How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[steve_bank]

Crimea is now part of Russia and it will not be given back.

In Putin's military thinking he thinks he needs a land bridge to Crimea and the Russian naval base. You never know when those pesky Lithuanians will mount a naval attack on Russia on the Black Sea.

That being said.

Lithuania wants naval coalition to lift Russia’s blockade of Ukraine’s grain

Britain supports in principle the call for a naval coalition ‘of the willing’ to restart exports through Black Sea

www.theguardian.com

Britain has backed in principle a proposal by Lithuania for a naval coalition “of the willing” to lift the Russian Black Sea blockade on Ukrainian grain exports.

That would be very smart. It makes sense to resume grain shipments. NATO can help I'm sure.

The grain could be transported by land from Ukraine and put to ships in European ports. The calls to break the blockade are just a ploy to, well, break the blockade. And make it harder for Russia to keep firing missiles from submarines and ships. I can't blame Ukraine for trying to use the threat of famine to try to pull NATO or other forces to the Black Sea to restrict Russian movements, but as an impartial observer I have to call it like I see it.

From reorts grain is crossing into Poland by train but quantity is low. There is also a storage problem.

 

[steve_bank]

The Cuban Missie Crisis comes to mind. Russian ships loaded with missiles headed for an American blockade of Cuba.

In the end Khrushchev was rational and agreed to a negotiated off ramp with JFK, maybe not so much for Putin.

 

[lpetrich]

OpenRailwayMap - railroad lines for the entire world, mapped by railfans.

Europe has an abundance of rail lines, so Ukrainian grain can go anywhere in Europe, including to any European port. The main difficulty is changing gauge, and that must be done on the borders of the former Russian Empire - Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, the Transcaucasian and Central Asian ex-Soviet nations, and Russia itself. From there, the closest big coastal cities not on the Black Sea are Gdansk, Poland and Istanbul, Turkey.

 

[steve_bank]

On the Seattle waterfront there are a series of large grain silos. Train cars under the silos have grain sucked in. Ships pull up and the grain is blown into the holds through nozzles. There is limited storage.

From the reporting storage in Ukraine is backed up. Grain has to get to Poland and then onto ships. Ukraine is not set up for it. The quantities require ships.

Grain silos on the waterfront in Seattle Washington USA Stock Photo - Alamy

Download this stock image: Grain silos on the waterfront in Seattle Washington USA - C5K9KX from Alamy's library of millions of high resolution stock photos, illustrations and vectors.

www.alamy.com

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Western nations led by the U.S. can declare a humanitarian maritime corridor for the grain to pass. If little Russian wants to sink a ship we'll see who blinks first I suppose. It ain't rocket science. They don't own the sea.

Our warships can't get there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Western nations led by the U.S. can declare a humanitarian maritime corridor for the grain to pass. If little Russian wants to sink a ship we'll see who blinks first I suppose. It ain't rocket science. They don't own the sea.

Challenging a naval blockade is risky. This is where the "one mistake" scenario can come to pass. Not that I'm turning dovish but I think if we help out those who need help with the cost this go around and give the Russian ship sinking missiles we're giving Ukraine a chance to do their thing, things should open up from there.

No. Ukraine is not capable of opening the port. Submarines are quite good at sea denial in a situation like this and Ukraine doesn't have anything that can touch them.

 

[bilby]

Western nations led by the U.S. can declare a humanitarian maritime corridor for the grain to pass. If little Russian wants to sink a ship we'll see who blinks first I suppose. It ain't rocket science. They don't own the sea.

Our warships can't get there.

Yes they can.

Why do you imagine that they can’t?

 

[skepticalbip]

Western nations led by the U.S. can declare a humanitarian maritime corridor for the grain to pass. If little Russian wants to sink a ship we'll see who blinks first I suppose. It ain't rocket science. They don't own the sea.

Our warships can't get there.

Yes they can.

Why do you imagine that they can’t?

It is certainly possible but sending a U.S. naval task force into the Black would violate the Montreux Convention of 1936 which Russia would likely see as an act of war. A cruiser could possibly enter without violating the convention but then the decision to do that would rely on how willing the president was to have a shooting war with the Russians. The chance of that seems unlikely since the president was unwilling to supply the Ukrainians with fighter aircraft.

 

[bilby]

Western nations led by the U.S. can declare a humanitarian maritime corridor for the grain to pass. If little Russian wants to sink a ship we'll see who blinks first I suppose. It ain't rocket science. They don't own the sea.

Our warships can't get there.

Yes they can.

Why do you imagine that they can’t?

It is certainly possible but sending a U.S. naval task force into the Black would violate the Montreux Convention of 1936 which Russia would likely see as an act of war. A cruiser could possibly enter without violating the convention but then the decision to do that would rely on how willing the president was to have a shooting war with the Russians. The chance of that seems unlikely since the president was unwilling to supply the Ukrainians with fighter aircraft.

Sure. But that’s very different from ‘can’t get there’.

And 1936 was a different time. We all went down to Montreux (on the Lake Geneva shoreline), and the idea was to prevent smoke on the water, and fire in the sky. But that was the pre-WWII world.

 

[skepticalbip]

Western nations led by the U.S. can declare a humanitarian maritime corridor for the grain to pass. If little Russian wants to sink a ship we'll see who blinks first I suppose. It ain't rocket science. They don't own the sea.

Our warships can't get there.

Yes they can.

Why do you imagine that they can’t?

It is certainly possible but sending a U.S. naval task force into the Black would violate the Montreux Convention of 1936 which Russia would likely see as an act of war. A cruiser could possibly enter without violating the convention but then the decision to do that would rely on how willing the president was to have a shooting war with the Russians. The chance of that seems unlikely since the president was unwilling to supply the Ukrainians with fighter aircraft.

Sure. But that’s very different from ‘can’t get there’.

And 1936 was a different time. We all went down to Montreux (on the Lake Geneva shoreline), and the idea was to prevent smoke on the water, and fire in the sky. But that was the pre-WWII world.

So true... but the convention still stands and is the reason the U.S. has no submarines (officially) or aircraft carriers in the Black Sea.

 

[Jayjay]

The Montreaux convention is also the reason why Russia can't send its other ships to the Black Sea.

 

[ZiprHead]

Western nations led by the U.S. can declare a humanitarian maritime corridor for the grain to pass. If little Russian wants to sink a ship we'll see who blinks first I suppose. It ain't rocket science. They don't own the sea.

Our warships can't get there.

Yes they can.

Why do you imagine that they can’t?

It is certainly possible but sending a U.S. naval task force into the Black would violate the Montreux Convention of 1936 which Russia would likely see as an act of war. A cruiser could possibly enter without violating the convention but then the decision to do that would rely on how willing the president was to have a shooting war with the Russians. The chance of that seems unlikely since the president was unwilling to supply the Ukrainians with fighter aircraft.

So Russia would be relying on prior agreements NOW?

 

[Jayjay]

Western nations led by the U.S. can declare a humanitarian maritime corridor for the grain to pass. If little Russian wants to sink a ship we'll see who blinks first I suppose. It ain't rocket science. They don't own the sea.

Our warships can't get there.

Yes they can.

Why do you imagine that they can’t?

It is certainly possible but sending a U.S. naval task force into the Black would violate the Montreux Convention of 1936 which Russia would likely see as an act of war. A cruiser could possibly enter without violating the convention but then the decision to do that would rely on how willing the president was to have a shooting war with the Russians. The chance of that seems unlikely since the president was unwilling to supply the Ukrainians with fighter aircraft.

So Russia would be relying on prior agreements NOW?

Enforcing the convention is not up to Russia, but Turkey.

 

[steve_bank]

This says something. Food runs low? Send them off to war.

Putin signs law to remove age limit to join military amid Ukraine war - La Prensa Latina Media

Moscow, May 28 (EFE).- Russian president Vladimir Putin on Saturday signed a law that removes the upper age limit for contractual service in the military, coinciding with the war in Ukraine.


The law was already approved by the Russian parliament on Wednesday with the objective to let everyone in the working-age group sign their first professional contract with the armed forces.


Earlier, Russians aged between 18 and 40 and foreigners from 18 to 30 could enlist as professional soldiers in the Russian Army.


Pro-government lawmakers said highly professional specialists, whose age is usually around 40-45 years, were needed to use high-precision weapons and operate weapons and military equipment.


The lawmakers said the legislation would make it easier for civilian doctors, engineers, and communications specialists to join the military.


They said civilian specialists were interested in working in Ukraine but could not be called in for services because the law did not allow it.


Western intelligence reports have speculated that Russia could have lost more than 15,000 soldiers since the invasion of Ukraine began on Feb.24.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Western nations led by the U.S. can declare a humanitarian maritime corridor for the grain to pass. If little Russian wants to sink a ship we'll see who blinks first I suppose. It ain't rocket science. They don't own the sea.

Our warships can't get there.

Yes they can.

Why do you imagine that they can’t?

It's a map. Note that the only route to get there is through the territorial waters of Turkey. Warships do not have free passage through the territorial waters of another nation--and Turkey has currently closed those waters to all warships not based in the Black Sea. Russia can't send in a replacement for the Moskova, either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So true... but the convention still stands and is the reason the U.S. has no submarines (officially) or aircraft carriers in the Black Sea.

We have no subs there unofficially, either. A submerged entry is not possible, you can't sneak in.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So true... but the convention still stands and is the reason the U.S. has no submarines (officially) or aircraft carriers in the Black Sea.

We have no subs there unofficially, either. A submerged entry is not possible, you can't sneak in.

The next few days are very pivotal in the war. Russia is pretty close to fully securing Donbas region. Ukrainians are very close to withdrawing from the last strategic spot in the area. However, Ukrainian defenders are counterattacking. They've been given a boost with significant western arms. Of course, there was a quite a roll when Kissinger suggested that Ukraine trade land for peace. Can't blame Ukraine for not liking this. It's their fucking land. But then today Dmitry Peskov stated that simply trading land for peace won't work for Russia either. Stealing land, looting resources, and killing civilians isn't enough for Russia. The west needs to keep doing everything we can to help Ukraine (short of war). Send more weapons. Figure out how to open up the last Ukrainian port. Re-open all our embassies in Kyiv. More boycotts against Russia.

​

 

[Elixir]

More boycotts against Russia

Pfft.
We need to see more “unfortunate accidents” happening within Russia.
Maybe a gas explosion in the Kremlin, an electrical fire in Putler’s palace, a few deathly ill oligarchs … you know - the kind of bad luck that befalls Putler’s enemies. I just think he’s due for a run of REALLY bad luck.
Official channels are impotent.

 

[Copernicus]

So many people are dying and suffering because of this war. There has to be an end to it. More weapons cannot be the ultimate solution, because neither side is going to capitulate. Kissinger, like Putin, is stuck in Cold War mentality, so he thinks of Russia as basically the superpower that the Soviet Union was in the last century. More modern thinkers will need to work out a permanent solution, and those of us sitting in our armchairs in the West are probably not be the best people to take advice from. I suspect that unplanned events beyond the control of either side will ultimately compel some kind of end to the slaughter.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Kissinger’s 99. Is he up to snuff?

It seems most everything Russia does is made public but very little on Ukraine. How far are they along with the heavier longer range weapons? What do they have planned? Most of what Ukraine does is largely kept out of the media in comparison to Russia. A steady stream of weapons should come in without hiccup from the US until the end of the fiscal year. And I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts, the more Russia makes advances, the more aggressive the weapons from the US will become. As long as Ukraine has the will to fight, the US will supply them with weapons. If Ukraine can not push back on the ground, they will be given the ability to strike deeper at supply lines.