U.S. Planning to Sink Russia's Black Sea Fleet.

[para bellum]

Go read the UN charter the US ratified in 1945.
It is illegal to engage in the use of force and to supply weapons to those who are engaged in an armed conflict.

Article 51.

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

 

[Donald H]

That is silly because Russia is the least "imperialist aggressor" in the world.
When they helped China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc., they got NOTHING out of it.
Russia has never been a colonial imperialist, like all the NATO countries obviously have been.
NATO is not at all a "defensive" organization, but a conspiracy of colonial imperialists.
France, England, and the US have the worst history of gobal aggression, slavery, illegal conquest, etc.

Good on you for getting right to the short strokes. Now you'll need to stand your ground with a compulsively convincing argument that proves your points.

 

[Rigby5]

Article 51.

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

Since it was the Ukraine that aggressively committed acts of war, like stealing $20 billion worth of Russian oil, murdering ethnic Russians, and the treaty violation of trying to join NATO, then the "self defense" clause is inaccessible.
The Ukraine is the illegal aggressor and belligerent.
The Ukraine tried to illegally join NATO as far back as 2006, and Russia has been most patient.

 

[Rigby5]

And fwiw, America is trying to respond to that with a price cap or more similar sanctions to prevent it from happening.

But economic sanctions on civilian commerce, are totally illegal war crimes and have been since the US ratified the 1906 Hague Conventions.
And the US economy is the fragile one, with a US debt of $30 trillion.
In an economic war, the US has already lost, with our production, jobs, prosperity, etc., rapidly on the decline.
On the other hand, the oil price increase has greatly strengthened Russia economically.

The big risk is if the world turns away from the US dollar for OPEC purchases.
If that happens, no one will bother trying to prop up the dollar any more, and it will totally collapse.
We need to reduce the national debt, not give away expensive weapons to a loser.

 

[toomuchtime_]

My OP was meant to serve the purpose of promoting a fuller discussion on the war and it was chosen for it's obviously being an attractive expression of America's ability to win the war against Russia quickly and easily.
I found an appropriate link that serves my purpose. Whether it's true or not is of little concern to me, as it relates to this thread.

But of course is implies a full scale nuclear war is possible/probable.

This whole thread is based on the false premise promoted in your OP that the US is contemplating a direct attack on Russian ships in the Black Sea and in your posts that follow you talk about how Russia will respond to a direct US attack on its ships in the Black Sea, which false claim you offer in support of your preposterous claim that the war is Ukraine is caused by US/NATO aggression against Russia.

There is no rational basis in fact or logic for thinking that this war in Ukraine will lead to a nuclear war between the US and Russia, but bringing nuclear war up again and again does suggest that you don't think Russia can be successful in in its efforts in Ukraine. That is the one and only point on which we agree.

 

[Rigby5]

Why would anyone claim Russia has "imperialist" intentions?
When the USSR occupied the Warsaw Pact nations after WWII, it did NOT steal resources. And in fact rebuilt these war torn countries, asking nothing in return except for mutual defense.
Not once has Russia ever shown any greedy, for profit, actions against anyone.

 

[Rigby5]

This whole thread is based on the false premise promoted in your OP that the US is contemplating a direct attack on Russian ships in the Black Sea and in your posts that follow you talk about how Russia will respond to a direct US attack on its ships in the Black Sea, which false claim you offer in support of your preposterous claim that the war is Ukraine is caused by US/NATO aggression against Russia.

There is no rational basis in fact or logic for thinking that this war in Ukraine will lead to a nuclear war between the US and Russia, but bringing nuclear war up again and again does suggest that you don't think Russia can be successful in in its efforts in Ukraine. That is the one and only point on which we agree.

Of course this war was deliberately started by the US taking control of the Ukraine and committing acts of war against Russia.
The attempt to add the Ukraine to NATO is explicitly in violation of the 1992 treaties with Gorbachev.

Clearly Russia is NOT fighting against the Ukraine, but US weapons.
So then the showdown between Russia and the US is inevitable, if the US keeps up committing illegal acts.
The possible expansions of conflict, if the US does not back down, are obvious.
Russia is going to have to try to blockade US weapons, and that will require the Black Sea fleet. So then to protect these illegal US weapons, the US is going to have to sink the Black Sea fleet.
In response, then Russia is going to have to nuke the US.
Which will totally destroy the US, since Russia has over 10 times the nukes that the US has.
There is no other possible outcome of a nuclear wasteland US, unless the Ukraine surrenders.

To avoid a nuclear show down, the US has to stop with the illegal weapons, in which case the Ukraine has already lost.
So the question is why wait?
The only reason I can guess for that is the US wants to test Russian weapons capabilities?

 

[Donald H]

But economic sanctions on civilian commerce, are totally illegal war crimes and have been since the US ratified the 1906 Hague Conventions.

Yes quite true, but of little consequence when the US propaganda is so much stronger. And Russia is confined within the agreed upon bounds of aggression too.

And the US economy is the fragile one, with a US debt of $30 trillion.
In an economic war, the US has already lost, with our production, jobs, prosperity, etc., rapidly on the decline.
On the other hand, the oil price increase has greatly strengthened Russia economically.

Your valid points aside, I don't want to be involved in an armchair war in which I could be accused of being biased. My purpose is the same as antiwar.com's.

The big risk is if the world turns away from the US dollar for OPEC purchases.
If that happens, no one will bother trying to prop up the dollar any more, and it will totally collapse.
We need to reduce the national debt, not give away expensive weapons to a loser.

The two great opposing alliances are forming and the USD is going to be challenged.

 

[para bellum]

Since it was the Ukraine that aggressively committed acts of war, like stealing $20 billion worth of Russian oil, murdering ethnic Russians, and the treaty violation of trying to join NATO, then the "self defense" clause is inaccessible.
The Ukraine is the illegal aggressor and belligerent.
The Ukraine tried to illegally join NATO as far back as 2006, and Russia has been most patient.

All that is just repetition of the excuses for Russia's aggression.

Until the Security Council makes a ruling, Ukraine has the right of self defense, period. It is the UNSC that resolves such disputes, not one of belligerents.

Your own attempts at legalism have no bearing. It is not illegal for any nation to join any alliance they choose. That's what sovereignty means.

Russia violated Ukraine's sovereignty in 2014 by annexing Crimea and setting up statelets the Donbas, and is now attempting to conquer the entire country by force.

Since the aggressor is a member of the UNSC, it takes the Security Council out of the role it's supposed to be serving. That leaves only force to settle the matter.

Any P5 nation that chooses that path must be prepared to suffer the consequences.

 

[Donald H]

The only reason I can guess for that is the US wants to test Russian weapons capabilities?

That's been done on supersonic missile capability, but that's surely not the end of it.

And fwiw, it appears that America can't match it yet.

 

[Rigby5]

Again, the US trying to get the Ukraine in to NATO is a violation of treaties, and is equivalent to the Cuban Missile crisis of 1964.
Clearly the US is totally in the wrong, and Russia has no other choice than to commit regime change in Kyiv, for the criminal acts by Kyiv.
It is only starting with Crimea, Donetsk, etc.
Eventually the criminal regime in Kyiv will have to go.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Why would anyone claim Russia has "imperialist" intentions?
When the USSR occupied the Warsaw Pact nations after WWII, it did NOT steal resources. And in fact rebuilt these war torn countries, asking nothing in return except for mutual defense.
Not once has Russia ever shown any greedy, for profit, actions against anyone.

Putin disagrees with you.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday compared himself to the country’s first emperor, Peter the Great, in a speech marking the 350th anniversary of the figure’s birth.

Putin made the comments while visiting a multimedia exhibit about the 18th-century leader, who led a conquest of the Baltic region while at war with Sweden. Putin remarked that Peter the Great viewed the land as rightfully Russian, drawing a connection to the current war Russia is waging against Ukraine.


“He was returning it and strengthening it,” Putin said, according to The New York Times. “Well, apparently, it has also fallen to us to return and to strengthen.”

Putin also noted that when Peter founded the city of St. Petersburg, “none of the countries of Europe recognized it as Russian.”

“It’s impossible — do you understand — impossible to build a fence around a country like Russia,” Putin added.

Putin compares self to Peter the Great, says he is taking back Russian lands

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday compared himself to the country’s first emperor, Peter the Great, in a speech marking the 350th anniversary of the figure’s birth. Putin made …

thehill.com

Putin says the land in Ukraine and beyond "belongs" to Russia and that no fence can be built around Russia to prevent it from expanding westward. In the 1940's Russia/USSR signed a nonaggression pact with Hitler because he wanted half of Poland, and when this stupidity resulted in the invasion of Russia by Hitler, Russia/USSR signed a mutual defense treaty with the western allies which it immediately violated as the end of the war by holding the eastern European countries captive for 45 years until the collapse of the USSR. Imperialism has been a core value of the Russian empire since at least the eighteenth century.

 

[Baron]

US Drawing Up Plans To Sink the Russian Black Sea Fleet: Ukrainian Official - News From Antiwar.com

Shortly after Reuters published an exclusive story that the White House was looking to move advanced anti-ship missiles to Ukraine, an official in Kiev said that the US is making a plan to sink Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs adviser Anton Gerashchenko tweeted...

news.antiwar.com

What kind of fantasy is this? Any ship sinking is going to matched one for one by Russia. It's as if this writer doesn't understand the mutually agreed upon limitations of America's war with Russia.

Fact: Russia is not going to accept defeat and will be moved to starting a nuclear war if they must.
Comment?
Especially Litvin's would be appreciated!

Both Putin and Zelensky are Schwab's bitches who help him to carry out the Great Reset and to butcher Russian people

 

[Baron]

Again, the US trying to get the Ukraine in to NATO is a violation of treaties, and is equivalent to the Cuban Missile crisis of 1964.
Clearly the US is totally in the wrong, and Russia has no other choice than to commit regime change in Kyiv, for the criminal acts by Kyiv.
It is only starting with Crimea, Donetsk, etc.
Eventually the criminal regime in Kyiv will have to go.

All treaties between NATO and Russia are not more valid as toilet paper the'd written on

 

[Donald H]

There is no rational basis in fact or logic for thinking that this war in Ukraine will lead to a nuclear war between the US and Russia, but bringing nuclear war up again and again does suggest that you don't think Russia can be successful in in its efforts in Ukraine. That is the one and only point on which we agree.

I'm not confident that Russia can be successful in the Ukraine. Russia is fighting a superior combined force. And that's why I insist that the rubber will most likely have to hit the road with a nuclear response.

The war is absolutely critical to America in that it's meant to eliminate Russia in alliance with China. This is America's first step in taking on China for world supremacy.

 

[Rigby5]

All that is just repetition of the excuses for Russia's aggression.

Until the Security Council makes a ruling, Ukraine has the right of self defense, period. It is the UNSC that resolves such disputes, not one of belligerents.

Your own attempts at legalism have no bearing. It is not illegal for any nation to join any alliance they choose. That's what sovereignty means.

Russia violated Ukraine's sovereignty in 2014 by annexing Crimea and setting up statelets the Donbas, and is now attempting to conquer the entire country by force.

Since the aggressor is a member of the UNSC, it takes the Security Council out of the role it's supposed to be serving. That leaves only force to settle the matter.

Any P5 nation that chooses that path must be prepared to suffer the consequences.

Wrong.
Since Russia in on the Security Council, there can never be a ruling against Russia.
But we all also know the Ukraine is the criminal perpetrator.
It is illegal for the Ukraine to try to put NATO nukes on Russia's border.
Russia is well within its defensive rights to prevent the Ukraine from joining NATO.
Trying to join NATO violated the 1992 treaties, so then the Ukraine forfeits its independence, and reverts to a state of the USSR.
The sovereignty of the Ukraine is not based on inherent rights of natives, but instead was granted by treaty, so then is automatically revoked by treaty violations.
Instead then the rights of native become the justification for legal authority, and then the ethic Russia areas have the right to their own independence.

What you also conveniently forgot to mention is that the Crimea, Donetsk, etc., are NOT ethnically, traditionally, legally, or historically part of the Ukraine.
The Ukraine illegally stole them when Khrushchev the Ukrainian, just gave them to the Ukraine in 1955, even though they legally, traditionally, and historically were always part of Russia.
The US and the Ukraine are fighting to preserve the illegal dictates of a supreme dictator.

 

[Donald H]

Both Putin and Zelensky are Schwab's bitches who help him to carry out the Great Reset and to butcher Russian people

Who's Schwab?

Russia has the capability of taking out an American aircraft carrier without blinking an eye. America is very aware of what it would take for Russia to make a big move of that sort.

Screw the 'confidence' instilling propaganda, it's time to face up to the realities that are developing.

 

[Rigby5]

That's been done on supersonic missile capability, but that's surely not the end of it.

And fwiw, it appears that America can't match it yet.

The US is also interested in other modern Russian recent advances, like anti tank and aircraft missiles, tanks like the Armada, etc., which the US has still never seen in operation. And Russia will only commit to these latest weapons if they are losing badly enough on the older weapons they are using now.
So the US is committing a huge risk of nuclear war, just to gain some intelligence data.

 

[Rigby5]

All treaties between NATO and Russia are not more valid as toilet paper the'd written on

You misunderstand.
There are no significant treaties between NATO and Russia.
The significant treaties are between the Ukraine and Russia, from when Gorbachev granted the Ukraine independence.
That independence is forfeit if the Ukraine attempts to join NATO or "any alliance hostile to Russia".
It is a criminal act of war for the Ukraine to try to join NATO.
That act by Zelensky authorizes Russia arresting him for his treaty violations.

 

[Donald H]

The Ukraine illegally stole them when Khrushchev the Ukrainian, just gave them to the Ukraine in 1955, even though they legally, traditionally, and historically were always part of Russia.
The US and the Ukraine are fighting to preserve the illegal dictates of a supreme dictator.

And the US/Nato reneged on the deal and so all bets are off on the ownership of the Ukraine.

A non-aggression agreement could be signed by the US and this war could end now with Russia settling for the Donbass region and the Crimea.

America can't agree to any peace on account of Russia being able to escape the war intact.