Ukraine 2014

[NakedWeasel]

Fred Ward is the Secretary General of NATO? I didn't even know he was Danish... [:D]

Want to know something cool about my life? I attended high school at NATO Headquarters for my first two years in Europe. I saw all kinds of awesome events and people at SHAPE. I saw the Queen's birthday, attended the SACEUR's changing of the guard ceremony (General Rogers, to General Galvin in 1987, became good friends with Galvin's eldest daughters, who were flown to school in their own helo... [:'(] ) and saw all of NATO's finest military kit on display on a a daily basis.

And I got drunk a lot on Belgian beer. A LOT of beer. I swear I must have drank gallons of the stuff. I probably should have studied harder.

[guanotwozero]

I don't think you can regard such a choice in these circumstances as "free and fair".

Compare it with the referendum on Scottish independence, which is preceded by more than a year of campaigning and debate, so as to convince people of the arguments. There is no military occupation in Scotland, no storming of the Scottish parliament by masked, armed men, no control of swathes of Scotland by self-appointed militias, no restrictions on the free press, no intimidation of any kind. The referendum is entirely consistent with the British constitution, having been agreed by the national government in Westminster.

In Crimea the parliament HAS been overrun by an armed group, a little-supported and little-known politician (and allegedly former gangster) HAS become self-proclaimed "leader", there is NO environment or sufficient time for free and fair campaigning, there ARE armed men sealing off and controlling large areas, there IS intimidation and restriction of journalists, and NO agreement has been made with national government in Kiev for such a referendum so as to be legitimate within the constitution.

What's more, Russia has already agreed to recognise Crimea as part of Ukraine in the Budapest Memorandum, co-signed by France, UK and the USA, in return for which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons.

Thus any such "result" in these circumstances could not be regarded as legitimate by the free world.

[RoryAndersonCDT]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

Did anyone ever find out what US/NATO ships are in/will be in the region?

http://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index. ... of_America
http://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index. ... 14#Romania
http://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index. ... 4#Bulgaria

Still need to do turkey...

[NakedWeasel]

OK, I see your point.
However, I will point out a few things that cannot be overlooked.
1. This is Russian territory. Always has been, probably always will be. And regardless, the West certainly has no claim to it, nor would I want any part of it. Texas is plenty big enough for me.
2. This can be resolved peacefully. The Russians did storm in like a bunch of jack-booted Nazi thugs, (or like Russians...) and tried to take the whole thing at the point of a gun. And then they thought about it, and realized, NATO could/and might nuke them over this, and decided to cool things off. They crawled back in to the shadows a bit ( they're still there, lurking, I know...) But I think the Belbeck AB event shows that these people have more in common than they have differences, and we don't all have to die over this mess. Cooler heads can prevail. And besides, all that talk of sanctions really hit the Russian stock market hard. A day after this thing kicked off, Putin was probably trying to calm some investors down in a big way. Billionaires cant profit from super-enriched nuclear glass- nobody's left to buy it.
3. The cynic in me is a firm believer in the power of money, and there's more money for everyone to make if they can use this event to restart the Cold War, in a more stable, less nukery kind of way. If Russia is still operating a military garrison in Crimea, the military industrial complex on both sides still operates. We have to put that missile shield up, they have to counter it with Topol-M and Iskanders. Backfires and Blackjacks over the Black Sea means F-22's and F-35's to keep them bottled up. T-95 tanks in Sevastopol, means M1A2's, and Leopards, and Leclercs to sell to NATO's newest partner, Ukraine. Products are still marketed, factories still produce, jobs are filled. Profits are made, stockholders invest, soldiers are payed. This machine has functioned this way for decades, and as long as you don't use the weapons to actually destroy the planet, but use them every ten years or so on a D-bag dictator of some backwater, third-world nation that cant be found on a map- the world will continue to turn.

This is my opinion on this whole thing. It's only hard to see, if you are over thinking it. Nobody wants to die in a nuclear war.

[britfreek]

Thus any such "result" in these circumstances could not be regarded as legitimate by the free world.

The fact is that "Ukraine was part of a recent "political" division much like the Middle East was divided up after the 1st World War.

As a recent poster said , Crimea has been Russian for a very long time. Why else did the UK fight the Crimean War. Watch the movie Battleship Potemkin by Eisenstein, it now portrays events almost 100 years old.

In reality Ukraine is a divided country much like Ulster/Eire, the Middle East Yugoslavia and many others. The result of a long history of political compromises by major nations more concerned with their own selfish ends than the good of the divided ethnic groups their decisions affect.

Those roosters have, are and will continue to come home to roost as long as short sighted political expediency continues to be regarded as more important than a future concerned with sustainable political stability.

We really don't seem to have learned anything from the Congress of Vienna, The League of Nations or the UN? The victors are the worst possible people to determine the future, only common sense is. It's really a shame that common sense is so rare.

Nobody wants to die in a nuclear war.

Better that than surviving one. If in doubt watch the dvd "Threads"

[NakedWeasel]

Superlative effort as always, Baloogan. Thank you for your excellent and thorough research.

I also researched all the South Western Russian airbases in the Black Sea region, and added that OOB to your original template. What developed in a raw, unedited sort of way is nothing short of apocalypse. Russia can bring the pain, hard and fast, but NATO forces almost have them surrounded. What Russia wins from taking the offensive, ends up costing them (and us) everything in the endgame.

The ultimate result of a protracted, civil war in Ukraine, becomes a war by proxy, guerrilla conflict. Significant losses on either side leads to open warfare of attrition between the superpowers. Without de-escalation, or capitulation, this ultimately results in counterforce, ending in countervalue every time. The Russians will not concede or surrender Crimea. In order to support a conventional war of attrition, the Russians will use their long range strategic bomber force, launched from nuclear bases deep inside the Russian motherland. NATO will use equivalent assets to shut down those bases. Russia will not accept a loss of a strategic nuclear base in their territory. They'll resort to counterforce in order to maintain status quo. In keeping with the narrative, probable targets would be Incirlik, Aviano, Diego Garcia, etc. One sub, one missile, one target. And upon losing a major airbase, and potentially several million lives, where does it end? [&:]

Don't play the game... [;)]

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

OK, I see your point.
However, I will point out a few things that cannot be overlooked.
1. This is Russian territory. Always has been, probably always will be. And regardless, the West certainly has no claim to it, nor would I want any part of it. Texas is plenty big enough for me.

Nope - it's currently part of Ukraine, not Russia, as recognised by the UN, multi-lateral agreements, and international law.

Until 1944 its majority population was Tatar, not Russian, and had been for centuries. Stalin then deported almost the entire Tatar population to the east, and about half of them died. Only since that time did large numbers of ethnic Russians move in, forming a new majority. Since 1991 Tatars having been returning, but have found it difficult to do so and still only make up about 12% of the population. The current balance includes about 58% ethnic Russians - a majority, but not a large one. Any act of self determination must be free and fair, must allow all refugees to return and participate, and it's simply invalid to claim that ALL ethnic Russians there favour changing sovereignty. That's the point of freely debating, campaigning, and persuading as it's about ideas and choices, not simply an ethnic headcount.

All of that is completely different than any claim that it belongs to "the West", as I'm unaware of any Western country making claims on the territory. This is simply about objecting to what amounts to an invasion, dressed up as something it isn't.

2. This can be resolved peacefully. The Russians did storm in like a bunch of jack-booted Nazi thugs, (or like Russians...) and tried to take the whole thing at the point of a gun....

I agree. The first steps must surely be the withdrawal of all Russian forces, Moscow's recognition of the new Kiev administration with a normalising of relations, and eventually an internationally-accepted process which could lead to a referendum. Of course face-saving will matter, so likely international monitors in Crimea *including* Russians will feature. That way they can still claim they're looking out for ethnic Russians.

3. The cynic in me is a firm believer in the power of money, and there's more money for everyone to make if they can use this event to restart the Cold War, in a more stable, less nukery kind of way....

You don't need to be a cynic, just a realist. Any money to be made by military-industrial complexes by creating barriers and tension is vastly dwarfed by the trade revenue generated by stable, free, prosperous societies. Look at most of Europe since the Cold War, where defence spending has dropped. While not without problems, they are far more prosperous than before because of the lack of constraints and tension. Military spending should be to safeguard such freedoms, not restrict them.

IMO this crisis is really only about one man; everything else is a symptom.

[RoryAndersonCDT]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

Superlative effort as always, Baloogan. Thank you for your excellent and thorough research.

I also researched all the South Western Russian airbases in the Black Sea region, and added that OOB to your original template. What developed in a raw, unedited sort of way is nothing short of apocalypse. Russia can bring the pain, hard and fast, but NATO forces almost have them surrounded. What Russia wins from taking the offensive, ends up costing them (and us) everything in the endgame.

Would you mind posting the results of your research of the SW russian airbases? I'd love to incorporate it into the existing scen/research at http://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index. ... raine_2014 .

[NakedWeasel]

Sure, I just want to refine it a bit, and then I'll zip it right up to you.

[RoryAndersonCDT]

Sounds great!

[jdkbph]

Does anyone think the Chinese are watching this closely? Are the Taiwanese getting nervous?

JD

[RoryAndersonCDT]

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140306/188151801/Russia-Starts-Massive-Air-Defense-Drills-Amid-Crimea-Standoff.html

MOSCOW, March 6 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s Western Military District has begun large-scale air defense drills at its southern testing range of Kapustin Yar on the backdrop of further escalation of tensions with the West over Ukraine.

Kapustin Yar, located some 450 kilometers (280 miles) east of the Ukrainian border, will host about 3,500 troops and over 1,000 units of military hardware for about a month. The exercise will culminate with live-firing drills, involving S-300, Buk-M1 and other air defense systems.

“It is for the first time that all air defense units from the district, including coastal defenses of the Northern Fleet, have gathered in one place,” said the district’s spokesman, Col. Oleg Kochetkov.

“It is the largest-ever exercise held by air defense units of the Western Military District,” Kochetkov said, adding that the drills were part of a regular combat training cycle.

The exercise, however, coincides with further escalation of a political crisis in Ukraine that has led to the current standoff between Russia and the West over the fate of Crimea, an autonomous Ukrainian region with a majority ethnic Russian population.

Crimean authorities have refused to recognize as legitimate the new central government in Kiev, which ousted President Viktor Yanukovych late last month, and on Thursday they announced a decision to become part of Russia.

A popular vote to approve the decision will be held in Crimea on March 16.

Russia’s parliament has recently approved military intervention in Ukraine, while thousands of “local militia” allegedly under Russian command have taken control over Ukrainian military bases across Crimea in the past week.

Following these developments, the West showered Moscow with accusations of aggression and threats of sanctions while cutting off military exchanges with Russia and scrambling to bolster military cooperation within NATO.

The Pentagon announced plans on Wednesday to expand combat pilot training in Poland and to send six additional F-15C fighter jets to a NATO mission carrying out air patrols over Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Patrols have been carried out on a three- to four-month rotation basis by 14 NATO states from Lithuania’s air base in Zokniai, near the northern city of Siauliai, since 2004 when the ex-Soviet republics joined the alliance.

The Estonian military said Thursday that the six US fighter jets as well as two KC-135 aerial refueling tankers landed at Zokniai, joining four US F-15s deployed there since January.

[beserko]

Brussels (AFP) - French President Francois Hollande said a controversial sale of two state-of-the art warships by France to Russia was still on course despite Moscow's widely opposed stand over Crimea.
he 2011 sale of the Mistral warships, worth one billion euros ($1.4 billion), was already a deep source of concern for France's NATO and European Union allies, coming only a few years after Russia's invasion of Georgia.
But despite the threat of another war involving Russia, Hollande, who was in Brussels at a European summit on the Ukrainian crisis, said France's commitment to deliver the military vessels was still alive.
"We respect our signed contracts," Hollande said. "We are not yet at that stage and we hope to avoid getting there," he said, referring to the potential of halting the deal.
The Mistral, the second-largest ship in the French navy, is a high-seas military base that can transport up to 16 helicopters, four landing craft, 13 battle tanks, and hundreds of combat troops.

Well, so much for NATO unity. Imagine what Russia could do with 2 of these beasts

[El Savior]

Interesting. Whole geopolitical picture comes much clear after looking map of Ukraine's gas fields and ports too. Conflict is all about energy again.


Source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -pipelines

[VIF2NE]

Nobody wants to die in a nuclear war.

Better that than surviving one. If in doubt watch the dvd "Threads"

There is a similar soviet film. "Letters from a Dead Man" (1986)

http://www.my-files.ru/wwu1py
http://www.my-files.ru/q3tlqy

[guanotwozero]

Well, the blocked OSCE observers are now getting warning shots, the press are being roughed up and contrary voices are being intimidated, so it looks like an increasing crackdown on anything other then the "preferred" policy in Crimea. It's getting worse, not better.

BBC report here

Legal analysis of occupation

If this continues to a full annexation, the international community will have no choice but to take significant non-military measures, though I don't think there's any chance of armed response. Possibly a new "Cool War" will result, though not to the same depth as the Cold War.

However, this will almost certainly include a NATO arms embargo, so France will have to find another buyer for its Mistrals. Who would be a likely customer? Maybe China? [X(]

[RoryAndersonCDT]

I'll be very unhappy if France does end up delivering those Mistrals to the Russians...

[NakedWeasel]

Very unlikely that France will cancel the sale of those ships to Russia. In the latest press releases French President Francois Hollande announced specifically of the Mistrals; "We keep to the terms of the signed contracts. Right now we have no plans to cancel them and we hope to avoid this." The first ship is currently underway on sea trials.

At this rate, it seems that France will deliver the ships in time to actually participate in the invasion. [X(] And then if NATO gets involved in a conflict France might participate alongside to help sink them. [:D]

TBH, I cannot not believe France ever agreed to sell Russia warships in the first place; They must be terribly desperate for money.

[guanotwozero]

While France may not choose to dishonour the contracts, a NATO arms embargo would take the form of "force majeur" which means it's then legally obliged not to deliver them. Any subsequent delivery would put France at odds with its NATO obligations, so it would have to choose.

There are plenty of examples of vessels needing new customers because of embargoes, e.g. Argentina buying ships originally destined for South Africa.

It's highly likely somebody would buy them, though the price may have to be knocked down a bit if it's a buyers' market. Of course I'm just speculating that such an embargo would happen, but I'm guessing that's a likely consequence if Russia takes this occupation the whole way.

[gregb41352]

It would be unfortunate if the ships were to suffer some kind of mechanical breakdown or other mis-fortune on their way to Russia.