Putin And Harper Flex Military Muscles

[Big Guy]

Looks like the Russians and Canadians are playing games in the Black Sea.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/09/08/russian_planes_buzz_canadian_frigate_in_black_sea.html

I just hope its not Russian Roulette.

They "Buzz us" and we'll "Buzz them".

They "shadow us" and we'll "Shadow them".

If some jerk on one of their ships (air and/or water) accidently fires on one of our ships then ...

If some jerk on one of our ships (air or water) accidently fires on one of their ships then ...

Yes sir, this is just an innocent military exercise that is required for Canadian security.

[eyeball]

I have to say it seems a little overly provocative and in your face to be driving our boats around the Black Sea, I mean, imagine how we'd feel if Putin decided to hold navel exercises in the Salish Sea or Queen Charlotte Sound.

I expect Ottawa to be vigilant but this is just plain stupid and counter-productive.

[PIK]

Russians denied it, so who is lying. Are the sailors lying or is this more evidence that putin has been lying thru his teeth about everything?

[Moonlight Graham]

I have to say it seems a little overly provocative and in your face to be driving our boats around the Black Sea, I mean, imagine how we'd feel if Putin decided to hold navel exercises in the Salish Sea or Queen Charlotte Sound.

I expect Ottawa to be vigilant but this is just plain stupid and counter-productive.

The difference is that the Salish Sea is Canadian waters, while the Russians don't have claim to all of the Black Sea. It entirely depends on where in the Black Sea Canadian vessels were.

[Big Guy]

What I wonder is what is the need for this sabre rattling and posturing. Why are we spending all that money on military people from different countries trying to show the other who has a bigger one?

[On Guard for Thee]

It happens sometimes when you illegaly invade other countries

Edited September 10, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

[Bryan]

NATO is desperate to try to convince Russia that they can still tell anyone what to do. Russia is quite ready to show them they are mistaken.

[On Guard for Thee]

It will probably have less to do with NATO than it will with the oligarchs putting pressure on Putin when the economy goes even further south.

[Moonbox]

The difference is that the Salish Sea is Canadian waters, while the Russians don't have claim to all of the Black Sea. It entirely depends on where in the Black Sea Canadian vessels were.

Okay well how about if the Russian navy was patrolling a few miles off our seas near Newfoundland or something?

Patrolling the Black Sea is just stupid. Not only is it an empty gesture (as even the US would have no hope of controlling it so close to Russian soil and Russian airbases), it's also an insulting and provocative one.

[bush_cheney2004]

Okay well how about if the Russian navy was patrolling a few miles off our seas near Newfoundland or something?

The Soviet and now Russian Federation AGI (Auxiliary-General Intelligence) ships routinely patrolled/patrol near the east and west coasts of North America. Ditto for Rooskie submarines.

Edited September 10, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

Okay well how about if the Russian navy was patrolling a few miles off our seas near Newfoundland or something?

Patrolling the Black Sea is just stupid. Not only is it an empty gesture (as even the US would have no hope of controlling it so close to Russian soil and Russian airbases), it's also an insulting and provocative one.

Freedom of the Seas and the Montreux convention says otherwise………and of course several NATO allies reside upon the Black Sea.

As to “controlling it”, the entrance to the Black Sea is encompassed by a NATO member, a NATO member that besides its own large air force, also has a significant USAF presence within its country.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

The Soviet and now Russian Federation AGI (Auxiliary-General Intelligence) ships routinely patrolled/patrol near the east and west coasts of North America. Ditto for Rooskie submarines.

Likewise, Russian warships, when they can deploy, have done much the same........with the Russians deploying several times within the last year, their lone Carrier battlegroup with a Kirov (nuclear armed) battlecruiser skirting the UK......

[Moonlight Graham]

Okay well how about if the Russian navy was patrolling a few miles off our seas near Newfoundland or something?

Patrolling the Black Sea is just stupid. Not only is it an empty gesture (as even the US would have no hope of controlling it so close to Russian soil and Russian airbases), it's also an insulting and provocative one.

Illegally invading and occupying another country, annexing it after an illegal referendum, and supporting anti-Ukrainian rebels in western Ukraine is also a provocative gesture.

We have every business to be in the Black Sea (so long as it's in international waters or those of an ally) because half a dozen other countries border it, so Russia isn't the boss of the Black Sea. Bottom line is what Canada is doing is legal (as far as I'm aware) and Russia's actions around the Black Sea lately haven't, so they can shove it. We have business in the Black Sea, but Russia wouldn't have any business off the coast of NFLD, and they honestly have every right to be in international waters of our coast. Who knows how many Russian subs have passed by our coasts in the last decades.

[Bob Macadoo]

It doesn't matter that according to convention it was kosher. The intent of why is the crux. It was done to swing our limp dick and they swung back. Now its an outrage theirs is bigger than ours....please. Take the tugboat home and don't let the viagra go to our head.

[WWWTT]

Putin=Mad Max

Harper=the night rider that talks tuff until he plays chicken! Then he cry's like a big fat baby! What's wrong baby? What's wrong Harper?

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mad+max+original+clip+of+chicken&docid=607994149066769041&mid=4B5609EA8B96D56307E54B5609EA8B96D56307E5&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1

And if that wasn't funny enough!

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sctv+the+farm+report&docid=608022366993318691&mid=07537D683CB44BC65FCE07537D683CB44BC65FCE&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

What I wonder is what is the need for this sabre rattling and posturing. Why are we spending all that money on military people from different countries trying to show the other who has a bigger one?

It happens sometimes when you illegaly invade other countries

Two polarized comments here.

Uh oh, Russia isn't joking around, this isn't fun any more.

The other, lets push even harder.

WWWTT

[Moonbox]

We have business in the Black Sea, but Russia wouldn't have any business off the coast of NFLD, and they honestly have every right to be in international waters of our coast. Who knows how many Russian subs have passed by our coasts in the last decades.

We have no business in the Black Sea. There are no current or foreseeable threats to Bulgaria or Turkey (our only allies in the region) and any gestures we make there are both empty and provocative, serving little to no purpose. The only way Russia is going to back down is due to European sanctions, not due to NATO impotently flexing its muscle in the Black Sea, an area in which they'd have no hope of challenging Russia.

[Moonbox]

Freedom of the Seas and the Montreux convention says otherwise………and of course several NATO allies reside upon the Black Sea.

Keeping the Bosphorus open is something altogether different than controlling the Black Sea in its entirety.

As to “controlling it”, the entrance to the Black Sea is encompassed by a NATO member, a NATO member that besides its own large air force, also has a significant USAF presence within its country.

Turkey's air force is dwarfed by Russia's and I imagine most/all of their airbases are within Russian missile range. It would take full and prolonged US and NATO mobilization to assert control over the Black Sea.

[Army Guy]

We have no business in the Black Sea. There are no current or foreseeable threats to Bulgaria or Turkey (our only allies in the region) and any gestures we make there are both empty and provocative, serving little to no purpose. The only way Russia is going to back down is due to European sanctions, not due to NATO impotently flexing its muscle in the Black Sea, an area in which they'd have no hope of challenging Russia.

Just a quick question, when was the last time any sanctions solved a dispute any where on the globe....I know it is a perfered method of governments to solve issues , but trurthfully when was the last time Sanctions work....So discussions are not going any where, which lead to sanctions, which lead to use of military force....if niether work what is left....how do nations resolve these matters....

[Moonlight Graham]

We have no business in the Black Sea. There are no current or foreseeable threats to Bulgaria or Turkey (our only allies in the region) and any gestures we make there are both empty and provocative, serving little to no purpose. The only way Russia is going to back down is due to European sanctions, not due to NATO impotently flexing its muscle in the Black Sea, an area in which they'd have no hope of challenging Russia.

Our is business in the Black Sea is trying to protect the most basic international laws ever created. The entire basis of the international system with the creation of sovereign borders going back to 1648, the Peace of Westphalia, and the basis of the United Nations & its Charter. Every country in the world has a stake in what Russia did and threatens to do, not just NATO, because accepting such a precedent is extremely dangerous.

[Moonbox]

Just a quick question, when was the last time any sanctions solved a dispute any where on the globe.

The sanctions may not be immediately effective for conflict-specific solutions, but they can very much affect the antagonists and cause a host of problems for them. Ask Iran how they're economy is doing right now.

The goal of sanctions isn't usually to intimidate/force whoever they're aimed against. Instead, they're more aimed at making undesirable behavior more difficult/expensive to conduct (hopefully) to the point where's it's not worth continuing. Either way they're certainly effective, just not perhaps in a newsworthy and exciting sort of way.

Our is business in the Black Sea is trying to protect the most basic international laws ever created. The entire basis of the international system with the creation of sovereign borders going back to 1648, the Peace of Westphalia, and the basis of the United Nations & its Charter.

International "Law" is more spectacle than anything. The inconsistent, hypocritical and selective application of these Laws makes the legitimacy of the UN highly suspect at best.

Every country in the world has a stake in what Russia did and threatens to do, not just NATO, because accepting such a precedent is extremely dangerous.

That precedent has already been set. Ever hear of Georgia, South Ossetia or Abkhazia? What about Iraq? Fact is that the application of International Law only applies if it's convenient.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Moonbox

[Peter F]

Our is business in the Black Sea is trying to protect the most basic international laws ever created. The entire basis of the international system with the creation of sovereign borders going back to 1648, the Peace of Westphalia, and the basis of the United Nations & its Charter. Every country in the world has a stake in what Russia did and threatens to do, not just NATO, because accepting such a precedent is extremely dangerous.

Seems Harper was all hot and bothered to support just such a violation back in 2003 when the US was ignoring the Peace of Westphalia.

Mind, the US congress never did ratify that one...

[Army Guy]

The sanctions may not be immediately effective for conflict-specific solutions, but they can very much affect the antagonists and cause a host of problems for them. Ask Iran how they're economy is doing right now.

The goal of sanctions isn't usually to intimidate/force whoever they're aimed against. Instead, they're more aimed at making undesirable behavior more difficult/expensive to conduct (hopefully) to the point where's it's not worth continuing. Either way they're certainly effective, just not perhaps in a newsworthy and exciting sort of way.

Maybe what we should ask Iran is how well their Nuclear wpns program is doing, and your right sanctions may effect their economy, but not enough to deter them from chasing the nuclear dream. So in this case sanctions do not have the desired effect, which is to deter them from a nuclear program....

So i'll ask my question again, when has sanctions ever solved an issue.....ever.... Have they been an inconvience yes, but was it enough to deter anyone from doing what ever they wanted , i don't think so...To me that would say they are not effective.....

[Big Guy]

I believe that the way sanctions are supposed to work is that economic hardships are applied to a nation in an attempt to turn the population against the government thereby forcing the government to make a change. The process assumes that the hardships are strong enough to cause unrest and/or that there is a method in place where the population can organize in order to influence the government.

Dictatorships, like North Korea, do not fall into that category neither does Russia where the population supports Putin and his foreign policy. In the Russian situation, the population appears to view the sanctions as an attack on them and Putin's popularity is enhanced. Meanwhile Russia retaliates but putting sanctions on other nations including Canada - and the agricultural section - causing Harper's popularity to suffer.

Sanctions being used against Russia are not only not working but detrimental to the economic health of the West.

Unfortunately, those who made the original decision to impose the sanctions have backed themselves into a corner and have no way of admitting a mistake and reversing policy.

[Moonbox]

Maybe what we should ask Iran is how well their Nuclear wpns program is doing, and your right sanctions may effect their economy, but not enough to deter them from chasing the nuclear dream. So in this case sanctions do not have the desired effect, which is to deter them from a nuclear program....

Nobody is going to deter Iran from chasing the nuclear dream unless they decide to invade it. It's called a rogue nation for a reason. Sanctions will, however, seriously compromise their efforts and, as we've seen, sparked protests against the regime. Does the average Iranian care about the bomb or about their livelihoods more?

So i'll ask my question again, when has sanctions ever solved an issue.....ever.... Have they been an inconvience yes, but was it enough to deter anyone from doing what ever they wanted , i don't think so...To me that would say they are not effective.....

Sanctions are credited with ending Libya's WMD program and bringing the Lockerbie bomber to justice. They're a big reason South African apartheid 'ended'.

Your comments on the effectiveness of economic sanctions seem to assume they're supposed to have the same goals and reach as direct military intervention. That's never been true. Sanctions are obviously an intermediate step when military intervention is either impossible or undesirable.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Moonbox