swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,306
- Jun 25, 2013
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
"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (61 Viewers)
- Thread starter XBe02Drvr
- Start date
Admiral Beez
Major
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.
RogerdeLluria
Staff Sergeant
- 1,410
- Jul 5, 2015
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.
A few days later:
And sometimes they add a few ships too:
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.
A few days later:
And sometimes they add a few ships too:
It's more about the attempted dismantling and purposeful weakening of NATO internally.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,306
- Jun 25, 2013
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.
His revanchism has run into a harsh reality and a more effective NATO response than he would have ever expected based on 45's policies and rhetoric
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.
On the other hand, Moldova in 1992, Georgia in 1992-1993 and 2008, and Ukraine in 2014, they were non-NATO countries and victims of the Kremlin's aggression. During the Cold War: Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary. Turkey was bullied and intimidated by USSR during the post-WWII Turkish Straits crisis... until it joined NATO.
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.
Russian channels are full of speculations about the "victory" in the battle and counts of hundreds of Ukrainian KIA and dozens of boats and aircraft. But no pictures, no videos.
It was confirmed in Ukraine. Colonel Ihor Bedzai and Captain Serhi Muschitsky were buried today in Mykolayiv.
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.
Admiral Beez
Major
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.
But we're entering into new times, where an autocratic and increasingly erratic, paranoid and unpredictable pariah state in Russia cannot be guaranteed to act with the reasonable pragmatism of the Cold War. If for example, Ukraine had been allowed into NATO per its request in 2017 I am not convinced that Putin would have sat back and excepted the situation. No, he wouldn't have marched tanks towards Kyiv, but regime change and attacks from the puppet republics in the Dombas would have likely been on the agenda. If Moscow-backed, Russian-speaking separatists from both Donbas and within post-2014 Ukraine took up arms, would NATO be expected to enter what is essentially a Yugoslavian-like civil war? That's what Putin would have likely have done.
Today's Russia and Putin is clearly a sick, paranoid place, capable of irrational or risky behaviour, gross miscalculations and boneheaded mistakes, like shooting down that Malaysian airliner, launching poison attacks in London, or acting entirely against his plan to weaken and destabilize NATO by invading Ukraine causing BOTH the uniting and expanding of NATO. The past is not always a predictor of the future.
Last edited:
RogerdeLluria
Staff Sergeant
- 1,410
- Jul 5, 2015
I like how she thinks, can't agree more. It's worth a read.
www.newstatesman.com
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
RogerdeLluria
Staff Sergeant
- 1,410
- Jul 5, 2015
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
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.
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.
Admiral Beez
Major
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.
Kallas fundamentally rejects the idea that an end to the conflict should be sought at any price. "I think what everybody has to understand is that peace is not an ultimate goal if it means that the aggression pays off," she says. "What I mean by this is that when you say 'OK, let it be peace and everybody stays where they are', it still means that Russia has taken a big part of Ukraine's territory, Ukraine being a sovereign, independent country.
My worry is that the US and much of the western world outside of Europe doesn't share this POV, that they may tire and lose interest, fall into domestic distractions (Nov's Congressional elections, abortion/culture war debates, etc. and especially the lead up to a new POTUS in Jan 2025), and seize upon any ceasefire called by Putin as a start of the negotiations and a return to business. But I must reject that line of thinking and remain optimistic that the US, NATO and likeminded countries have the backbone to see this through.
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...
But then that nasty thing of the election loss interfered with things...
Turkey was given the right (Article 21) and Erdogan used that right. His actions were not questioned or protested, at least publicly.
For Ukraine, this is a problem, indeed. NATO ships' presence in the Black Sea would be helpful, at least, for better reconnaissance.
