The Situation in the Ukraine. #2

TheArmenian wrote:Obtaining the lone Ukrainian frigate would have been nice of course. But there are many valuable ships that Russia got hold of:

-The Ropucha class landing ship: This one is more valuable than anything else at the moment. This kind of workhorse is doing most of the work in resupplying Syria.
-The 3 Grisha class corvettes: These are of the later Grisha IV type with the Fregat type radar. They are just as good as the best one the Russians have. These ships are great for patrolling the Black sea.
-The 2 Natya class minesweepers: They are ocean-going minesweepers and can do a variety of jobs (including mine warfare, patrol, surveillance etc.)
-The Slavutych command ship: Allegedly it is in good shape.
-The Donbass tender: Great for supporting subs in the Mediterranean.
-The Tarantul class missile boat: Unfortunately it is of the older Tarantul II class with the older missiles. But still a great boat for the black Sea.
-The Zaporojie submarine: You can laugh all you want on this old Foxtrot class boat. But it has recently been overhauled (with Ukrainian money). Sure it does not have the modern fancy stuff, but it can dive and can be a good training unit for the crews of the Kilos that are building. It can also serve as minelayer, surveillance etc.
-The Polnocny class Landing craft: Again, a valuable asset for short range operations in the area. Does it really have to be new?

There are also a number of other ships, boats, crafts and tugs that can still do a good job. For most tasks the age is not relevant as long as the boat is in good shape.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Beleive it or not I actually went on board the mine sweeper cherkassy during a blackseaops exercise near Varna last year. I could hardly see any crewmen there unlike the numrous sailors standing proudly near the neighboring russian ship

navyfield wrote:wait so 100 countries voted for a resolution and 99 abstained ,voted no , or didnt show up in the hall...
USA administration was expecting like about 170 yes-votes...
its official -this is a diplomatic dissaster for Usa.

Asia will not 'isolate' Russia
By Pepe Escobar

Any (bureaucratic) doubts the New Cold War is on have been dispelled by the Group of Seven issuing a pompous, self-described Hague Declaration. Abandon all hope those who expected The Hague to become the seat of a tribunal judging the war crimes of the Cheney regime.

The G-7 also cancelled its upcoming summer summit in Sochi as a means of "punishing" Moscow over Crimea. As if this carried any practical value. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded with class; if you don't want us, we have better things to do. [1] Everyone knows the G-7 is an innocuous, self-important talk shop. It's in the G-20 - much more representative of the real



world - where crucial geopolitical and geoeconomic issues gain traction.

The Hague Declaration comes complete with the kiss of death, as in, "The International Monetary Fund has a central role leading the international effort to support Ukrainian reform, lessening Ukraine's economic vulnerabilities, and better integrating the country as a market economy in the multilateral system." That's code for "wait till structural adjustment starts biting".

And then there will be "measures to enhance trade and strengthen energy security" - code for "we will destroy your industry" but "are not very keen on paying your humongous Gazprom bill".

All this in the sidelines of a supposed summit on nuclear security in the Netherlands, where US President Barack Obama, at the Rijksmuseum, in front of Rembrandt's The Night Watch, extolled Washington's "support of the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian people". Rembrandt's watchers have never seen anything like it in their glorious lifespan. It pays to be a Nazi after all; you just need to be in the right government, against the right enemy, and fully approved by the hyper-power.

King Willem-Alexander hosted a lavish dinner for the members of the nuclear security summit at the Royal Palace Huis ten Bosch in The Hague - after Obama met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in a (failed) bid to "isolate" Russia. The White House would later add that, as long as Russia continues "flagrantly" to violate international law, "there is no need for it to engage with the G7". Unless, of course, it starts conducting a drone war in Ukrainian badlands - with kill-list attached.

All about NATO

The US Senate - always enjoying superb popularity ratings - laboriously laid the groundwork for debating a bill backing a US$1 billion loan guarantee for the regime changers in Kiev, plus $150 million in aid also including "neighboring countries". These figures are enough to pay Ukraine's bills for maybe two weeks.

Meanwhile, in the facts on the ground department, Crimea will be booming soon - tourism included - and may even become a "special economic zone". [2] Subjects of the upcoming IMF/agrobusiness-plundered Khaganate of Nulands will see the results for themselves.

Hysteria within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that Russia is about to invade everyone and his neighbor literally tomorrow - remember The Russians Are Coming! - persists unabated. Independent observers, The Roving Eye included, always insisted this is all about NATO, and not the European Union. [3]

Since the go-go days of the Bill Clinton era, NATO has been expanding to the doorstep of Russia. The process graphically represents US hegemony over Europe; NATO "annexed" Eastern Europe even before the EU. And even those certified US Cold Warriors such as Paul Nitze always thought this was a needless, dangerous provocation of Russia.

Very few remember how "Bubba" Clinton, to make sure terminal alcoholic Boris Yeltsin was re-elected in 1996, postponed NATO's expansion for a year. Afterwards, the expansion turbocharged into NATO as global Robocop - from the Balkans to the intersection of Central and South Asia, and to Northern Africa.

NATO's humanitarian bombing of Yugoslavia - 36,000 combat missions, 23,000 bombs and missiles - whose 15th anniversary is "celebrated" this week, codified the new realities. NATO had nothing to do with defense; it was a multi-lethal (transformer) attack dog. It was the epitome of clean war; aerial blitzkrieg, and no casualties. And it was totally legitimized by "human rights" over national sovereignty; that was humanitarian imperialism in the making, opening the way to "responsibility to protect" and the destruction of Libya.

Moscow knows very well the lineaments of the neo-barbarian behemoth at its gates, in the form of NATO bases in Ukraine, assuming the regime changers in Kiev remain in power. And their response has absolutely nothing to do with "Putin's aggression". Or the so-called "Medvedev Doctrine" of Russia theoretically extending military protection to Russians everywhere. As if Russia was about to "threaten" its business interests in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan or Mongolia.

What the White House calls "the international community" - roughly the "Hague Declaration" G-7 plus a few European minions - could not possibly admit that. Asia, on the other hand, clearly identifies it. China, Japan and South Korea, for starters, identify Russia with a steady supply of oil and gas and further business deals. Even considering that Japan and South Korea are essentially US protectorates, nothing could be more anachronistic in their calculations than a Western-provoked New Cold War.

Asia will not "isolate" Russia - and Asians and Russians know it, as much as The White House is in denial. Beijing's abstention in "condemning" Moscow - talk about the American angry-schoolmaster brand of politics - is classic Deng Xiaoping-style "keep a low profile", as China is Russia's strategic partner and both are busy working for the emergence of a multipolar world. Not to mention Beijing's utmost rejection of US-style color-coded "revolutions" and regime change ops - as well as that "pivoting to Asia" encirclement ops.

Oh, to have been an EU-regulated fly on the wall in that Hague room where Obama and Xi were talking; cool Xi meets Obama pivoting around himself.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-250314.html#.UzLvZiGloxU.twitter

BERLIN, March 28. /ITAR-TASS/. The deliveries of natural gas from Russia to the European Union “have no reasonable alternative,” German Vice Chancellor, Minister of Economics and Energy Sigmar Gabriel said on Thursday evening at an energy forum in Osnabruck, organized by the Neue Osnabrucker Zeitung newspaper.

According to him, at discussions on Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas and oil “it is often concluded that there are many other possibilities (for getting energy resources).” However, it is not so, stated the chairman of the German Social Democratic Party that is part of the government coalition in Germany.

Gabriel also warned against “panic sentiments”. “Even during the ‘cold war’ Russia had observed the concluded agreements,” the German vice chancellor stressed.

German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel for her part called for “reducing the dependence” of the European Union from energy supplies from Russia. Talking to reporters in Berlin on Thursday after a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper, she said that “the hole energy policy (of the European Union) will be reconsidered.”

The head of the German government said that it would be done because the EU is “highly” dependent on Russian oil and gas. And Germany’s dependence “has long been not the greatest anymore,” Merkel said.

Austin wrote:It would take around a decade for EU to reduce its Energy Dependencies on Russia ..by that time Russia too could reorient its energy supply to the Asian Market.

Viktor wrote:

Austin wrote:It would take around a decade for EU to reduce its Energy Dependencies on Russia ..by that time Russia too could reorient its energy supply to the Asian Market.

By that time Russia will take further steps to increase EU dependency on its energy supply as you see Austin this is not the first time ever that EU want to decrease its dependancy on

Russian supplys - it is its constant agenda. Nabucco and Nabucco light where some of their biggest but failed projects to do so and there are others of course.

arpakola wrote:http://www.news123.gr/nea/newsgroup.php/5113334/
Although the parliament of Cyprus voted against any sanction or condemnation  against Russia

the NATO pig Anastasiadis (pretending the president of Cyprus..) voted in UN in favor of Russia condemnation
http://www.philenews.com/el-gr/eidiseis-politiki/39/192009/thetiki-psifos-tis-kyprou-sti-gensynelefsi-tou-oie-gia-tin-krimaia

(CNN) -- Russia could ease tensions with Ukraine if it were to move its troops away from its border with Ukraine and begin direct talks with the Kiev government, President Obama said in an interview aired Friday by CBS News.

"You've seen a range of troops massing along that border under the guise of military exercises, but these are not what Russia would normally be doing," the President said. "It may simply be an effort to intimidate Ukraine, or it may be that they've got additional plans.

"And, in either case, what we need right now to resolve and de-escalate the situation would be for Russia to move back those troops and to begin negotiations directly with the Ukrainian government as well as the international community."

Russia may have 40,000 troops near its border with Ukraine, two U.S. officials told CNN on Thursday. The officials said that this estimate was largely based on satellite imagery and that a firm number is difficult to assess.

However, a spokesman for Ukraine's Council of National Security and Defense, Yarema Dukh, told CNN his government estimates 88,000 Russian troops are at the Ukrainian border.

U.S. officials said they believe the higher estimates may reflect Russian troops on alert farther to the east.
Russia has said its troops are carrying out snap military exercises in the region.

Obama said he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin still harbors a grievance over the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union. "You would have thought that, after a couple of decades, there'd be an awareness on the part of any Russian leader that the path forward is not to revert back to the kinds of practices that were so prevalent during the Cold War."

Instead, he said, Putin should be moving toward further integration with the world economy.

Obama said that Putin has described the breakup of the Soviet Union as tragic, and that he may feel that the West has taken advantage of Russia.

"He may be entirely misreading the West," Obama said. "He's certainly misreading American foreign policy. We have no interest in encircling Russia, and we have no interest in Ukraine -- beyond letting the Ukrainian people make their own decisions about their own lives."

He said he rejected the notion that a sphere of influence along its border justifies Russia invading other countries.

"Certainly, they're going to have influence -- because of trade and tradition and language and heritage -- with Ukraine," he said. "
But there's a difference between that and sending in troops and, because you're bigger and stronger, taking a piece of the country. That is not how international law and international norms are observed in the 21st century."

Austin wrote:I just hope Russia de-escalates it and removes the troops.

I see no logic in going inside Eastern Ukraine....beats any logic now that they have got Crimea.

Austin wrote:I just hope Russia de-escalates it and removes the troops.

I see no logic in going inside Eastern Ukraine....beats any logic now that they have got Crimea.

Austin wrote:Obama urges Russia to move its troops away from Ukrainian border
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/28/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

(CNN) -- Russia could ease tensions with Ukraine if it were to move its troops away from its border with Ukraine and begin direct talks with the Kiev government, President Obama said in an interview aired Friday by CBS News.

"You've seen a range of troops massing along that border under the guise of military exercises, but these are not what Russia would normally be doing," the President said. "It may simply be an effort to intimidate Ukraine, or it may be that they've got additional plans.

"And, in either case, what we need right now to resolve and de-escalate the situation would be for Russia to move back those troops and to begin negotiations directly with the Ukrainian government as well as the international community."

Russia may have 40,000 troops near its border with Ukraine, two U.S. officials told CNN on Thursday. The officials said that this estimate was largely based on satellite imagery and that a firm number is difficult to assess.

However, a spokesman for Ukraine's Council of National Security and Defense, Yarema Dukh, told CNN his government estimates 88,000 Russian troops are at the Ukrainian border.

U.S. officials said they believe the higher estimates may reflect Russian troops on alert farther to the east.
Russia has said its troops are carrying out snap military exercises in the region.

Obama said he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin still harbors a grievance over the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union. "You would have thought that, after a couple of decades, there'd be an awareness on the part of any Russian leader that the path forward is not to revert back to the kinds of practices that were so prevalent during the Cold War."

Instead, he said, Putin should be moving toward further integration with the world economy.

Obama said that Putin has described the breakup of the Soviet Union as tragic, and that he may feel that the West has taken advantage of Russia.

"He may be entirely misreading the West," Obama said. "He's certainly misreading American foreign policy. We have no interest in encircling Russia, and we have no interest in Ukraine -- beyond letting the Ukrainian people make their own decisions about their own lives."

He said he rejected the notion that a sphere of influence along its border justifies Russia invading other countries.

"Certainly, they're going to have influence -- because of trade and tradition and language and heritage -- with Ukraine," he said. "
But there's a difference between that and sending in troops and, because you're bigger and stronger, taking a piece of the country. That is not how international law and international norms are observed in the 21st century."