The Ukraine Crisis

[SDHornet]

You know it's not going well for Ukraine when ISW can't even spin a "UkRaInE iS wInNiNg" narrative.

[SeattleGriz]

UK mulling option of escorting Ukraine grain vessels from ports in Black Sea, breaking Russian blockade

Not sure about the veracity of the report but interesting. What happens if the situation in Ukraine escalates not because of US boots on the ground but because a close ally's involvement?

Great question. The pending worldwide food shortages are getting more and more noise. Cutting off shipments to devastate UKR’s economy further and win the war he’s already lost.

The International Maritime Organization seems to disagree with your statement that the Russians are the ones preventing ships from leaving.

UK is itching to start more.

https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotT ... fAzov.aspx

The Russian Federation has informed IMO that it had established a humanitarian corridor, to provide for the safe evacuation of ships once outside the territorial waters of the Ukraine. Despite this initiative, there remain many safety and security issues which hamper access to the corridor and the ability for ships to depart from their berth in Ukrainian ports.

Ukraine’s ports are at MARSEC (maritime security) level 3 and remain closed for entry and exit. Sea mines have been laid in port approaches and some port exits are blocked by sunken barges and cranes. Many ships no longer have sufficient crew onboard to sail.

Ukraine also provided their preconditions for the safe evacuation of ships from their ports. These include an end to hostilities, the withdrawal of troops and ensuring the freedom of navigation in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov, including carrying out mine-sweeping activities with the involvement of Black Sea littoral states.

[BDKJMU]

Russia only controls about 15%? of UKR territory (including Crimea). If there are the above issues getting it out of Odessa, can’t they just ship the grain west (by truck to rail terminals, then by rail to Poland).

Or to Romania and the Port of Constanta. Its the largest port on the Black Sea and one of the largest in Europe.

[houndawg]

Great question. The pending worldwide food shortages are getting more and more noise. Cutting off shipments to devastate UKR’s economy further and win the war he’s already lost.

The International Maritime Organization seems to disagree with your statement that the Russians are the ones preventing ships from leaving.

UK is itching to start more.

https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotT ... fAzov.aspx

The Russian Federation has informed IMO that it had established a humanitarian corridor, to provide for the safe evacuation of ships once outside the territorial waters of the Ukraine. Despite this initiative, there remain many safety and security issues which hamper access to the corridor and the ability for ships to depart from their berth in Ukrainian ports.

Ukraine’s ports are at MARSEC (maritime security) level 3 and remain closed for entry and exit. Sea mines have been laid in port approaches and some port exits are blocked by sunken barges and cranes. Many ships no longer have sufficient crew onboard to sail.

Ukraine also provided their preconditions for the safe evacuation of ships from their ports. These include an end to hostilities, the withdrawal of troops and ensuring the freedom of navigation in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov, including carrying out mine-sweeping activities with the involvement of Black Sea littoral states.

The Russians have been shelling "humanitarian corridors" from the jump.

Seattle Griz

[SDHornet]

Russia only controls about 15%? of UKR territory (including Crimea). If there are the above issues getting it out of Odessa, can’t they just ship the grain west (by truck to rail terminals, then by rail to Poland).

My guess is the rail has been destroyed by now?

[houndawg]

Russia only controls about 15%? of UKR territory (including Crimea). If there are the above issues getting it out of Odessa, can’t they just ship the grain west (by truck to rail terminals, then by rail to Poland).

My guess is the rail has been destroyed by now?

Whats the line on Russian Generals killed by Ukraine vs. killed by Putin? Those boys don't get off their ass and start looking like an Army there's going to Polonium cocktails served at the strategy meeting...

[GannonFan]

Russia only controls about 15%? of UKR territory (including Crimea). If there are the above issues getting it out of Odessa, can’t they just ship the grain west (by truck to rail terminals, then by rail to Poland).

My guess is the rail has been destroyed by now?

Not familiar enough with the logistics but couldn't you get a lot more on a ship than trains, and the flexibility of getting it to harbor for off-loading at the destination is surely easier with ship rather than rail.

[kalm]

My guess is the rail has been destroyed by now?

Not familiar enough with the logistics but couldn't you get a lot more on a ship than trains, and the flexibility of getting it to harbor for off-loading at the destination is surely easier with ship rather than rail.

Agreed. The logistics of utilizing existing infrastructure meant for other things and certain volume isn’t exactly an easy transition.

[UNI88]

My guess is the rail has been destroyed by now?

Not familiar enough with the logistics but couldn't you get a lot more on a ship than trains, and the flexibility of getting it to harbor for off-loading at the destination is surely easier with ship rather than rail.

Did Ukraine mine the waters off of Odessa to impede a potential Russian landing?

[GannonFan]

Not familiar enough with the logistics but couldn't you get a lot more on a ship than trains, and the flexibility of getting it to harbor for off-loading at the destination is surely easier with ship rather than rail.

Did Ukraine mine the waters off of Odessa to impede a potential Russian landing?

Yes. They did that to all the ports. I don't think Ukraine has any navy to speak of so that's their naval defense. Wouldn't be a big deal for us or for the UK to carve out a path in and out with minesweepers if we get to that point.

[UNI88]

Did Ukraine mine the waters off of Odessa to impede a potential Russian landing?

Yes. They did that to all the ports. I don't think Ukraine has any navy to speak of so that's their naval defense. Wouldn't be a big deal for us or for the UK to carve out a path in and out with minesweepers if we get to that point.

Would we then have an obligation to defend that path to make sure Russia didn't try to use it to land forces and take the entire Ukrainian coast?

[kalm]

Yes. They did that to all the ports. I don't think Ukraine has any navy to speak of so that's their naval defense. Wouldn't be a big deal for us or for the UK to carve out a path in and out with minesweepers if we get to that point.

Would we then have an obligation to defend that path to make sure Russia didn't try to use it to land forces and take the entire Ukrainian coast?

I would think so which moves us into dangerous territory like a no-fly zone would.

[UNI88]

Would we then have an obligation to defend that path to make sure Russia didn't try to use it to land forces and take the entire Ukrainian coast?

I would think so which moves us into dangerous territory like a no-fly zone would.

And if the UK did it, we'd have an obligation to defend an ally if they were attacked.

I get where SH and SG are coming from in not wanting to get involved and risk WWIII. We also can't stick our head in the sand because history has shown that appeasement isn't a good approach either.

[kalm]

I would think so which moves us into dangerous territory like a no-fly zone would.

And if the UK did it, we'd have an obligation to defend an ally if they were attacked.

I get where SH and SG are coming from in not wanting to get involved and risk WWIII. We also can't stick our head in the sand because history has shown that appeasement isn't a good approach either.

That’s the conundrum. It’s why world wide unity against Putin and all who support him is a must. He hasn’t challenged importation of weapons yet so keep them coming until he’s toppled from within or dies of cancer.

[GannonFan]

I would think so which moves us into dangerous territory like a no-fly zone would.

And if the UK did it, we'd have an obligation to defend an ally if they were attacked.

I get where SH and SG are coming from in not wanting to get involved and risk WWIII. We also can't stick our head in the sand because history has shown that appeasement isn't a good approach either.

The only difference here is a dedicated sea lane would be much clearer and much less prone to misunderstandings as a no-fly zone would be. Besides, the Russians aren't likely to have a navy good enough at this point to really make an inroad from the sea on Odessa. But, it certainly does put us even closer to danger and the chance that something could happen.

With that said, I wouldn't be opposed to it. Russia's purposely trying to make food an issue to the rest of the world in the hope that we go all Kissinger-like and just say we should give them what they want of Ukraine just to make the issue go away. As we've said before, appeasing them here, like we appeased them with Crimea, just makes the next appeasement of another part of Ukraine that much more likely, until there is no more Ukraine to appease with. And then it will just be another non-NATO country they'll want a little piece of.

[SDHornet]

I would think so which moves us into dangerous territory like a no-fly zone would.

And if the UK did it, we'd have an obligation to defend an ally if they were attacked.

I get where SH and SG are coming from in not wanting to get involved and risk WWIII. We also can't stick our head in the sand because history has shown that appeasement isn't a good approach either.

Sure we can. There are plenty of other conflicts around the world we are blatantly ignoring, they just don't happen to be next to Russia.

[SDHornet]

And if the UK did it, we'd have an obligation to defend an ally if they were attacked.

I get where SH and SG are coming from in not wanting to get involved and risk WWIII. We also can't stick our head in the sand because history has shown that appeasement isn't a good approach either.

The only difference here is a dedicated sea lane would be much clearer and much less prone to misunderstandings as a no-fly zone would be. Besides, the Russians aren't likely to have a navy good enough at this point to really make an inroad from the sea on Odessa. But, it certainly does put us even closer to danger and the chance that something could happen.

With that said, I wouldn't be opposed to it. Russia's purposely trying to make food an issue to the rest of the world in the hope that we go all Kissinger-like and just say we should give them what they want of Ukraine just to make the issue go away. As we've said before, appeasing them here, like we appeased them with Crimea, just makes the next appeasement of another part of Ukraine that much more likely, until there is no more Ukraine to appease with. And then it will just be another non-NATO country they'll want a little piece of.

Nobody appeased them with Crimea, Russia just took it and the Ukrainians defending it folded like a cheap suit.

[UNI88]

And if the UK did it, we'd have an obligation to defend an ally if they were attacked.

I get where SH and SG are coming from in not wanting to get involved and risk WWIII. We also can't stick our head in the sand because history has shown that appeasement isn't a good approach either.

Sure we can. There are plenty of other conflicts around the world we are blatantly ignoring, they just don't happen to be next to Russia.

What happens when Putin goes after Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and so on?

Ignoring a third-world, tin-pot dictator going after a neighbor is one thing but ignoring a nuclear armed nation run by a megalomaniac who has threatened a variety of countries is a level of appeasement on par with Chamberlain.

[SeattleGriz]

You know it's not going well for Ukraine when ISW can't even spin a "UkRaInE iS wInNiNg" narrative.

Bill "please take my cruise" Kristol must be burning the midnight oil to come up with the analysis.

[BDKJMU]

Sure we can. There are plenty of other conflicts around the world we are blatantly ignoring, they just don't happen to be next to Russia.

What happens when Putin goes after Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and so on?

Ignoring a third-world, tin-pot dictator going after a neighbor is one thing but ignoring a nuclear armed nation run by a megalomaniac who has threatened a variety of countries is a level of appeasement on par with Chamberlain.

The US would be extected to provide the majority of the assets, as we have been doing for NATO for decades now, subsidizing their welfare states by providing most of their defense. Fuck that. Those countries plus the rest of Europe, if they had been over the years spending what they should have been spending on defense, could have easily taken Russia on.

Also, what do Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland have that we can’t live without? Now if they had a shit ton of oil, or produced the majority of the world’s highest class of semiconductors, that would be different.

[UNI88]

What happens when Putin goes after Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and so on?

Ignoring a third-world, tin-pot dictator going after a neighbor is one thing but ignoring a nuclear armed nation run by a megalomaniac who has threatened a variety of countries is a level of appeasement on par with Chamberlain.

The US would be extected to provide the majority of the assets, as we have been doing for NATO for decades now, subsidizing their welfare states by providing most of their defense. Fuck that. Those countries plus the rest of Europe, if they had been over the years spending what they should have been spending on defense, could have easily taken Russia on.

Also, what do Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland have that we can’t live without? Now if they had a shit ton of oil, or produced the majority of the world’s highest class of semiconductors, that would be different.

Okay Neville.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

The US would be extected to provide the majority of the assets, as we have been doing for NATO for decades now, subsidizing their welfare states by providing most of their defense. Fuck that. Those countries plus the rest of Europe, if they had been over the years spending what they should have been spending on defense, could have easily taken Russia on.

Also, what do Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland have that we can’t live without? Now if they had a shit ton of oil, or produced the majority of the world’s highest class of semiconductors, that would be different.

Okay Neville.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Wasn’t the US’s job to stand up to Hitler. Was Western Europe’s, mainly France and the UK.

[houndawg]

My guess is the rail has been destroyed by now?

Not familiar enough with the logistics but couldn't you get a lot more on a ship than trains, and the flexibility of getting it to harbor for off-loading at the destination is surely easier with ship rather than rail.

Seemed like they got the 155s to the front pretty rapidly

[houndawg]

And if the UK did it, we'd have an obligation to defend an ally if they were attacked.

I get where SH and SG are coming from in not wanting to get involved and risk WWIII. We also can't stick our head in the sand because history has shown that appeasement isn't a good approach either.

Sure we can. There are plenty of other conflicts around the world we are blatantly ignoring, they just don't happen to be next to Russia.

We don't have treaty obligation with many of the other conflicts

[houndawg]

The only difference here is a dedicated sea lane would be much clearer and much less prone to misunderstandings as a no-fly zone would be. Besides, the Russians aren't likely to have a navy good enough at this point to really make an inroad from the sea on Odessa. But, it certainly does put us even closer to danger and the chance that something could happen.

With that said, I wouldn't be opposed to it. Russia's purposely trying to make food an issue to the rest of the world in the hope that we go all Kissinger-like and just say we should give them what they want of Ukraine just to make the issue go away. As we've said before, appeasing them here, like we appeased them with Crimea, just makes the next appeasement of another part of Ukraine that much more likely, until there is no more Ukraine to appease with. And then it will just be another non-NATO country they'll want a little piece of.

Nobody appeased them with Crimea, Russia just took it and the Ukrainians defending it folded like a cheap suit.

Looks like things have changed.