Russian Defense Minister Purges Baltic Fleet Command

a reply to: intrptr

If NATO wanted to conquer Russia why did they deny Ukraine and Georgia membership when they applied? Isn't it funny how Russia annexed land from both those countries shortly after their applications were denied?

a reply to: intrptr

Well for starters I would find a source that actually knows what the Montreal convention in. Then maybe they can educate themselves with the Montreux Convention, which covers the Black Sea and access to it via Turkey.

From your post:

With its own Black Sea Fleet operating out of Sevastopol, Russia views these maneuvers as the latest example of NATO’s eastward expansion. The alliance plans to station four new battalions in the Baltics and Poland, and has installed a new missile defense system in the region.

Any permanent stationing of a US warship in the waterway would be a violation of the Montreal Convention, which states that countries without a Black Sea coastline cannot keep military ships in the region for more than 21 days.

Montreux Convention - is a 1936 agreement that gives Turkey control over the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles and regulates the transit of naval warships.

where as the

Montreal Convention - is a multilateral treaty adopted by a diplomatic meeting of ICAO member states in 1999. It amended important provisions of the Warsaw Convention's regime concerning compensation for the victims of air disasters.


The Montreux Convention is not a UN governed document and does not fall under UNCLOS. Its an operating agreement that Turkey has ultimate say over, regardless of how much Russia whines or how pro Russians intentionally mislead about the Black Sea and what other nations border it. Turkey can easily shut the straight down to Russian military assets and there is nothing Russia can do about it aside from attacking a NATO member.

Ironic Russia bitches about a treaty violation when the Budapest agreement let alone international law has been ignored by Russia when they decided to start invading former SSR's / occupying portions of former SSR's.

NATO has not violated any agreements with expansion, regardless of how much putin lies about it.

Coming back to topic the purge thus far is more than 50 officers and counting.
Russian defense minister purges Baltic Fleet command

MOSCOW (AP) — The admiral in charge of Russia's Baltic Fleet has been fired along with his senior officers over unspecified flaws, a sweeping purge that has no precedent in the nation's post-Soviet history.

Online news portal Fontanka.ru reported Thursday that 50 senior officers of the fleet were fired alongside its chief. It said the purges followed alleged cover-up of a submarine accident, flaws in recruitment and military construction projects.

The Defense Ministry announced the purge in a terse statement late Wednesday. It said the fleet commander, Vice Adm. Viktor Kravchuk, his chief of staff, Rear Adm. Sergei Popov, and an undisclosed number of other senior officers of the fleets have been fired over serious flaws in combat training and their failure to take proper care of personnel.

It also mentioned that the fired officers had provided false reports about the fleet's condition.

The purges' scope and publicity make them highly unusual for the Russian military, which usually removes senior officers in a more subtle way. It's particularly unexpected as it follows President Vladimir Putin's visit to the Baltic Fleet last year, during which he praised its performance.

Media reports have claimed that among possible reasons for Kravchuk's ouster was the miserable condition of the fleet officers' housing in the fleet's main base, the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad that borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. A dormitory housing officers' families was reportedly in such poor condition that one section collapsed.

The fact the purge is public and not discrete is another indication things arent rosy in the Russian military. The publicity I believe is to set an example and warn other officers about whats coming. Russia would not do this publicly if they were going to attack NATO anytime soon.

Finally, and once again, NATO would not be taking these measure had putin not invaded Georgia and Ukraine, occupying Crimea and Transneistra all the while bragging about taking 5 nato capitals in a few weeks.

Putin is in the situation he is in because of putin.

a reply to: intrptr

Oh Lord, no. Not that old NATO the expander and threat to Russia. All NATO has done is allow those ex Soviet vassals to join because they are so afraid of being occupied by the belligerent Russians (again). Noting Russia has not attacked a NATO country, but has attacked non NATO (Georgia and Ukraine).

a reply to: MrSpad

We may the questioN is should we?? Us put 100s of millions trying to prop up russia and we'll the pay back was becoming the enemy for giving them money. They were paranoid all the Soviet equipment would go up for sale the irony is it is for sale if you have the money. That being said what was really accomplished then,?

a reply to: Xcathdra

The only people that can threaten Putin is his generals. So this is a message most likely there's certain ones he knows he cant remove but he can get rid of their friends and people that show them loyalty. And everyone needs to stop about world war 3 Putin isn't crazy he will stand on the line but he won't cross it. He knows he couldn't stand up to NATO and he knows what it would cost everyone.

For Putin he needs a bad guy all dictators do that way when something goes wrong you have someone to blame. For hitler it was the Jews it wasn't Hitler policies that caused financial pain it was the jews. Along those same lines it isn't Putins policies destroying the economy it's the west. Putin so badly wants Russia to be that former super power problem is they have the economy of mexico. In fact Mexicos better off they don't have all the bloated infrastructure to pay for though corruption is probably as bad.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: MrSpad

We may the questioN is should we?? Us put 100s of millions trying to prop up russia and we'll the pay back was becoming the enemy for giving them money. They were paranoid all the Soviet equipment would go up for sale the irony is it is for sale if you have the money. That being said what was really accomplished then,?

If Russia falls a apart their will be a refugee crisis in Europe like has never been seen since WW2. Who knows who would get their hands on Russia nukes, on Russia's weapons systems etc. It would likely cause the collapse of most of the old Soviet Central Asian States and put massive pressure on the Chinese border. It would be a disaster almost as big as a major war. Their is a reason the US and the West did only put light sanctions on Russia, because if they really put the screws on Russia would likely collapse and all hell would break lose.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcalibur254

As for your comment about NATO being the aggressor... Who is it that has actually taken land through force?

NATO. Try being a citizen in any eastern Country and resisting NATO. Would you let Russian tanks deploy along Mexico border?, peacefully? He shows great restraint so far and tactical savvy. Look at Russias recent air strikes in Syria.

Just the right amount of force applied in just the right place.

But long term he is also aware that the longer NATO supply lines become the easier it will be to destroy them.

Come NATO, come... if you are really as stupid as you appear like Hitler, Alexander and Napoleon, come...

You know who was a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace all during NATO's expansion? Do you who was a member of the Russia-NATO council during NATO expansion? Do you know who was a part of the G8 during NATO expansion? Do you now who joined NATO air exercise in Poland during NATOs expansion? Do you know who signed the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU during NATO expansion? RUSSIA. Yes RUSSIA. So you drop the NATO wants to destroy Russia nonsense because Russia was hand in hand with NATO the entire time.

It is NATO that shows restraint. If it opened up its membership without requiring all the things it does now (nations spend years reforming both their governments and militaries to get into NATO) Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and like Belarus would jump on in.

And here is a little hint, of you are going go on the offensive and invade a nation you will need a 6 to 1 up to a 10 to 1 manpower advantage depending on force multipliers. When NATO deploys 5 million troops on the Russian border then you can come ranting about invasion.

originally posted by: intrptr
NATO. Try being a citizen in any eastern Country and resisting NATO. Would you let Russian tanks deploy along Mexico border?, peacefully? He shows great restraint so far and tactical savvy. Look at Russias recent air strikes in Syria.

I dont know why you guys keep insisting on the Russian tanks on the border bs. One look at a globe will show you Russia and the US share a border.

a reply to: MrSpad

To make it clear that this level of corruption is simply not acceptable.

Unless your a close associate with Putin...then it's okay.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: MrSpad

To make it clear that this level of corruption is simply not acceptable.

Unless your a close associate with Putin...then it's okay.

I think now that it has gotten to a point where Russia's most importanr fleet is in trouble some of the close associates are going be sactifices. They purged the a thousands of officers after the mess in Georgia. So being his buddy means its ok to steal just not steal to much.

a reply to: intrptr

NATO.

Name one country that NATO took that didn't apply to be a member...

Now name a country in the last 3 years that has had part of annexed and taken from them by Russia.

Try being a citizen in any eastern Country and resisting NATO.

Why would a country resist...they have to apply to become a part of NATO, they aren't forced to join.

Just the right amount of force applied in just the right place.

Worked good for Putin in Crimea didn't it?

But long term he is also aware that the longer NATO supply lines become the easier it will be to destroy them.

Wrong as those lines won't be as long as you think...and Russia has no chance outside of their own land when it comes to fighting NATO anywhere but in Russia where he would employ nukes , as he has said before.

Logistics would destroy the Russian front lines as they would would be thinning out their military leaving openings in places they may not want to leave them.

a reply to: MrSpad

So being his buddy means its ok to steal just not steal to much.

Pretty much...the Panama Papers shows us this.

The Russians are not stupid and they know all out war resulting in nuclear exchanges of any kind will result in a permanent ass whipping and special forces robots nuclear power drilling their way in to drag them out of their dumbs for a public spanking.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Montreux Convention - is a 1936 agreement that gives Turkey control over the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles and regulates the transit of naval warships.

where as the

Montreal Convention - is a multilateral treaty adopted by a diplomatic meeting of ICAO member states in 1999. It amended important provisions of the Warsaw Convention's regime concerning compensation for the victims of air disasters.

So the US is going to break the "Montreux Convention" to block the Russians from access to the Mediterranean through the straits, got it. Spell check changes those words when I type it. Like everyone else it doesn't know from agreements, either.

a reply to: intrptr

A single US ship is in no way going to prevent Russia's access to the Mediterranean.

If NATO actually wanted war with Russia why not just have Turkey close the Bosporus? Legally Turkey would be able to do that. At the same time Russia would have no choice but to attack Turkey. In that case Russia would be the aggressor and all of NATO would be called in to help defend Turkey.

If NATO actually wanted war with Russia they have plenty of options they could choose to provoke an attack. At the end of the day though the only one that keeps annexing land by force and threatening the use of nukes is Russia.

a reply to: intrptr

I think that you are being overly dramatic here. There is no question of the Montreux Convention being broken by the US and if you read up on the Convention you will see why. Should Turkey decide to block the Straits to traffic, then that's well within their capability and the Montreux Convention would just be put in the bin.

Quite possibly the threat of Turkey closing the Straits to Russian warships is why Russia did not go into silly bully mode with Turkey. That and the fact NATO was sitting watching. Putin is only tough on poor defenceless neighbours.

a reply to: MrSpad

Honestly, I did not believe you were capable of writing an objective analysis about Russia.

Your whole post was pretty much spot-on, and describes the core problem of Russian military. I am glad Putin is taking care of it, and hopefully will be able to accomplish what he has in mind.

a reply to: intrptr

Again if you did research you would know the convention was changed in the 1980's to allow Turkey to close the straights to any nation, whether at war or at peace.

Ignoring things because they don't support your position does not mean they are inapplicable.

Finally distorting what I said just shows how desperate you are to argue from a failed position. I never said the US would block the straights.

@ your comment about spell check...

An interesting response considering it came directly from the article. Are you saying you transcribed that portion of the article or?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

If NATO actually wanted war with Russia...

"IF"?

What planet you from?

Anywhere theres endless war...

a reply to: intrptr

NATO is not at war with the exception of Afghanistan.