NATO members).
Allowing any other warships passage may be seen as political.
So they've decided to enforce Artical 19 with sub-Artical 23 caveats.
Nothing to do with "dictators", "lawyers" or whatever.
Err...it was a congressionally mandated $400 million military aid package that he held up as he wanted a political favour which led to his first impeachment.He was the first US president to authorize and deliver lethal aid to Ukraine in their continuing fight against Russian expansionism.
I like this part....I like how she thinks, can't agree more. It's worth a read.
Europe’s Iron Lady: Estonian prime minister Kaja Kallas
The Baltic leader has become the EU’s strongest advocate for an uncompromising response to Russia.www.newstatesman.com
He was Putin's employee of the year at the time.
Yeah, why invade when you have your man in Washington doing your work for you...one 45's ex-officials said that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine as 45's policies regarding NATO and Europe were very much to Putin's liking
But then that nasty thing of the election loss interfered with things...Putin could have just waited for 45 to destroy NATO, and he could restore the Russian hegemony that predated the collapse of the USSR and the end pf the Russian Empire.
Turkey was given the right (Article 21) and Erdogan used that right. His actions were not questioned or protested, at least publicly.I don't know were you derive this from, we had held that discussion already and I will forward the respective articles again.
Article 19.
In time of war, Turkey not being belligerent, warships shall enjoy complete freedom of transit and
navigation through the Straits under the same conditions as those laid down in Article 10 to 18.
Vessels of war belonging to belligerent Powers shall not however, pass through the Straits except in
cases arising out of the application of Article 25 of the present Convention, and in cases of assistance
rendered to a State victim of aggression in virtue of a treaty of mutual assistance binding-Turkey,
concluded within the framework of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and registered and
published in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of the Covenant.
In the exceptional cases provided for in the preceding paragraph, the limitations laid down in Article 10
to 18 of the present Convention shall not be applicable.
Notwithstanding the prohibition of passage laid down in paragraph 2 above, vessels of war belonging
to belligerent Powers, whether they are Black Sea Powers or not, which have become separated from
their bases, may return thereto.
Vessels of war belonging to belligerent Powers shall not make any capture, exercise the right of visit
and search, or carry out any hostile act in the Straits.
Article 20.
In time of war, Turkey being belligerent, the provisions of Articles 10 to 18 shall not be applicable; the
passage of warships shall be left entirely to the discretion of the Turkish Government.
Article 21.
Should Turkey consider herself to be threatened with imminent danger of war she shall have the right
to apply the provisions of Article 20 of the present Convention.
1.Turkey is not a belligerent
2.Turkey has not been threatened with imminent danger of war, as such they can't invoke Article 20
Article 23 (which you cited) regulates the passage of civilian aircraft - nothing else
So there is absolutely no Article within the Montreux Convention that would sanction or allow for a regulation by Turkey that bars everyone's warships at the present moment.
But Erdogan is the Turkish version of Putin - with the same war-crimes record, NATO partner or not.