Ukraine Presidential Crackdown Violence. Russia Invades Ukraine

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

John McCain is blaming Obama for the current mess in Ukraine saying Obama's relaxation of the hard line stance towards in Iran/Syria in the Middle East was perceived as weakness by Russian authorities.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...39c_story.html

Is there anyone on planet earth more addicted to war than John McCain? I mean seriously, forget the ######ed person he chose as his running mate, imagine how many more wars the US would be in right now had McCain won?

[worth]

I have a coworker from Crimea and I spoke with him over lunch. His father is originally from Russia and his mother is from Crimea, and they currently live in Simferopol. He can talk to his parents over skype, but the phones are not working. They say is it calm in Simferopol, and just have to wait it out.

I asked him whether he thought Crimea should be a part of Ukraine or Russia and he said Russia.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I highly doubt the Americans would sail a carrier battle group into the Black sea (as a show of force). Thus limiting them to aerial power projection.

Capn', your take?

Strategy wise it would be foolish for the American's to put a Carrier Battle Group in the Black Sea, which is Russia's back yard.

While the Russian Black Fleet Navy isn't the most dynamic Group out there, more focused on anti submarine operations, if Moskva is there (rumors of it popping up in Cuba) it has a good arsenal of anti shipping weapons.

We also need to remember that the majority of the Russian airforce is in the West, and they can move Naval Aviation assets down to the Black Sea within a few days.

On top of that, I'm betting that Russia has either bolster or in the process of bolstering their submarine presence in the area.

At the end of the day politically, if something were to go down, the Russians would need to get one solid hit on a carrier for America's political will to go away, and since your in Russia's back yard, missiles would be plentiful.

[FlameOn]

Another infographic showing the imbalance of power between the Ukrainian and Russian sources


Reports are in of a speech made to Military officers by the new Ukrainian Commander Haiduk. Looks like all the remaining Ukrainians officers in the area will remain loyal to the central government. They heckled the former defected commander Berezovsky when both of the commanders were present to address the troops

At Ukraine's naval command on Monday morning, officers lined up in the yard of their Sevastopol headquarters to be addressed by both Berezovsky and the newly appointed navy chief commander, Serhiy Haiduk.

The officers broke into applause as Haiduk read them an order from Kiev removing Berezovsky from his position, and told them that Berezovsky was facing treason charges. When Haiduk had finished his dry but compelling address, the officers spontaneously broke into the national anthem, and some were seen to cry. Berezovsky showed no visible sign of emotion.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...mea-berezovsky

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

At the end of the day politically, if something were to go down, the Russians would need to get one solid hit on a carrier for America's political will to go away, and since your in Russia's back yard, missiles would be plentiful.

I think you meant: for America's political will to become inflamed. Remember the Maine!

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

So yea... that Ukrainian Naval base that the standoff happened at before. Seems like the Russians finally made it into the base and smashed up the electrical rooms so the rest of the base can't be used.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26408115

The G7 nations have cancelled all preparatory work for the G8 summit in response to Russia's actions and refusal to back down. They've issued a condemnation of Russia's military buildup. Looks like the G8 summit might not happen in Sochi later if this situation doesn't calm down.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26412914

A former ambassador to Russia has written a very long open letter regarding the situation in Russia. Among the issues he discusses is Russia's continued willingness to use force, in both brutal and efficient manners, flies right in the face of a continued western decline. Putin is counting on Western weakness. For some countries a show of strength may be necessary for them to back down though I don't think the EU, Obama (and by extension the uninformed American public) will have the political will for that. Money is the problem. The west have mostly become nations run by wealthy careerists who do not have the backbone to start the uncompromising show of strength necessary to reverse the Russian incursion into the Crimea. He also points out other Baltic nations may be in trouble if the West does not respond.

Excerpt from the article. I don't want to post too much of it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mosco...-crimea-2014-3

Interesting "lesson" that Russia learned from the cold war, that the west is run by bankers, and that they will eventually be overcome by military forces? Remind me, what was it that toppled the Soviet Union? Internal instability brought on by poor economics and overspending on the military? I think, perhaps, some people learned the wrong lesson.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Is there anyone on planet earth more addicted to war than John McCain? I mean seriously, forget the ######ed person he chose as his running mate, imagine how many more wars the US would be in right now had McCain won?

I don't understand a lot of these American politicians. In a time when a show of solidarity and strength is needed to address an international problem, they are instead taking pot shots at the government further making their own government appear weak.

Well one thing is for sure, the American military would not have seen the significant force reduction under McCain as it has under Obama.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Strategy wise it would be foolish for the American's to put a Carrier Battle Group in the Black Sea, which is Russia's back yard.

While the Russian Black Fleet Navy isn't the most dynamic Group out there, more focused on anti submarine operations, if Moskva is there (rumors of it popping up in Cuba) it has a good arsenal of anti shipping weapons.

We also need to remember that the majority of the Russian airforce is in the West, and they can move Naval Aviation assets down to the Black Sea within a few days.

On top of that, I'm betting that Russia has either bolster or in the process of bolstering their submarine presence in the area.

At the end of the day politically, if something were to go down, the Russians would need to get one solid hit on a carrier for America's political will to go away, and since your in Russia's back yard, missiles would be plentiful.

I am not so sure about that.

Sure, Americans had little appetite for casualties when it came to Iraq or Afghanistan - places Americans care little about. But if Russia were to take down a US warship, I would think American attitudes would be very, very different.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I think you meant: for America's political will to become inflamed. Remember the Maine!

Not this time, after what has been a half generation of war. If the Russian's hit a carrier showing that they're not the invincible unbeatable navy, and the news programs show a carrier in flames, and body bags in the dozens or hundreds start flying home to pictures of grieving families, the American political will is going to vanish. Obama will be attacked on all sides of the floor for his weakening of American Foreign Policy and weakening of America's military.

If a carrier gets hit it also puts a massive hole in America's naval strategy and protection of strength.

America has 10 aircraft carriers now not all of them are active and I don't have their status, but I would assume that half of them are in yard right now or in workups for deployment. the rest are in the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean, usually somewhere around the South China Sea.

If you take one out it leaves a a major hole in their Planning.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I am not so sure about that.

Sure, Americans had little appetite for casualties when it came to Iraq or Afghanistan - places Americans care little about. But if Russia were to take down a US warship, I would think American attitudes would be very, very different.

I could be wrong, but I disagree, if an America Aircraft Carrier is sunk or damaged in the defense of the Ukraine by the Russian's I don't see how American's will think that they're justifiable casualties as opposed to another war that didn't need to be fought and now they're paying the price.

[Bigtime]

If the Americans actually sailed a carrier battle group in to the Black sea it is simply a question of when, not if, it gets hit (should things flare up).

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Is there anyone on planet earth more addicted to war than John McCain? I mean seriously, forget the ######ed person he chose as his running mate, imagine how many more wars the US would be in right now had McCain won?

While I agree that it's in poor taste for American politicians to be openly criticizing their president, McCain is correct here. Considering the man spent five years being tortured in a Hanoi POW camp, I think he knows the harsh realities of war better than anyone, so I'd be hesitant to say that he's "addicted to war."

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I could be wrong, but I disagree, if an America Aircraft Carrier is sunk or damaged in the defense of the Ukraine by the Russian's I don't see how American's will think that they're justifiable casualties as opposed to another war that didn't need to be fought and now they're paying the price.

I know that that is the consensus, and established view. But I think there is a big difference between casualties when trying to liberate a Muslim country, and from being attacked by Russia.

There is a long, deep history there. And while politically unpopular, I believe there would be a deep resolve to not stand for that.

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not this time, after what has been a half generation of war. If the Russian's hit a carrier showing that they're not the invincible unbeatable navy, and the news programs show a carrier in flames, and body bags in the dozens or hundreds start flying home to pictures of grieving families, the American political will is going to vanish. Obama will be attacked on all sides of the floor for his weakening of American Foreign Policy and weakening of America's military.

If a carrier gets hit it also puts a massive hole in America's naval strategy and protection of strength.

America has 10 aircraft carriers now not all of them are active and I don't have their status, but I would assume that half of them are in yard right now or in workups for deployment. the rest are in the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean, usually somewhere around the South China Sea.

If you take one out it leaves a a major hole in their Planning.

Are you the ghost of Japanese genius who thought Pearl Harbour was a good idea? Obama's popularity and support would skyrocket if the Russians were so daft as to hit an American carrier. It would galvanize the country from California to Texas to Florida, blue/red/purple states.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Why would they float a carrier into harms way?

They have NATO airfields nearby...tougher to sink those I wager

[worth]

This image is of US carrier deployments from Feb 12, 2014. It only shows one Carrier Group deployed. Is that even remotley possible?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Zarley

While I agree that it's in poor taste for American politicians to be openly criticizing their president, McCain is correct here. Considering the man spent five years being tortured in a Hanoi POW camp, I think he knows the harsh realities of war better than anyone, so I'd be hesitant to say that he's "addicted to war."

Considering he's wanted to be involved in every armed conflict since Obama took office....if he's not addicted to war he sure doesn't show it. This is also the same guy who was on the ground in Syria supporting the rebels. He, if nothing else, loves him some war. Perhaps that has to do with who his biggest campaign donators are, perhaps he just enjoys war. Either one is horrible.

[CaptainCrunch]

btw the strength chard is a little too simplified, there are motor rifle and mechanized divisions that are un-accounted for in that chart.

These are combined forces divisions that include light and heavy armor as well as administrative artillery groups and airborne elements.

If the Russian's deploy the Western Military district they have a tank division comprised of about 150 main battle tanks. On top of that the Western District has 2 mechanized brigades in the 6th army and a additional tank division and motorized infantry division in the 20th army that means I believe that the Russians could throw 300 tanks into the fray if they wanted to, probably just as great a number of infantry carriers and fighting Vehicles.

[burn_this_city]

McCain would have been better for Syria than Obama. Like it or not, the US should have setup a no-fly zone early in the conflict and armed the FSA.

[Byrns]

The Americans aren't going to deploy a carrier group vs Russia. There's no point.