Again with the Russian propaganda BS.old salt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:06 pmThat's like saying it would have no impact on the US Navy if they were suddenly denied their naval installations in Tidewater VA.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:00 pmMore baloney and hand wringing woe is me for Russians.old salt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:32 pmLeases are pieces of paper easily ignored during escalating tensions or military conflict.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 3:55 pmYup...Salty's just parroting Russian propaganda BS.njbill wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 3:52 pm 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.
He should know better...I assume he does, which is worse.
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/
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.
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.
First, they don't need a puppet to be able to get along with a neighbor. That was Putin (Russia)'s choice.
Second, if they made the strategic assumption that they could not permanently rely on the lease, their option was to build a new, larger modern base where they had no such risks, while maintaining good relations in the meantime. 1000+ times cheaper, smarter than war.
But that wasn't what Putin chose...instead, ticked off that the Ukrainians were turning away from the tired, authoritarian bullies to their east, he invaded and successfully took Crimea...and then pushed the 'separatist' strategy further to take more, believing the same could work again...but the Ukrainians resisted. But then he 'won' the US election, and gained an admirer in the White House who elevated him and undermined NATO...but he didn't control everyone in the Admin (as you've pointed out, key generals and advisors saw the world differently than Trump/Putin) and they pushed to bolster Ukraine with Javelins...but Trump successfully had NATO itself in turmoil, with even Article 5 in question...but Putin then 'lost' the 2020 US election in the midst of a pandemic that ravaged Russia, including its military...isolated and frustrated, Putin swung even further into imperialist delusions...and invaded.
This was ALL of Putin's making and miscalculations...ALL driven by his ego.
It was never some master plan of the US (wait, you'll be calling it "Deep State" soon!); however, yes, we absolutely should work with our allies to ensure that an authoritarian imperialist Russia can no longer successfully threaten its neighbors (and as long as Putin is in power that threat definitely exists)...however, when and if Russia chooses a path of peace and prosperity rather than "great power" ambition and aggression, we should welcome them.