Putin Moving Nuclear Weapons Into Crimea?

dragondick

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/be ... -weapons-crimea.cnn


We had a thread on Crimea but can't find it anymore, so setting up a new post here.

Anyway, this is serious matter because:

1.  It violated agreements signed by Russia.  Western countries should know that throughout history Russian observes agreement only when it is convenient to do so.

2.  It places a lot more countries under Russia's nuclear threat.

As long as the West cannot take a united stand, plus turn a blind eye when it matters, Russia will continue testing West's tolerance limit.  It is getting to be more and more like the Nazis shortly B4 WWII.  Pre-WWII's Chamberlain = Pre-WWIII's Obama?

Ben2009

I'll look at the link later when I have time. However CNN is undoubtably biased with a Western agenda. As a military fan, it is easy to see how this is a gross misrepresentation.

There is absolutely no reason why Russia would move nuclear weapons into Crimea. Nuclear weapons are divided into 2 categories, tactical and strategic.

With such a huge local superiority in conventional weapons, Russia does not need tactical nukes in Crimea. Placing nukes there doesn't make any sense. The costs of protecting those assets are high. If unused, it may end up being seized/stolen or otherwize taken over by US special forces or by rogue elements. Furthermore, tactical nukes are only used as a very last ditch resort. Russia has a huge upper hand, so there is no need. Lastly, Russia doesn't want its borderlands turned into a nuclear wasteland.

Now, if we are talking instead about strategic nukes, then Russia would be even more unlikely to locate them near its borders where it can be reached and destroyed with conventional weapons such as artillery. ICBMs have intercontinental reach, and so do nukes that are delivered by strategic heavy bombers, even nuclear-armed cruise missile have a range of thousands of miles. Strategic nukes would be stored in Russia's heartland, far away from the reach of its neighbours and potential adversaries. Thus the only way it can be destroyed is by a M.A.D. type nuclear exchange with the US.

Now that we have covered why this CNN report is bullshit. Let's tackle DD bro's points 1 by 1.

1) Perhaps so, but so does the US. In fact, the US ignores many international treatises, including ones which they first espoused. From torture, to environmental issues, to the Hague, and so on. The list is too long. Russia is no boy scout, but it is far more honourable than the US when it comes to respecting agreements.

2) The nuclear threat doesn't change at all no matter where Russia places its nukes. Strategic nukes have global reach. Besides, the world is under much greater threat from the US's nukes than Russia's.

3) Actually it is the West (mainly the US, and to a lesser extent, UK) that is testing Russia's tolerance limit. The US has instigated a coup right on Russia's door step. What they did is akin to Russia subverting Canada and propping up a Russian puppet regime in Ottawa. Would US stand idly by if such were to happen?

dragondick

USA of course is NOT an innocent party of Ukraine’s demise but its (NATO) inaction during the invasion of Georgia* (a small former satellite state of the USSR which claimed independence after USSR’s collapse) by Russian troops encouraged what we are witnessing today.

*Georgia is a NATO member & when Russian troops were sent in to teach the newly elected Georgian President a lesson, NATO did nothing which violated the basic principle of NATO -- the attack on anyone member country is an attack on all members.

Ukraine is NOT a NATO member, due to its geographical size and location is a jewel in Putin’s plan to reclaim USSR’s former glory.  (Putin was an upper-middle ranking KGB agent during USSR’s days).  
Putin’s action in Ukraine was plain clumsy.   Who would believe that pro-Russian rebels can have unmarked uniforms, and columns & columns of truck loads of supplies & military hardware, all arranged overnight and without Russia’s direct involvement, many months beforehand?

Russia was a signatory to an agreement guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for it being  a nuclear weapon free area.  Russia’s actions tore up this agreement completely.

As the sole supplier of energy (gas & oil) to Ukraine, Russia can flex its muscles & achieve the same goal by simply asking for settlement of previous purchases while building a pipeline which by-passes Ukraine to Western Europe, without resorting to a puppet show when the whole world can see who is pulling the strings behind the scene.  

Now that everything is in motion,  Russia will not stop even when Ukraine comes within its fold until a WW-III showdown.

That’s why I felt Obama is like Chamberlain’s pre-WW-II.

Ben2009

dragondick 发表于 2015-3-12 11:14
USA of course is NOT an innocent party of Ukraine’s demise but its (NATO) inaction during the invas ...

DD bro, thanks for your feedback. A couple of things I'd like to point out.

The agreement you referred to is a non-binding agreement in principle. There was also an implicit agreement that the US would not try to gain influence over Ukraine and play it off against Russia. Its obvious that the US reneged on that agreement.

Furthermore, where Russia "broke" a non-binding agreement, the US has broken many binding agreements whenever it was not convenient to continue abiding by such agreements.

Regarding the issue of energy supply. Shutting off the gas supply (especially during winter) is in a way, an attack on the Ukraine's civilian population, which is wrong, and arguably a war crime. It would also prevent Russian gas from reaching other customers which are separated from Russia by Ukraine. Building a new pipeline is not a viable short-run solution because pipeline building requires significant investment, and many years to construct (not to mention the permission of other nations which the pipeline traverses).

dragondick

Of course building an alternative pipeline will take time & money, but it is cheaper than crumbling of the Russian economy in face of sanctions.

Anyway, lets wait & see the end game.

dragondick

I just want to add two things:

1.  All agreements between countries are non-binding.  Putting in bluntly, all inter-nation agreements are for convenience.  Future credibility is a separate issue.

2.  I did not say "turn off supply", because that would mean turning off supply to western Europe too because the route through Ukraine is the supply route to western Europe as well.  When an alternative route is finished, then jack up the prices of oil & gas to Ukraine.  Let Ukraine decide whether to buy Russian energy via land route or Middle East energy via a land AND sea route.  Let demand decide pricing.

dragondick

https://news.vice.com/article/ru ... aign=outbraincanada

Ben2009

dragondick 发表于 2015-3-13 09:49
I just want to add two things:

1.  All agreements between countries are non-binding.  Putting in bl ...

Ummm.... no.

I sort of understand what you are getting at. What you mean is that any agreement can be broken if you are powerful enough. However, in international law, there is still a difference between binding and non-binding agreements.

An example of a binding agreement would be: {Ben2009 promises to pay $1000 each month to Dragondick in the event that he becomes unemployed.}

An example of non-binding agreement such as a memorandum of understanding would be: {Ben2009 will try to do what he can to help out Dragondick if he needs help.}

Ben2009

dragondick 发表于 2015-3-19 07:52
https://news.vice.com/article/russia-says-it-could-put-nukes-in-crimea-and-they-might-already-be-the ...

Articles like these are so biased that its not much more than Western propaganda. Everything is either taken out of context, or re-interpreted by the author. The only thing that actually verifiable is where the Russian defense minister says that it makes no military sense to base nuclear weapons in Crimea. Which is what I also said. The mumbo jumbo about political reasons for doing so is just the author's own nonsensical rambling which fits in with the general Western propaganda goal of vilifying Putin.

dragondick

Ben2009 发表于 2015-3-24 20:14
Ummm.... no.

I sort of understand what you are getting at. What you mean is that any agreement c ...

{Ben2009 promises to pay $1000 each month to Dragondick in the event that he becomes unemployed.}

I am unemployed right now, can I have the $1000 tomorrow a.m.?