After over two years of buildup in the Baltic Sea area of Eastern Europe, NATO is running out of places plausibly near Russia to justify putting more troops in. They see the Black Sea, however, as a next big target for buildup, with the first US troops arriving earlier this week in Bulgaria and Romania.
The Obama Administration started the NATO buildup in 2014 in the Baltics, talking up the idea of a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe, and even though the invasion never happened, Obama and his successor, President Trump have dutifully continued the buildup with no signs of slowing down.
The big problem with putting US troops in places like Bulgaria and Romania though, is despite the Pentagon hype about this being all about Russia, those nations aren’t particularly close to Russia, and not even having proximity to the exclave of Kaliningrad, that northern European nations cling to as proof of a Russian threat.
This has NATO officials hyping up the idea of a big naval buildup in the Black Sea, which would challenge Russia’s Black Sea fleet. This has the advantage of Russia actually having a Black Sea fleet, albeit not a huge one, though the idea also has serious problems.
Chief among those is the Montreaux Convention of 1936, which strictly regulates the number of warships allowed into the Black Sea from nations that don’t have Black Sea coastal territory. NATO’s three Black Sea states are Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey.
Which is the point at which, rhetoric aside, the NATO talk of buildup collapses. Bulgaria already publicly rejected the idea of such a NATO fleet, saying they have no intention of joining it. Turkey’s close cooperation with Russia in Syria is likely going to preclude them wanting to invest in a bunch of new warships to challenge Russia, and Romania’s Navy is itself extremely limited.
The result is likely to be some for-show deployments by other NATO members with real navies for wargames around the area, but with the Montreaux Convention limiting those deployments to 21 days, they aren’t going to amount to a practical permanent force.
The big hole of the Montreux (not Montreaux) Convention is that it does not cover rockets. Only cannon.
Any attempt to make the Black Sea a NATO lake is a dangerous play with fire.
The US government has blatantly shown little to no regard for International treaties in the past decade and a half and I suspect the current occupant won’t either as he’s only interested in HIS image. So, assuming the US does what it wants regardless of International treaties and agreements, what will be done and by whom? I’m betting the US’s poodles and lapdogs may complain to the press but in the end, do nothing to circumscribe the US’s actions.
The Empire will persist.
Russia continues to be encircled … Will an Arctic offensive be next?
Seriously, NATO is ratcheting up the pressure in hopes of an internal coup in the Kremlin… if they’re wrong however, this puts the possibility of war on a hair trigger … and once war starts it will end in nuclear exchanges… in fact, there is a huge advantage in striking first with an immediate launch of ICBMs.
Oh yeah . . . the Russkies are SOOO EVIL!!! They have encircled the USA with a gigantic military buildup- destroyers off the West Coast, troops along the Mexico/USA border, battleships in the Gulf of Mexico and more destroyers off the East Coast and finally, troops along the Canadian border with Canada a doing a “Ukraine” on the USA! This may sound funny to some, but this is exactly what IS happening around Russia!@ And these “USA “leaders” have the audacity to fear Russia when they are the war makers in the room? Ridiculous these people aren’t behind bars!
US led nuclear war would have to be on the assumption that Russia wouldn’t get any licks in at all. Possible? But I would say there’s no smart money on that bet!
Of course, the powers that be in Trump’s new admin could possibly seeing the logic of just, say one 50 megatonner getting through, which would make it a great deal for the US!
Don, not saying the US plans on or would fire the first shot (nucelar or otherwise) … but just the by creating such a threat to Russia right ON THEIR BORDERS and the hugely exposed Black Sea area, that by accident or design, war can easily start and once it does there will be no turning back.
The Russians will not allow themselves to be taken down at point-blank range… and once the tripwire is set, and then breached by NATO, it’s curtains for all of us.
The US tried the same chicken-game when they deployed missiles on the Turkish border aimed at the USSR in 1961… the Soviets responded in kind with missile deployment in Cuba… leading to a deadly stalemate that literally brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.
This is where we are now and NATO is committed to upping the ante.
Good for you on knowing the real story on the Cuba missile crisis. It’s likely that even now there are few that do.
Watching Trump in his big press conference yesterday was enlighening. He doesn’t get embarrassed when he makes simple mistakes and is caught in them. His claim that his election victory was the biggest since Reagan. He was shot down and made to look like a six year old. But he didn’t miss a beat!
But then when he started talking about blowing the Russia ship out of the water, it became very scary to me. Not because he would do it, because I’m not imagining that he would. But because he said it in a way that sent a message that he was revelling in his situation of great power. He’s seeing himself as the ruler of the world, so to speak, and that’s enough to keep him happy. And it’s likely that he can be kept contented with that image in his mind.
What a contrast! From looking like a 6 year old one minute, to conveying the image of ruler of the world within the next few minutes!
Let’s wrap our minds around those two contrasting situations at the same time as we contemplate the chances of nuclear war.
It leads one to wonder if Trump has been brought up to speed on the US need for Nato. Maybe he’s having some second thoughts about disbanding Nato because it’s useless?
Fact is, the fu–er didn’t have a clue on that either. Just another campaign promise that was seen by the ignorant lowlife who supported him as a way of saving some of their tax dollars. LOL
Sort of like Raimondo’s idea of improving relations with Russia. Clever of Trump!
Some good news at last, if Trump does not somehow find a way to claim ownership of the Black Sea for Greater USA.
Nov 29, 2016 – The Map That Shows Why Russia Fears War With USA
https://youtu.be/L6hIlfHWaGU
Jul 6, 2016 The Telling Travel Log of NATO Chief Stoltenberg: Is NATO Getting Desperate for a Conflict?
We examine the infamous travel log within the context of Putin’s recent activities, the Balkans’ politics and escalating dissent, and the greater interests of the military industrial complex as we analyze the geopolitical atmosphere and motives that may lead to an international conflict.
https://youtu.be/Y5PF8eLYwSY
Don, I was about 10 y-o when the Cuban Crisis hit and it wasn’t until recent years that I began to piece together what actually happened (thanks to the web).
The climax story is even scarier, because only the last second decision by a Soviet junior commander prevented a cornered Russian sub using nuclear torpedoes from blasting their way out, which would has started Total (Nuclear) War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov
By this point JFK was sobbing in Jackie’s arms about evacuating the kids from the WH… after firing the maniacs like Dulles, JFK decided to end the Cold War in a major speech at American U… a few months later he was gunned down by a highly professional hit team..
Yeah well Trump is not a guy I can support because he’s an impetuous loose cannon who is very superficial… very, very dangerous to have this kind of personality in charge when the Deep State/ NATO is playing a very dangerous game of chicken with Russia
JFK did not ratchet down the Cold War…he ordered the creation of the DEATH SQUADRON known as the Green Berets as part of his Alliance for Progress….JFK escalated the Vietnam War…. Oswald shot and killed JFK…a simple regents level physics problem given to thousands of US high school students every year…
Patrick:
Thanks for your comment. I’m not a JFK hagiographer, but I believe these are the facts
1) Here’s a widely-accepted summary of the American U speech:”Kennedy not only outlined a plan to curb nuclear arms, but also “laid out a hopeful, yet realistic route for world peace at a time when the U.S. and Soviet Union faced the potential for an escalating nuclear arms
race.”[3]
In the speech, Kennedy announced his agreement to negotiations “toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty” (which resulted in
the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_speech
This is major change of direction… Ike was down the same path years earlier, but was scuttled by the Dulles-led CIA.
2) You’re right about JFK’s escalation of Vietnam and counterinsurgency death squads early in his Administration. There was no escalation in 1963, the year Diem was assassinated.
3) The Warren Commission notes that Oswald’s rifle was not operational…( broken gun sights) …For the rifle even to be tested by military marksmen, parts had to be ADDED. which made its use use virtually impossible under highly challenging conditions (hitting a small moving target 2-3 times, in 8 seconds on the first try, 70 yards away, with a tree in the way)…
Below is a good reference because it links to the Warren Commission text:
http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-marksman-sharpshooter
No one, in fact, has replicated Oswald’s feat with Oswald’s (broken) rifle … Even with shims added to the Oswald Mannlicher rifle, marksmen were not very accurate just hitting a stationary target.
In 2007 an Italian military team said that Oswald’s firing would have taken even twice as long as purported (17 seconds)
Furthermore, the exit wounds were higher on JFK’s body than the entrance wounds, another impossible feat (again never replicated) from a firing position above the target.
Interesting. I’ve heard evidence that said the particular rifle used was very appropriate for the job.
Don’t take that as my position though because it’s not necessarily.
Has there ever been any investigation carried out by a foreign team? Russian? I’ve found that I’ve hit a brick wall with all the US investigations, and so wrote it off to being inconclusive one way or the other. I certainly didn’t want to do that though. Maybe this November 22 link?
Yeah. The Italian military ran tests that showed the rifle was a poor operating weapon.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556184/Oswald-had-no-time-to-fire-all-Kennedy-bullets.html
But anyway, you can see hat the Warren Commission itself proves all the info to exclude Oswald.. a broken, inoperative rifle; near impossible shots no one can replicate even with much better weapons and easier targets; the entry and exit wounds…
No one can replicate any of this let alone with a broken, damaged rifle
plus Oswald in 1959 years earlier tested out by the military as definitely a sub-standard shot. Most of that is in the WC… case closed
all of which is quite the opposite to the info in this link.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/lee-harvey-oswalds-carcano-rifle-shooting-it-today/
Which site is lying and why? Oswald tested in rapid fire 50 rounds at 200 yards scored either 47 or 48 on the human silouette target.
I don’t know what you’re talking about Don.
The writer merely purchased a similar model as presumably Oswald’s Carcano … but it’s not in the same condition as the rifle found at the Texas School book depository.
So what’s your point?
As the 22November website states (the numbers in parens are direct links to the WC)
“The experts from the US Army and the FBI who had tested the rifle discovered that it was actually not usable in its original state:
-Shims had to be applied to the telescopic sight before the rifle could be aimed.1
-Even after the telescopic sight had been repaired, it proved unreliable and inaccurate.2
-The condition of both the bolt and the trigger pull meant that the rifle could not be aimed accurately.3
Even at that, your link GunsAmerica link says the Carcano rifle (even in mint condition) was a lemon:
“.. we found that the bolt didn’t pick up a round hardly at all, and that even when it did, the bolt was very hard to close… They are really rough-working and don’t function well. …it wouldn’t be surprising if he (Oswald) experienced at least some of the problems with his gun that this rifle has.”
Furthermore:
“The FBI reported to the Warren Commission that they actually could not zero the scope on Oswald’s gun without putting some kind of shims in it,
but as you can see in the pictures, I don’t see where such shims would even go. ”
So now GunsAmerica is saying the WC invented claims that shims were added to correct the broken sights. So apparently the WC is a conspiracy to exonerate Oswald as the lone gunman. Go figure.
Thanks for the link. For some reason I’ve never found time to read the whole story, even though I have been familiar with the rough details. It was well woth my time to read it.
Yeah. Another good read of how the Dulles CIA undermined Ike’s own nuclear disarmament plans via the Gary Powers U2 incident… as a kid I remember the public claimed the Russians shot down the spy plane… not so.. the plan was sabotaged (the reserve O2 supply tanks used at ultra-high altitudes were sent up empty or inoperable)… the plane crash landed and destroyed Ike’s initiative… lots on the web about this.
Add all this together with the Vietnam atrocity and early in life I realized what lunatic maniacs run this country… now history repeats itself
There is always plenty of money for stupidities like this. Not for our dams, bridges and urban water and sewer systems. No money for schools, colleges or health care. And the armies of highly paid know it alls just want their little “security” safe jobs and profits. So, on with Russia, Russia, Russia — Marsha, Marsha, Marsha.