What if we bought some land in Crimea after the war is over?

[Damocles]

It would be absolutely hilarious if the United States and Ukraine negotiated a deal to purchase a small plot of land in Crimea to be our equivalent of the Akrotiri and Dhekelia Sovereign Base Areas that Britain maintains on Cyprus.

It would also be hilarious if this were an organized, unincorporated territory of the United States, with the only residents being members of our armed forces, local Ukrainian civilian workers, and their families.

It would also be absolutely hilarious if we were then technically a Black Sea nation and thus not subject to the ship tonnage, number, or stay duration limits of the Montreux Convention.

It would also be absolutely hilarious if we could rock up an entire carrier battle group right up to Rostov and Putin could do f#$k-all about it.

[GeneralMacArthur]

You want the United States to be constitutionally obligated to defend a tiny, vulnerable piece of land on the other side of the planet that shared a border with our #1 enemy?

[Damocles]

You want the United States to be constitutionally obligated to defend a tiny, vulnerable piece of land on the other side of the planet that shared a border with our #1 enemy?

I mean, on one hand, it might hurt Putin's feelings and give him more reason to rattle an increasingly cracked and blunted saber, and could give Castro apologists cause to see this as some sort of "imperialist" conspiracy... but on the other hand, f#$k RuZZia and everything that it stands for, they did this to themselves and can no longer be taken seriously, much less trusted.

This would render the Black Sea into a NATO lake much the same way that the Baltic now is, and permanently crush any possibility of white-flagged ships bearing "Z"s and blue saltires from menacing the Mediterranean.

[Santander]

Imagine being this insane.

[GeneralMacArthur]

You want the United States to be constitutionally obligated to defend a tiny, vulnerable piece of land on the other side of the planet that shared a border with our #1 enemy?

I mean, on one hand, it might hurt Putin's feelings and give him more reason to rattle an increasingly cracked and blunted saber, and could give Castro apologists cause to see this as some sort of "imperialist" conspiracy... but on the other hand, f#$k RuZZia and everything that it stands for, they did this to themselves and can no longer be taken seriously, much less trusted.

This would render the Black Sea into a NATO lake much the same way that the Baltic now is, and permanently crush any possibility of white-flagged ships bearing "Z"s and blue saltires from menacing the Mediterranean.

If the war reaches such a low point for Russia that America is able to set up a military base in Crimea and launch its own Black Sea fleet, Putin will have long since been killed anyway.

[CumbrianLefty]

Brilliant idea, can't see any possible drawbacks at all.

[Damocles]

Brilliant idea, can't see any possible drawbacks at all.

To be fair, less insane than "Jewish space lasers" or Obama being "a gay crackhead"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You want the United States to be constitutionally obligated to defend a tiny, vulnerable piece of land on the other side of the planet that shared a border with our #1 enemy?

I mean, on one hand, it might hurt Putin's feelings and give him more reason to rattle an increasingly cracked and blunted saber, and could give Castro apologists cause to see this as some sort of "imperialist" conspiracy... but on the other hand, f#$k RuZZia and everything that it stands for, they did this to themselves and can no longer be taken seriously, much less trusted.

This would render the Black Sea into a NATO lake much the same way that the Baltic now is, and permanently crush any possibility of white-flagged ships bearing "Z"s and blue saltires from menacing the Mediterranean.

If the war reaches such a low point for Russia that America is able to set up a military base in Crimea and launch its own Black Sea fleet, Putin will have long since been killed anyway.

I wonder if anyone said similar things about Chiang Kai-Shek. And yet he ruled a rump state for another 26 years.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well yes, because he had the 100% backing of one of the world's two superpowers.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Me Reading This Thread

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Ct_iMFBI8r9/

[WalterWhite]

Brilliant idea, can't see any possible drawbacks at all.

Establishing a military base that close to the largest nuclear superpower in the world

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

I'd way rather maintain a useless base for tens of billions a year going straight into the pockets of the military-industrial complex than have universal healthcare.

Hell, there's always more cuts to be made in the food-stamp budget for this sort of adventurism.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I don't think Ukraine would want to offer this. One of the factors in the invasion in 2014 was Russia's connection to the Sevastopol Naval Base, on which their lease was set to expire in 2017.

In 2010, after Yanukovych had returned to power, he'd extended this to 2042/2047, but its future was uncertain without Yanukovych, and (in any case) Russia would have needed to keep offering gas subsidies for it.

The base itself played a key role in the seizure of Crimea and the destruction of the Ukrainian navy.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Why don't we just nuke the whole world? Then there won't be anyone left to threaten us.

[Lord Halifax]

Why don't we just nuke the whole world? Then there won't be anyone left to threaten us.

nuking the part that's outside of the Americas should be enough. Who needs the Old World anyway, when we've already upgraded to the New World.

[CumbrianLefty]

Why don't we just nuke the whole world? Then there won't be anyone left to threaten us.

"The operation was a great success, but the patient died".

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I have the belief most people on Talk Elections are not interested in stopping war.

Ironic that the same kind of people usually have the opinion the treaty of Versailles was too harsh. Yeah lol, without hindsight. Not a chance you would've actually thought that.

[Lord Halifax]

I have the belief most people on Talk Elections are not interested in stopping war.

Ironic that the same kind of people usually have the opinion the treaty of Versailles was too harsh. Yeah lol, without hindsight. Not a chance you would've actually thought that.

the treaty of Versailles was far too MILD. Germany should have been dissolved and all German states should have been completely demilitarized.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I have the belief most people on Talk Elections are not interested in stopping war.

Ironic that the same kind of people usually have the opinion the treaty of Versailles was too harsh. Yeah lol, without hindsight. Not a chance you would've actually thought that.

the treaty of Versailles was far too MILD. Germany should have been dissolved and all German states should have been completely demilitarized.

Not sure if you're trolling, i assume so.

But punitive treaties only stimulate more war & conquering.

[Lord Halifax]

I have the belief most people on Talk Elections are not interested in stopping war.

Ironic that the same kind of people usually have the opinion the treaty of Versailles was too harsh. Yeah lol, without hindsight. Not a chance you would've actually thought that.

the treaty of Versailles was far too MILD. Germany should have been dissolved and all German states should have been completely demilitarized.

Not sure if you're trolling, i assume so.

But punitive treaties only stimulate more war & conquering.

not if you take away the capacity. IRL the Allies allowed Germany to keep a unified state with enough population and industry to be a great power and a reduced military that could (and did) serve as the core for future rearmament. Dissolve Germany into its post-Napoleonic states, dissolve Prussia into five smaller states, and ban the German states (incl. Austria) from having any kind of military or arms industry and you take away the capacity. Then let France and Britain act as guarantors of the German states' territorial integrity.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I have the belief most people on Talk Elections are not interested in stopping war.

Ironic that the same kind of people usually have the opinion the treaty of Versailles was too harsh. Yeah lol, without hindsight. Not a chance you would've actually thought that.

the treaty of Versailles was far too MILD. Germany should have been dissolved and all German states should have been completely demilitarized.

Not sure if you're trolling, i assume so.

But punitive treaties only stimulate more war & conquering.

not if you take away the capacity. IRL the Allies allowed Germany to keep a unified state with enough population and industry to be a great power and a reduced military that could (and did) serve as the core for future rearmament. Dissolve Germany into its post-Napoleonic states, dissolve Prussia into five smaller states, and ban the German states (incl. Austria) from having any kind of military or arms industry and you take away the capacity. Then let France and Britain act as guarantors of the German states' territorial integrity.

So if someone defeats the USA in a war, breaking up USA in several microstates is what we should do?

You know the first thing that would happen is that all states would merge again and be also revanchist and hateful.

[CumbrianLefty]

I agree to an extent. Forcibly breaking up Germany wasn't feasible after either World War, and IMO the same is true of Russia now (as opposed to bits flaking off its edges, perhaps)

This ties in with the current discussion on nationalism in another recent thread.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I agree to an extent. Forcibly breaking up Germany wasn't feasible after either World War

It happened all the same. Even if you disregard East and West Germany, the lands lost elsewhere which weren't previously annexed by the Nazis were quite significant. Some of the areas which were annexed by the Nazis would likely have voted for annexation at the time (Austria), and they were broken off, too.

[Senator Incitatus]

folks how hilarious would it be if i stepped on this rake right here lol

[WalterWhite]

I agree to an extent. Forcibly breaking up Germany wasn't feasible after either World War, and IMO the same is true of Russia now (as opposed to bits flaking off its edges, perhaps)

This ties in with the current discussion on nationalism in another recent thread.

I doubt anyone is suggesting to take land away from Russia. I doubt Ukraine even wants that; Zelensky has said that he wants to retake all of Ukraine and nothing more.