All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

It's just too soon to declare victory. As a historian, he'll have to stand by anything he predicts now.

I'm curious. Which other historians are declaring victory?

DocB & MDLF76

[MDlaxfan76]

As of September 14, that was a pretty fair assessment...having been so utterly wrong in his earlier assessments. Those earlier assessments look even more wrong on October 5.

But even when he's acknowledging a new reality, Hanson doesn't attribute the successes of the Ukrainians as of that moment to the Ukrainian's superior morale (though he'd acknowledged that possible factor) rather he attributes their success to the West's superior weaponry...both, combined, are what is working, relative to the Russian morale. Western weaponry would not be sufficient if the morale advantage was reversed. He'd missed that nearly entirely in earlier assessments and still struggles to recognize it.

He feeds into Putin's narrative that this is a proxy war between the West and Putin's Russia, rather than the West coming to the defense of sovereign neighbor brutally attacked...very different tone and Hanson knows it. He ain't dumb.

Hanson then turns to scenarios that are indeed very thorny...I say, 'ya, und?'...what is the recommendation?

Ohh yeah, force the Ukrainians to negotiate and accede to Putin's demands, else America will "slide into a nuclear confrontation with a desperate autocrat".

Same old story.

Hanson should stick to writing conservative opinions about history. But that ain't where the $$$ are I guess.

So he acknowledges the Ukrainians superior morale but somehow he doesn't consider that a factor in their success ?

He's making the point that the Ukrainians superior morale is a factor but that would not be enough without superior western weapons.
Do you disagree with that ?

As you know, I certainly think that "superior western weapons" matter (a lot), especially precision targeted.

However, Hanson does not say that the Ukrainians had/have a big advantage in morale...he nods at the importance of morale, but then ignores it, though he does describe the Ukrainians as "heroic".

Soon the conflict descended into a war of attrition in Eastern Ukraine over the occupied majority Russian-speaking borderlands.

That deadlock was eventually going to be resolved by relative morale, manpower, and supply.

Would the high-tech weaponry and money of the United States and Europe allow heroic Ukrainian forces to be better equipped than a larger Russian force—drawing on an economy 10 times greater and a population nearly four times larger than Ukraine’s?

After the latest sudden Ukrainian territorial gains and embarrassing Russian retreats, we now know the answer.

Russia may be bigger and richer than Ukraine, but it is not up to the combined resources of the United States, along with the nations of NATO and the European Union.

Most are now in a de facto proxy war with an increasingly overwhelmed Russia. And so far, a circumspect China has not stepped in to try to remedy the Russian dilemma.

What you say is a "nod" is establishing it as a given in the analysis. Rather than restating it, it is implicit in the terminology used -- morale...heroic...embarrassing.

He cites morale as one of the 3 factors determining the outcome of the battles in the east.
He doesn't even include weapons superiority in that formula, since he had already established it as a given.

It's obvious that superiority in both weaponry AND morale are consistent factors in the success.
You're splitting hairs.

What were Hanson's earlier assessments which were wrong ?

It's naive to deny that the Ukrainians are US proxies -- supply, training, ISR & limits to targeting.

I think you're reading into what he wrote overly generously. My assumption is that he's a smart guy and is choosing his words and logic construct carefully. And, thus, if he'd wished to emphasize that fighting to protect one's country, one's family, one's community, one's children against a brutal aggressor committing atrocities is a vastly superior motivation to that of conscripts and mercenaries invading a country they assumed would be a pushover, he'd have said that. But he didn't.

I see that as a conscious choice.
If you want to say he's just sloppy in his writing and that of course he must have meant that, ok.
(You and I would agree that both factors have been very important).

But what I've seen of his logic, right from the beginning of his commentaries and as a through line through out, is that Russia has vastly superior resources and military, and that Ukraine can't possibly win (a moving prescription for limiting Ukraine's loss, never victory), that the US and the West should not get involved as that will feed into Putin's narrative of this being a proxy war instead of a war of self-defense, moving to the US shouldn't do more because that risks nuclear confrontation, that the best that could be hoped for would be a limited Ukrainian defeat sold as a 'win', and then containment of Russia, not defeat of Putin's aggression...especially given the prediction that the Europeans would not step up and stand strong with Ukraine...a prediction that keeps being proven wrong as well.

All with the Biden bad, Trump good messaging as undercurrent.
And the other undercurrent being a "historical" justification of Putin's ambitions.

You gloss over the fact that Hanson consistently refers to the Ukrainians as heroic & cites their morale as a factor.
If he ever does another edition of Carnage and Culture he'll likely do a chapter on the Ukrainians.
The time to examine that is after the victory is won.
How do you read that he thinks the US should not be involved ? He reminds us that Trump delivered aid when Obama-Biden & the EUros would not.
Like all sane observers, he warns of the danger in escalating when the opponent is a madman with nucs (Strangelove ref).
He also reminds us that Biden has vowed not to get US forces involved, which limits how much we can do.
He's been accurate in his analysis, so far, & has been less pessimistic than most of the military experts.
He's not a cheerleader, projecting his own preferred outcome into his analysis.
He acknowledges the heroism of the Ukrainians as well as the criticality of western aid.
It's just too soon to declare victory. As a historian, he'll have to stand by anything he predicts now.

I don't read him that way, as I described.
I think he's smart enough, but doesn't want to say it as clearly as I said it above.
He didn't emphasize that differential in his analysis of the early Ukrainian success nor has he given it full throat...he underestimates that importance IMO.
And he overestimates the Russian machine, which is absent such morale, training, discipline, etc.

And yes, he resorts to partisan points at any opportunity, it seems.
Tremendously misrepresenting what went down under Trump and why, and quite misrepresenting the current support for Ukraine from the Biden Admin...all for partisanship.

Yes, it's entirely too soon to declare victory...heck of a lot of blood shed between now and then...but he dismisses the path to victory and instead advises what, from the Ukrainian point of view, would be capitulation.

For someone with a supposed steely eyed view of history, he also grossly underestimates the likely damage of such capitulation and appeasement.

He should stick to history and not make prognostications and recommendations that feed the opponent's narrative and propaganda machine. Same last part for Tucker, Ingraham, Hannity and any others disposed to swim in those waters.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Politics is a place in which you can build and squander a reputation, all at once. VDH is a good example.

[MDlaxfan76]

It's just too soon to declare victory. As a historian, he'll have to stand by anything he predicts now.

I'm curious. Which other historians are declaring victory?

DocB & MDLF76

Not remotely true.
#1 I'm not an "historian" though I read some, studied some, paid attention in class...
#2 I definitely don't think anyone should be "declaring victory".

You, by contrast seem to think that Ukraine should be pressured to give up on their justifiably angry resolve to fully push the Russians out of Ukraine, to achieve accountability for mass atrocities, and to secure the return of their people, including children. And instead that they should consider getting back to the pre 2022 control as a 'victory'...and likewise that Putin should be able to declare 'victory' as well, having annexed 15-20% of Ukraine...

And the US and NATO should declare victory with a 'containment' strategy as described, "secure' under the notion that a Russia under Putin won't re-group, re-arm, and attack again with far better preparation next time if allowed to declare victory now...

[old salt]

Politics is a place in which you can build and squander a reputation, all at once. VDH is a good example.

He's all in. Enjoy this, as the mid-terms loom. ....& tell yourself that he's wrong. I'm still seeing the same out of stock grocery items as at the height of the pandemic, as OPEC+ gives Biden the middle digit, & our military & police can't meet their recruiting targets.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/o ... n-2651560/

Opinion. Victor Davis Hanson Tribune Content Agency. October 4, 2022

Civilization is fragile. It hinges on ensuring the stuff of life.

To be able to eat, to move about, to have shelter, to be free from state or tribal coercion, to be secure abroad and safe at home — only that allows cultures to be freed from the daily drudgery of mere survival.

Civilization alone permits humans to pursue sophisticated scientific research, the arts and the finer aspects of culture.

So the great achievement of Western civilization — consensual government, individual freedom, rationalism in partnership with religious belief, free market economics and constant self-critique and audit — was to liberate people from daily worry over state violence, random crime, famine and an often-unforgiving nature.

But so often the resulting leisure and affluence instead deluded arrogant Western societies into thinking that modern man no longer needed to worry about the fruits of civilization he took to be his elemental birthright.

As a result, the once prosperous Greek city-state, Roman Empire, Renaissance republics and European democracies of the 1930s imploded — as civilization went headlong in reverse.

We in the modern Western world are now facing just such a crisis.

We talk grandly about the globalized Great Reset. We blindly accept the faddish New Green Deal. We virtue signal about defunding the police. We merely shrug at open borders. And we brag about banning fertilizers and pesticides, outlawing the internal combustion engine and discounting Armageddon in the nuclear age — as if on autopilot we have already reached utopia.

But meanwhile Westerners are systematically destroying the very elements of our civilization that permitted such fantasies in the first place.

Take fuel. Europeans arrogantly lectured the world that they no longer need traditional fuels. So they shut down nuclear power plants. They stopped drilling for oil and gas. And they banned coal.

What followed was a dystopian nightmare. Europeans will burn dirty wood this winter as their civilization reverts from postmodern abundance to premodern survival.

The Biden administration ossified oil fields. It canceled new federal oil and gas leases. It stopped pipeline construction and hectored investors to shun fossil fuels.

When scarcity naturally followed, fuel prices soared.

The middle class has now mortgaged its upward mobility to ensure that they might afford gasoline, heating oil and skyrocketing electricity.

The duty of the Pentagon is to keep America safe by deterring enemies, reassuring allies and winning over neutrals. It is not to hector soldiers based on their race. It is not to indoctrinate recruits in the woke agenda. It is not to become a partisan political force.

The result of those suicidal Pentagon detours is the fiasco in Afghanistan, the aggression of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the new bellicosity of China and the loud threats of rogue regimes such as Iran.

At home, the Biden administration inexplicably destroyed the southern border, as if civilized nations of the past never needed such boundaries.

Utter chaos followed. Three million migrants have poured into the United States. While some cross over clandestinely, others clear border stations without an adequate audit and largely without skills, high school diplomas or capital.

The streets of our cities are anarchical — and by intent.

Defunding the police, emptying the jails and destroying the criminal justice system unleashed a wave of criminals. It is now open season on the weak and innocent.

America is racing backward into the 19th-century Wild West. Predators maim, kill and rob with impunity. Felons correctly conclude that bankrupt postmodern “critical legal theory” will ensure them exemption from punishment.

Few Americans know anything about agriculture, except to expect limitless supplies of inexpensive, safe and nutritious food at their beck and call.

But that entitlement for 330 million hungry mouths requires massive water projects and new dams and reservoirs. Farmers rely on supplies of fertilizer, fuels, and chemicals. Take away that support — as green nihilists are attempting — and millions will soon go hungry, as they have since the dawn of civilization.

Perhaps nearly 1 million homeless now live on the streets of America. Our major cities have turned medieval with their open sewers, garbage-strewn sidewalks and violent vagrants.

So we are in a great experiment in which regressive progressivism discounts all the institutions and the methodologies of the past that have guaranteed a safe, affluent, well-fed and sheltered America.

Instead, we arrogantly are reverting to a new feudalism as the wealthy elite — terrified of what they have wrought — selfishly retreat to their private keeps.

But the rest who suffer the consequences of elite flirtations with nihilism cannot even afford food, shelter and fuel. And they now feel unsafe, both as individuals and as Americans.

As we suffer self-inflicted mass looting, random street violence, hyperinflation, a nonexistent border, unaffordable fuel and a collapsing military, Americans will come to appreciate just how thin is the veneer of their civilization.

When stripped away, we are relearning that what lies just beneath is utterly terrifying.

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and a classicist and historian at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. Contact at [email protected].

[old salt]

It's just too soon to declare victory. As a historian, he'll have to stand by anything he predicts now.

I'm curious. Which other historians are declaring victory?

DocB & MDLF76

Not remotely true.
#1 I'm not an "historian" though I read some, studied some, paid attention in class...
#2 I definitely don't think anyone should be "declaring victory".

You, by contrast seem to think that Ukraine should be pressured to give up on their justifiably angry resolve to fully push the Russians out of Ukraine, to achieve accountability for mass atrocities, and to secure the return of their people, including children. And instead that they should consider getting back to the pre 2022 control as a 'victory'...and likewise that Putin should be able to declare 'victory' as well, having annexed 15-20% of Ukraine...

And the US and NATO should declare victory with a 'containment' strategy as described, "secure' under the notion that a Russia under Putin won't re-group, re-arm, and attack again with far better preparation next time if allowed to declare victory now...

IMHO -- this war should be concluded with borders that both countries can defend, so that it won't be a recurring war, even if it's an unresolved war, like on the Korean peninsula. Then Ukraine can become as prosperous as S Korea has become.

Russia will never give up on Crimea & Black Sea access, even if they are pushed back in the near term, imho.
To insist otherwise is to invite endless, recurring war.
...or the further & total dismemberment of what history has known as the Russian nation-state.

[PizzaSnake]

It's just too soon to declare victory. As a historian, he'll have to stand by anything he predicts now.

I'm curious. Which other historians are declaring victory?

DocB & MDLF76

Not remotely true.
#1 I'm not an "historian" though I read some, studied some, paid attention in class...
#2 I definitely don't think anyone should be "declaring victory".

You, by contrast seem to think that Ukraine should be pressured to give up on their justifiably angry resolve to fully push the Russians out of Ukraine, to achieve accountability for mass atrocities, and to secure the return of their people, including children. And instead that they should consider getting back to the pre 2022 control as a 'victory'...and likewise that Putin should be able to declare 'victory' as well, having annexed 15-20% of Ukraine...

And the US and NATO should declare victory with a 'containment' strategy as described, "secure' under the notion that a Russia under Putin won't re-group, re-arm, and attack again with far better preparation next time if allowed to declare victory now...

IMHO -- this war should be concluded with borders that both countries can defend, so that it won't be a recurring war, even if it's an unresolved war, like on the Korean peninsula. Then Ukraine can become as prosperous as S Korea has become.

Russia will never give up on Crimea & Black Sea access, even if they are pushed back in the near term, imho.
To insist otherwise is to invite endless, recurring war.
...or the further & total dismemberment of what history has known as the Russian nation-state.

"further & total dismemberment of what history has known as the Russian nation-state"

Yep, China is looking forward to becoming an actual "arctic state."

[MDlaxfan76]

It's just too soon to declare victory. As a historian, he'll have to stand by anything he predicts now.

I'm curious. Which other historians are declaring victory?

DocB & MDLF76

Not remotely true.
#1 I'm not an "historian" though I read some, studied some, paid attention in class...
#2 I definitely don't think anyone should be "declaring victory".

You, by contrast seem to think that Ukraine should be pressured to give up on their justifiably angry resolve to fully push the Russians out of Ukraine, to achieve accountability for mass atrocities, and to secure the return of their people, including children. And instead that they should consider getting back to the pre 2022 control as a 'victory'...and likewise that Putin should be able to declare 'victory' as well, having annexed 15-20% of Ukraine...

And the US and NATO should declare victory with a 'containment' strategy as described, "secure' under the notion that a Russia under Putin won't re-group, re-arm, and attack again with far better preparation next time if allowed to declare victory now...

IMHO -- this war should be concluded with borders that both countries can defend, so that it won't be a recurring war, even if it's an unresolved war, like on the Korean peninsula. Then Ukraine can become as prosperous as S Korea has become.

Russia will never give up on Crimea & Black Sea access, even if they are pushed back in the near term, imho.
To insist otherwise is to invite endless, recurring war.
...or the further & total dismemberment of what history has known as the Russian nation-state.

Baloney; You read too much Russian propaganda.
(And you certainly parrot too much Russian propaganda!)

Russia has complete access to the Black Sea without Crimea.

Look at the map: https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/05/2 ... -pub-84549

They'd like to entirely control the Sea of Azov, which they have no strategic need to do.

Russia can defend the borders pre 2104 just fine. That's simply a decision to do so.

[MDlaxfan76]

Politics is a place in which you can build and squander a reputation, all at once. VDH is a good example.

He's all in. Enjoy this, as the mid-terms loom. ....& tell yourself that he's wrong. I'm still seeing the same out of stock grocery items as at the height of the pandemic, as OPEC+ gives Biden the middle digit, & our military & police can't meet their recruiting targets.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/o ... n-2651560/

Opinion. Victor Davis Hanson Tribune Content Agency. October 4, 2022

Civilization is fragile. It hinges on ensuring the stuff of life.

To be able to eat, to move about, to have shelter, to be free from state or tribal coercion, to be secure abroad and safe at home — only that allows cultures to be freed from the daily drudgery of mere survival.

Civilization alone permits humans to pursue sophisticated scientific research, the arts and the finer aspects of culture.

So the great achievement of Western civilization — consensual government, individual freedom, rationalism in partnership with religious belief, free market economics and constant self-critique and audit — was to liberate people from daily worry over state violence, random crime, famine and an often-unforgiving nature.

But so often the resulting leisure and affluence instead deluded arrogant Western societies into thinking that modern man no longer needed to worry about the fruits of civilization he took to be his elemental birthright.

As a result, the once prosperous Greek city-state, Roman Empire, Renaissance republics and European democracies of the 1930s imploded — as civilization went headlong in reverse.

We in the modern Western world are now facing just such a crisis.

We talk grandly about the globalized Great Reset. We blindly accept the faddish New Green Deal. We virtue signal about defunding the police. We merely shrug at open borders. And we brag about banning fertilizers and pesticides, outlawing the internal combustion engine and discounting Armageddon in the nuclear age — as if on autopilot we have already reached utopia.

But meanwhile Westerners are systematically destroying the very elements of our civilization that permitted such fantasies in the first place.

Take fuel. Europeans arrogantly lectured the world that they no longer need traditional fuels. So they shut down nuclear power plants. They stopped drilling for oil and gas. And they banned coal.

What followed was a dystopian nightmare. Europeans will burn dirty wood this winter as their civilization reverts from postmodern abundance to premodern survival.

The Biden administration ossified oil fields. It canceled new federal oil and gas leases. It stopped pipeline construction and hectored investors to shun fossil fuels.

When scarcity naturally followed, fuel prices soared.

The middle class has now mortgaged its upward mobility to ensure that they might afford gasoline, heating oil and skyrocketing electricity.

The duty of the Pentagon is to keep America safe by deterring enemies, reassuring allies and winning over neutrals. It is not to hector soldiers based on their race. It is not to indoctrinate recruits in the woke agenda. It is not to become a partisan political force.

The result of those suicidal Pentagon detours is the fiasco in Afghanistan, the aggression of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the new bellicosity of China and the loud threats of rogue regimes such as Iran.

At home, the Biden administration inexplicably destroyed the southern border, as if civilized nations of the past never needed such boundaries.

Utter chaos followed. Three million migrants have poured into the United States. While some cross over clandestinely, others clear border stations without an adequate audit and largely without skills, high school diplomas or capital.

The streets of our cities are anarchical — and by intent.

Defunding the police, emptying the jails and destroying the criminal justice system unleashed a wave of criminals. It is now open season on the weak and innocent.

America is racing backward into the 19th-century Wild West. Predators maim, kill and rob with impunity. Felons correctly conclude that bankrupt postmodern “critical legal theory” will ensure them exemption from punishment.

Few Americans know anything about agriculture, except to expect limitless supplies of inexpensive, safe and nutritious food at their beck and call.

But that entitlement for 330 million hungry mouths requires massive water projects and new dams and reservoirs. Farmers rely on supplies of fertilizer, fuels, and chemicals. Take away that support — as green nihilists are attempting — and millions will soon go hungry, as they have since the dawn of civilization.

Perhaps nearly 1 million homeless now live on the streets of America. Our major cities have turned medieval with their open sewers, garbage-strewn sidewalks and violent vagrants.

So we are in a great experiment in which regressive progressivism discounts all the institutions and the methodologies of the past that have guaranteed a safe, affluent, well-fed and sheltered America.

Instead, we arrogantly are reverting to a new feudalism as the wealthy elite — terrified of what they have wrought — selfishly retreat to their private keeps.

But the rest who suffer the consequences of elite flirtations with nihilism cannot even afford food, shelter and fuel. And they now feel unsafe, both as individuals and as Americans.

As we suffer self-inflicted mass looting, random street violence, hyperinflation, a nonexistent border, unaffordable fuel and a collapsing military, Americans will come to appreciate just how thin is the veneer of their civilization.

When stripped away, we are relearning that what lies just beneath is utterly terrifying.

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and a classicist and historian at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. Contact at [email protected].

And that's what you and Hanson are rooting for to happen, this dystopian vision of a populace starving and in revolt...unless the US and the West cower and bend the knee to a virtuous, white Christian nationalist, Putin.

[njbill]

Russia has access to the Black Sea even without Crimea. First, from the Sea of Azov through the Kerch Strait, which I presume is and would still be international waters if Crimea were to be returned to Ukraine. Second, Russia has over 150 miles of Black Sea coast on the eastern side of the sea, which includes a naval base at Novorossiysk.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia had entered into a treaty with Ukraine which gave Russia a multi-decade lease on the naval base at Sevastopol. After taking over Crimea in 2014, Russia terminated the treaty (and lease). Had Russia not annexed Crimea and worked to be a good neighbor, it undoubtedly would still have its base at Sevastopol.

[MDlaxfan76]

Russia has access to the Black Sea even without Crimea. First, from the Sea of Azov through the Kerch Strait, which I presume is and would still be international waters if Crimea were to be returned to Ukraine. Second, Russia has over 150 miles of Black Sea coast on the eastern side of the sea, which includes a naval base at Novorossiysk.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia had entered into a treaty with Ukraine which gave Russia a multi-decade lease on the naval base at Sevastopol. After taking over Crimea in 2014, Russia terminated the treaty (and lease). Had Russia not annexed Crimea and worked to be a good neighbor, it undoubtedly would still have its base at Sevastopol.

Yup...Salty's just parroting Russian propaganda BS.
He should know better...I assume he does, which is worse.

[old salt]

Russia has access to the Black Sea even without Crimea. First, from the Sea of Azov through the Kerch Strait, which I presume is and would still be international waters if Crimea were to be returned to Ukraine. Second, Russia has over 150 miles of Black Sea coast on the eastern side of the sea, which includes a naval base at Novorossiysk.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia had entered into a treaty with Ukraine which gave Russia a multi-decade lease on the naval base at Sevastopol. After taking over Crimea in 2014, Russia terminated the treaty (and lease). Had Russia not annexed Crimea and worked to be a good neighbor, it undoubtedly would still have its base at Sevastopol.

Yup...Salty's just parroting Russian propaganda BS.
He should know better...I assume he does, which is worse.

Leases are pieces of paper easily ignored during escalating tensions or military conflict.
Land & air access from Russia to Sevostopol was completely at the whim of the Ukrainians, as is the current supply of fresh water to Crimea via the Crimea canal from the Dneiper. Either could be closed off by the Ukrainians.
How can your primary base for your Black Sea fleet function without guaranteed land access to Russia.
Likewise, the Sea of Azov & Kerch Straits are the sole access route for Russia's Caspian Sea Fleet of significant warships.
Ukraine could restrict or cutoff that access.

The lease on Sevostopol was due to expire in 2010. It was renewed, but the repeated US fomented revolutions & regime changes, accompanied by requests for EU & NATO membership, raised the specter of total NATO encirclement of the Black Sea fleet"s base & easy blockage of access to the Caspian Sea by prospective NATO member Ukraine. Novorosslysk is not adequate for the Black Sea Fleet.
Ukraine made it difficult for the Black Sea fleet whenever a pro-Russian govt was not in power in Kyiv.
https://jamestown.org/program/the-futur ... evastopol/
Russia has made a huge military investment in Crimea. They won't give it up easily.
Crimea & the land bridge to Mariupol are critical to Russian warship building & the plan to make Crimea an unsinkable aircraft carrier.
https://jamestown.org/program/an-arsena ... -security/

[njbill]

Who escalated the tensions and started the military conflict?

At the time Russia took Crimea in 2014, the Sevastopol lease was not due to expire for almost 30 years. (It had been extended.) Sure, if you are being a bad tenant, the landlord may give you a hard time. But if you are being a good tenant – and neighbor – things should go fine. You know better than I, but how many naval bases around the world does the US lease? I presume things generally go pretty well in those relationships, for one reason, because the US isn’t threatening to invade the host country.

Russia’s access to its Sevastopol base would have been just fine if Russia had played nice and not invaded Crimea and then the rest of Ukraine. Similar access issues exist for almost all of our bases (land and naval) around the world (in theory at the whim of the host country). We don’t have problems because we aren’t threats and are good tenants.

I presume the Kerch Strait is international water and that Russian ships (including military) in the Sea of Azov have a right of egress and ingress. Is there a treaty governing that passageway similar to the Montreux Convention? I don’t know. If Ukraine tried to interfere with Russian ships, in violation of international law, Russia would have a valid beef. Did Ukraine ever interfere in the 25 years they had Crimea?

Sure, Sevastopol is a better base to have in the Black Sea for all kinds of reason. My neighbor might have a better house than I do, but that doesn’t mean I can just take it. (I don’t know enough to know why you say Novorossiysk is inadequate.) But the key point here is that Russia had a legal right to use the Sevastopol base. They terminated the treaty (and their lease) after they invaded. They no longer have a legal right to Sevastopol. Remains to be seen, but it could be they really shot themselves in the foot as to Sevastopol.

Russia is largely encircled by NATO even without Ukraine being a member. And now Putin’s folly has Sweden and Finland poised to join, even furthering the encirclement. Yes, Ukraine joining (always a longshot) would impact the Black Sea, but if you go by sea frontage NATO already largely controls the Black Sea. And, of course, NATO is a defensive treaty. A peaceful Russia would have no concerns, but a belligerent Russia threatening to invade a European country (whether or not a NATO member) would and should have big concerns, as Russia has found out.

No doubt Russia has made a huge investment in Crimea which they won’t give up easily. Sure, a land bridge makes things easier for Russia to do pretty much anything in Crimea. But Russia has no legal right to Crimea or the land bridge. It is certainly understandable why Ukraine wants to recapture those territories. Will they be able to? TBD.

If you take the long view here, Russia has royally screwed up the Black Sea/Crimea issues. Instead of confrontation, had they chosen to establish good relations with Ukraine, it could have benefited both countries not only economically but also militarily. Instead, Putin has this cockamamie 19th century idea of “reestablishing” Mother Russia and (I suspect) the delusional 20th century notion of world domination. Ain’t gonna happen. Putin has been exposed just as the Wizard of Oz was exposed by Toto.

[MDlaxfan76]

Russia has access to the Black Sea even without Crimea. First, from the Sea of Azov through the Kerch Strait, which I presume is and would still be international waters if Crimea were to be returned to Ukraine. Second, Russia has over 150 miles of Black Sea coast on the eastern side of the sea, which includes a naval base at Novorossiysk.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia had entered into a treaty with Ukraine which gave Russia a multi-decade lease on the naval base at Sevastopol. After taking over Crimea in 2014, Russia terminated the treaty (and lease). Had Russia not annexed Crimea and worked to be a good neighbor, it undoubtedly would still have its base at Sevastopol.

Yup...Salty's just parroting Russian propaganda BS.
He should know better...I assume he does, which is worse.

Leases are pieces of paper easily ignored during escalating tensions or military conflict.
Land & air access from Russia to Sevostopol was completely at the whim of the Ukrainians, as is the current supply of fresh water to Crimea via the Crimea canal from the Dneiper. Either could be closed off by the Ukrainians.
How can your primary base for your Black Sea fleet function without guaranteed land access to Russia.
Likewise, the Sea of Azov & Kerch Straits are the sole access route for Russia's Caspian Sea Fleet of significant warships.
Ukraine could restrict or cutoff that access.

The lease on Sevostopol was due to expire in 2010. It was renewed, but the repeated US fomented revolutions & regime changes, accompanied by requests for EU & NATO membership, raised the specter of total NATO encirclement of the Black Sea fleet"s base & easy blockage of access to the Caspian Sea by prospective NATO member Ukraine. Novorosslysk is not adequate for the Black Sea Fleet.
Ukraine made it difficult for the Black Sea fleet whenever a pro-Russian govt was not in power in Kyiv.
https://jamestown.org/program/the-futur ... evastopol/
Russia has made a huge military investment in Crimea. They won't give it up easily.
Crimea & the land bridge to Mariupol are critical to Russian warship building & the plan to make Crimea an unsinkable aircraft carrier.
https://jamestown.org/program/an-arsena ... -security/

More baloney and hand wringing woe is me for Russians.

150 miles of unfettered Black Sea coastline.
No Crimea.
Make do.

And why should there be military conflict absent territorial aggression by Russia?
The government in Ukraine needn't be a Russian puppet to have good relations with a peaceful neighbor.
Focus on trade and all would have been just fine.

Let's be very clear, taking Ukraine is only important to Putin's imperial ambitions, not for peace.
We understand the Russian rationale, we just don't need the Americans making excuses for them as if they have peaceful aims.

[MDlaxfan76]

Who escalated the tensions and started the military conflict?

At the time Russia took Crimea in 2014, the Sevastopol lease was not due to expire for almost 30 years. (It had been extended.) Sure, if you are being a bad tenant, the landlord may give you a hard time. But if you are being a good tenant – and neighbor – things should go fine. You know better than I, but how many naval bases around the world does the US lease? I presume things generally go pretty well in those relationships, for one reason, because the US isn’t threatening to invade the host country.

Russia’s access to its Sevastopol base would have been just fine if Russia had played nice and not invaded Crimea and then the rest of Ukraine. Similar access issues exist for almost all of our bases (land and naval) around the world (in theory at the whim of the host country). We don’t have problems because we aren’t threats and are good tenants.

I presume the Kerch Strait is international water and that Russian ships (including military) in the Sea of Azov have a right of egress and ingress. Is there a treaty governing that passageway similar to the Montreux Convention? I don’t know. If Ukraine tried to interfere with Russian ships, in violation of international law, Russia would have a valid beef. Did Ukraine ever interfere in the 25 years they had Crimea?

Sure, Sevastopol is a better base to have in the Black Sea for all kinds of reason. My neighbor might have a better house than I do, but that doesn’t mean I can just take it. (I don’t know enough to know why you say Novorossiysk is inadequate.) But the key point here is that Russia had a legal right to use the Sevastopol base. They terminated the treaty (and their lease) after they invaded. They no longer have a legal right to Sevastopol. Remains to be seen, but it could be they really shot themselves in the foot as to Sevastopol.

Russia is largely encircled by NATO even without Ukraine being a member. And now Putin’s folly has Sweden and Finland poised to join, even furthering the encirclement. Yes, Ukraine joining (always a longshot) would impact the Black Sea, but if you go by sea frontage NATO already largely controls the Black Sea. And, of course, NATO is a defensive treaty. A peaceful Russia would have no concerns, but a belligerent Russia threatening to invade a European country (whether or not a NATO member) would and should have big concerns, as Russia has found out.

No doubt Russia has made a huge investment in Crimea which they won’t give up easily. Sure, a land bridge makes things easier for Russia to do pretty much anything in Crimea. But Russia has no legal right to Crimea or the land bridge. It is certainly understandable why Ukraine wants to recapture those territories. Will they be able to? TBD.

If you take the long view here, Russia has royally screwed up the Black Sea/Crimea issues. Instead of confrontation, had they chosen to establish good relations with Ukraine, it could have benefited both countries not only economically but also militarily. Instead, Putin has this cockamamie 19th century idea of “reestablishing” Mother Russia and (I suspect) the delusional 20th century notion of world domination. Ain’t gonna happen. Putin has been exposed just as the Wizard of Oz was exposed by Toto.

+1

[Seacoaster(1)]

Who escalated the tensions and started the military conflict?

At the time Russia took Crimea in 2014, the Sevastopol lease was not due to expire for almost 30 years. (It had been extended.) Sure, if you are being a bad tenant, the landlord may give you a hard time. But if you are being a good tenant – and neighbor – things should go fine. You know better than I, but how many naval bases around the world does the US lease? I presume things generally go pretty well in those relationships, for one reason, because the US isn’t threatening to invade the host country.

Russia’s access to its Sevastopol base would have been just fine if Russia had played nice and not invaded Crimea and then the rest of Ukraine. Similar access issues exist for almost all of our bases (land and naval) around the world (in theory at the whim of the host country). We don’t have problems because we aren’t threats and are good tenants.

I presume the Kerch Strait is international water and that Russian ships (including military) in the Sea of Azov have a right of egress and ingress. Is there a treaty governing that passageway similar to the Montreux Convention? I don’t know. If Ukraine tried to interfere with Russian ships, in violation of international law, Russia would have a valid beef. Did Ukraine ever interfere in the 25 years they had Crimea?

Sure, Sevastopol is a better base to have in the Black Sea for all kinds of reason. My neighbor might have a better house than I do, but that doesn’t mean I can just take it. (I don’t know enough to know why you say Novorossiysk is inadequate.) But the key point here is that Russia had a legal right to use the Sevastopol base. They terminated the treaty (and their lease) after they invaded. They no longer have a legal right to Sevastopol. Remains to be seen, but it could be they really shot themselves in the foot as to Sevastopol.

Russia is largely encircled by NATO even without Ukraine being a member. And now Putin’s folly has Sweden and Finland poised to join, even furthering the encirclement. Yes, Ukraine joining (always a longshot) would impact the Black Sea, but if you go by sea frontage NATO already largely controls the Black Sea. And, of course, NATO is a defensive treaty. A peaceful Russia would have no concerns, but a belligerent Russia threatening to invade a European country (whether or not a NATO member) would and should have big concerns, as Russia has found out.

No doubt Russia has made a huge investment in Crimea which they won’t give up easily. Sure, a land bridge makes things easier for Russia to do pretty much anything in Crimea. But Russia has no legal right to Crimea or the land bridge. It is certainly understandable why Ukraine wants to recapture those territories. Will they be able to? TBD.

If you take the long view here, Russia has royally screwed up the Black Sea/Crimea issues. Instead of confrontation, had they chosen to establish good relations with Ukraine, it could have benefited both countries not only economically but also militarily. Instead, Putin has this cockamamie 19th century idea of “reestablishing” Mother Russia and (I suspect) the delusional 20th century notion of world domination. Ain’t gonna happen. Putin has been exposed just as the Wizard of Oz was exposed by Toto.

Great post.

[njbill]

Thanks. I dipped my toesies in the Black Sea in Sochi in 1971 so I consider myself a Black Sea expert.

[youthathletics]

Rice in 2014: https://twitter.com/jamesmelville/statu ... mO5xDVS3qA

[MDlaxfan76]

Rice in 2014: https://twitter.com/jamesmelville/statu ... mO5xDVS3qA

She was correct. Smart gal...not always right on everything, but darn well gonna be a thoughtful and informed opinion.

[old salt]

Russia has access to the Black Sea even without Crimea. First, from the Sea of Azov through the Kerch Strait, which I presume is and would still be international waters if Crimea were to be returned to Ukraine. Second, Russia has over 150 miles of Black Sea coast on the eastern side of the sea, which includes a naval base at Novorossiysk.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia had entered into a treaty with Ukraine which gave Russia a multi-decade lease on the naval base at Sevastopol. After taking over Crimea in 2014, Russia terminated the treaty (and lease). Had Russia not annexed Crimea and worked to be a good neighbor, it undoubtedly would still have its base at Sevastopol.

Yup...Salty's just parroting Russian propaganda BS.
He should know better...I assume he does, which is worse.

Leases are pieces of paper easily ignored during escalating tensions or military conflict.
Land & air access from Russia to Sevostopol was completely at the whim of the Ukrainians, as is the current supply of fresh water to Crimea via the Crimea canal from the Dneiper. Either could be closed off by the Ukrainians.
How can your primary base for your Black Sea fleet function without guaranteed land access to Russia.
Likewise, the Sea of Azov & Kerch Straits are the sole access route for Russia's Caspian Sea Fleet of significant warships.
Ukraine could restrict or cutoff that access.

The lease on Sevostopol was due to expire in 2010. It was renewed, but the repeated US fomented revolutions & regime changes, accompanied by requests for EU & NATO membership, raised the specter of total NATO encirclement of the Black Sea fleet"s base & easy blockage of access to the Caspian Sea by prospective NATO member Ukraine. Novorosslysk is not adequate for the Black Sea Fleet.
Ukraine made it difficult for the Black Sea fleet whenever a pro-Russian govt was not in power in Kyiv.
https://jamestown.org/program/the-futur ... evastopol/
Russia has made a huge military investment in Crimea. They won't give it up easily.
Crimea & the land bridge to Mariupol are critical to Russian warship building & the plan to make Crimea an unsinkable aircraft carrier.
https://jamestown.org/program/an-arsena ... -security/

More baloney and hand wringing woe is me for Russians.

150 miles of unfettered Black Sea coastline.
No Crimea.
Make do.

And why should there be military conflict absent territorial aggression by Russia?
The government in Ukraine needn't be a Russian puppet to have good relations with a peaceful neighbor.
Focus on trade and all would have been just fine.

Let's be very clear, taking Ukraine is only important to Putin's imperial ambitions, not for peace.
We understand the Russian rationale, we just don't need the Americans making excuses for them as if they have peaceful aims.

That's like saying it would have no impact on the US Navy if they were suddenly denied their naval installations in Tidewater VA.
No problem, rebuild them somewhere else on the unfettered US Atlantic coastline. The Russian Navy tried to make the lease work under the CIS, then when there was a pro-Russian govt in Kyiv, like in Belarus & Kazakhstan, who they could rely on as a co-operative ally. That ended when the US & EU succeeded in fomenting revolutions & regime changes in Kyiv. After the second time, in 2014, the Russians strolled into Crimea & took control without opposition.

It's not making excuses to understand & take account of what motivates your enemy.
It's essential to countering him & not blundering into stupid wars like this one, in which we have no strategic interest.
Know your enemy & anticipate his actions. Spare us the Wilsonian BS & admit the obvious -- this is the neocon globocops' wet dream.
We use our Ukrainian proxies to break the Russian military & drive them from their dominant position in the Black Sea, denying their navy year round access to the Med, Suez & beyond. The Ukrainians do the fighting & dying while the contested territory is reduced to rubble. Then we get to fund a Marshall Plan for Ukraine, welcome them into a now terrified frozen NATO, & guarantee their safety (like S Korea) while they continue open ended hostilities with their hostile neighbor. You think you're going to break Russia ? Good luck with that. It's been tried before.