Yay. Go, and darken our doorway with nonsense no more.
A comment irrelevant to the issue being discussed in my post.
The issue was Russia’s alleged great concern about maintaining its ability to project power into the Mediterranean and how the threat of losing access to Sevastopol was so critical to them.
My comment had been disputing he statement that Sevastopol is their only warm water port option for reasons of “unfortunate geography.” Such is not the case. They have another port under development and which could have been developed much earlier if they had felt that a domestic warm water port was important and they had another port in a country that was friendly to them that they, for perhaps reasonable reasons, pulled out of without much apparent concern. They could have developed lease relations with countries other than Syria and Ukraine as well. They chose to not develop another domestic port for decades; they chose to not develop other leasing relations. They made a decision to have no domestic port capacity and two lease arrangements. Either that was dumb or it signifies that projecting power into the Mediterranean has not been of high value to them and not the reason for recent actions.
Reading more carefully, I see it hasn’t even been broadcast yet, it’s on today if you want to catch it.
Meanwhile, the Easter truce didn’t make it through the weekend:
I really wish both sides can just go with the bargain hammered out, but I am not hopeful. It’s the only way to move forward, even though as BrokenBriton said not all pro-autonomy people had a voice in it.
NFWB,
Would you mind answering my question from post #2610?
Thanks
DSeid, regarding the warm port, your article did not mention cost or timelines to get another port up to military standards and even admitted it wouldn’t be as good as the current port. For all we know it’s a years long billion dollar dredging and infrastructure job to switch ports.
I did not have time to fully respond to this silliness, yesterday, but I would further note that the statement was attributed to Viktor Yuschchenko in 2009, before he lost a whole series of election attempts and got himself marginalized in Ukrainian politics. It is rather like quoting Rep. Michele Bachmann from 2009 as representing U.S. government intentions today.
Any straw, I guess.
True but not particular relevant to the point either. The point that for many decades they have left themselves without a domestic warm water port and reliant on only two leased ones all the while the ability to develop one was something they could do, and are doing now.
If having a warm water port to project power is of critical importance to you then you do not do that unless you are very dumb. I doubt Putin is so dumb so I conclude that he does not feel a critical need to project power with a naval presence into the Mediterranean. His ambitions are more contiguous in nature and to be exercised by use of gas supply threats and land forces. Sevastapol is nice but not critical; more a symbol of power than an essential tool of it.
It’s not really dumb because they in fact HAD a warm water port and quite frankly I doubt they would have left even if the Ukraine revoked the lease.
Well again, I am no expert on military matters, but to me it seems that having a single warm water port, even if it was a domestic one, is a bad idea. Redundant systems for mission critical items typically is key. In any case it not an accident of unfortunate geogrphy: they only had the ports leased in Sevastapol and in Tartus by a conscious choice that they did not need more than that.
Moreover it was quite possible that the lease would have been renewed under a Western leaning Ukraine with a non-hostile Russia. Just as a good business decision. The needs of business may still lead to some negotiated path to some sort of resolution without further escalation. Ukraine I understand depends on sales of military equipment to Russia for a large portion of its economy and Russia depends on military parts made in the Ukraine.
Your arguments most often amount to not much more than your claims that my points are irrelevant and silly. I take that to mean that my points are no such thing and you don’t have an argument to make in the first place.
Just because we now have the technology and Russia might have enough cash to engineer a military grade warm water port doesn’t change the fact that they are geographically inhibited. And just because they would like to be able to project power doesn’t mean it ever gets to the top of the priority list. I see what you are saying but I can’t think stupidity is to blame.
Regardless I think the Russians never had any intention of giving up the perfectly adequate base they had so had no impedance to create another.
Come on, man, he told you exactly why that particular point was silly. It was a rebuttal, not an ad hominem.
Your “evidence” that Ukraine wanted to close off Russia from the Mediterranean is based on a statement made by a politician who was voted out of office the year after he made this statement and who has failed to get even 2% of the vote in any subsequent election. That is clearly not an expression of the will or desires of “Ukraine.”
Yet, now you want to pretend that my pointing out the factual errors in your claim are nothing more than me claiming your posts are silly.
Given the factual nature of my point, both the silliness of your original claim and the utter silliness of you non-defense in the quoted post are self evident. I do not need to “claim” that your posts are silly, I need only point out facts–as I have done.
There is no factual error in my point.
My response was to the recorded historical fact that there was a time in the Russian and Ukrainian relationship regarding Sevastopol that the President of Ukraine told Russia they had to close the base by a date certain. He was not just some ‘politician’ like Michele Bachman one of hundreds with no absolute power. Yet you made the error that likened a US House Rep to the President of Ukraine. Do you see how silly that was?
And just because Yushchenko ultimately failed as president to join Ukraine to NATO and failed to force Russia to vacate Sevastopol does not mean he did not try.
Yushchenko didn’t “ultimately” fail, he was out of office less than a year after the statement you quoted and the Ukrainian leadership never pursued that idea.
You are, as usual, making disconnected statements and pretending that your clear errors meant something different than you intended them to mean before you were caught.
More silliness.
I’m not a military expert myself, but Russia’s access to the Med depends upon:
[ol]
[li]The good will of Turkey and Greece, both which control the access to the Black Sea[/li][li]The goodwill of NATO, which has the military forces to impair Soviet shipping through the Med[/li][li]The US Sixth Fleet not being tasked to interdict Russian shipping in the Med[/li][/ol]
Any problems with one or all three and the Black Sea is just a large salty lake.
Again, your concept of what constitutes a fact and an error on my part is quite bogus. To state that Yushchenko did not fail is as bad a non-fact as your concept that a US House Rep is of similar status as a president of Ukraine.
And what are you fact-checking on me. I have not argued and have no need to argue that Yushchenko did not leave office one year after he made the statement. I have pointed out that he made the statement and nothing more. I have pointed out a fact and you cannot deny that fact.
He is disputing the significance of your fact not whether it’s true. He is saying it is not significant.
Indeed. It was an empty threat issued on the campaign trail by a candidate who had no chance of winning re-election. It was not “Ukraine”, in the sense of something the parliament was actually in the process of doing.
See post 2627. I pointed that out to T&D from the start. Its not as if T&D has final authority on what is relevant or significant to an argument he opposes. And that Bachman assertion of his should remove all doubt that T&D is reaching beyond practical reasoning on the matter.