@Angelmechuel
Those two bridges are going to be an interesting game.
One, obviously into the Ukraine and the other directly into the Russian Federation.
I've said this before but I think the endgame will be the Ukraine split - West of the Dneiper to the rebels and East of the Dneiper to the Russian Federation (That area having the larger ethnic Russian population)
Russia will gain an important strategic asset that it hasn't had since the USSR collapsed - namely access to the BLack sea for its Naval forces.
Nice Quid-Pro-Quo - Though it would have been somewhat more responsible if it hadnt come about with the threat of nuclear war.

Russia has issued an international arrest warrant for a Ukrainian nationalist activist in its latest move to cast leaders of the protests that toppled president Viktor Yanukovich as “terrorists”.
Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector grouping, was last week accused of urging Chechen terrorists to stage attacks. Right Sector denied the claim, blaming hackers for the alleged appeal on its social media site.

With increased troop movements in Ukraine, today former US Treasury official, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, warned King World News that the world is edging closer to nuclear war. Dr. Roberts also warned that the mainstream media in the United States is only reporting lies. The interview ends with another ominous warning for humanity. Below is what Dr. Roberts had to say in this remarkable and timely interview.

Eric King: “When you look at the aggressive actions by the West, and the plan to eventually have missiles in Georgia and Ukraine, and when you add to that the fact that there are already missiles in Poland, it appears the West is trying to encircle Russia with missile bases in preparation for a possible nuclear strike.”

Dr. Roberts: “Yes, that’s exactly the strategy. We here in the United States don’t hear any real news about the situation in Ukraine -- we just hear the State Department’s lies. The whole reason for the protests in Ukraine, the whole reason for the coup orchestrated by Washington, was for that purpose -- to put missiles in Ukraine.

“Washington already has these missile bases in Poland. Washington is on the verge of putting the country of Georgia into NATO, and once that happens they can put missile bases in Georgia. This is why the United States wants Ukraine, they want to put missiles on the Russian border in Ukraine.

There is no doubt about this. The strategy paper has already been written. As I mentioned previously, two of these ‘Dr. Strangelove’ types said the U.S. can effectively have a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia without any consequence to the United States by wringing Russia with anti-ballistic missile bases that shoot down the Russian response to an attack.

So that is the strategy. Of course Washington hopes they would never actually need to do any of this, but just the fact that Russia knows they will be ringed by these bases would make it more amenable to Washington’s will. It would force Russia to accept an attack on Syria, an attack on Iran, and simply remove Putin as an obstacle to American aggression in the world.

So that is what the United States hopes, that by achieving this kind of missile supremacy over Russia they can neutralize the Russian strategic deterrent and make Russia more amenable to accept whatever it is Washington wants to do. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

I think that is a very dangerous miscalculation. The Russians are a proud people. They defeated Napoleon when nobody else could (laughter ensues). They defeated Hitler when nobody else could (more laughter ensues). They defeated the Tatars, and they drove out the Mongolians. The Russians are not the kind of people who want to be anybody’s puppet.

The Germans, French, and the British are content to be American puppets. The Russians would not be content doing that. So what Washington is doing is creating a scenario that very easily could lead to nuclear war.”

Not sure what you mean by that Andy - post #263

I'm guessing here but...
Having acces to a coast isn't the same as having access to a (Deep water) port which naval vessels require. For example - Blackpool in the UK is a long stretch of sandy coastline but it would be damn hard for submarines of battleships to turn up at the end of the pier to undergo maintenance, re-arming, re-supply or any othe big ship stuff.

I cn't find it at the moment but someone here posted on the subject of the treaty which governs access to the Black sea.
Essentially Turkey controls access through the Bosphorous - So my question is - how come the US has a guided missile destroyer in the Black sea? The ship was/is apparently in joint exercises with the Bulgarian navy, I assume by invitation.
Is it a NATO thing or something a little bit different?
How does that treaty work?
Curious.

Wise Haven wrote:
Sevastopol is obviously part of the Crimea and perhaps useful to the Russians but they have had access to the black sea via Novorossisk for ages now and that includes naval interests.

andyh wrote: OK - I admit to being ignorant to the detail of Novorossisk as a military port. But why the big deal with Odessa and Sevastopol? Would the strategic shift to other ports cause a gap in Naval capability, for example?
Does Novorossisk have a FULL military naval capability or would it take time to establish that?
Deeper still - has that region expressed a desire for independence from the Russian Federation? and ultimately would make any attempts to establish a new Naval port pointless>
Lotsa questions - that I dont know the answer to.

Wise Haven wrote:
From what I know nothing makes sense apart from EU encroachment on what was typically Russian territory for a long time.
They feel threatened IMHO. Perhaps they also don't want to appear weak.

Ukraine isn't the only country looking at EU membership, a key one would be Turkey for example which would be the last straw for the Russians in that area IMHO.

Good questions tbh and no easy answers.

andyh wrote: Most of the global power plays have been fairly simplistic, sof far.The Arab springs for example.

However the Ukraine has come as a bit of a shock in my expectations. I didn't expect this and this makes me think it is a secondary opportunitstic target that has been exploited because the Syria operation failed so miserably. This sudden shift towards an opportunistic target scares me because that means it hasn't been played through at the NSA. It is an expedient shift because Syria failed....very worrying.

Whoever ordered this game play shift is playing fast and loose - probably a gifted psychopath - but the whole situation has a crash and burn feel to it.

andyh wrote: Most of the global power plays have been fairly simplistic, sof far.The Arab springs for example.

However the Ukraine has come as a bit of a shock in my expectations. I didn't expect this and this makes me think it is a secondary opportunitstic target that has been exploited because the Syria operation failed so miserably. This sudden shift towards an opportunistic target scares me because that means it hasn't been played through at the NSA. It is an expedient shift because Syria failed....very worrying.

Whoever ordered this game play shift is playing fast and loose - probably a gifted psychopath - but the whole situation has a crash and burn feel to it.

Obama is working for another cold war.

That much is clear.