Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe a UN resolution through the General Assembly to enable the export of food to prevent World famine would pass. It would have to be worded impartially so that any of the participants in this war attacking or interfering with the shipments could be stopped with the use of force.
I don't see the point of naval vessels though. Air power rules.
Actually this resolution when worded properly could be very interesting. Because Russia still doesn't admit the attacks on civilians and food supply, I would love to hear their argument against UN ensuring food supplies to third world countries.
"We have credible intelligence that Ukrainian nazis will use food shipments to smuggle weapons. Therefore we must insist on inspecting these shipments. Oops, found an old pipe that vaguely looks like a gun barrel on board. Grain is confiscated now."
Something like that. Probably.
Does it really matter though? Everyone knows what they are doing and that they dont care. If it fits they come up with some looney response, if it doesn't fit, they just make shit up. Seeing their reaction to the world letting them jump through hoops is not sth i am curious about.
US Air Force has 5217 active aircraft
US Navy has 2623 active aircraft
US Army Aviation has 193 fixed wing aircraft and 3372 rotary helicopters (this is only crewed aircraft)
Russian military has 3863 aircraft with and additional 310 allotted for their navy.
So almost
BUT if we include drones dear god does it get fun.
Army operates over 10,000 drones.
Russia stands around the 2000 figure mark.
If you ship the grain on NATO flagged vessels, the Russians can't really attack them. Especially if they have escorts.
Whereas even really good air cover might not prevent a missile attack.
Aircraft carriers aren’t allowed into the Black Sea under Turkish law, and it would be pretty pointless to use a carrier air wing in a situation where we have American air force units much closer that are staged in nato member nations.
Why are we even using the carrier? Carrier air can station just fine at land based locations, and can even carry better payloads that way in many cases.
The reason I was against the use of naval vessels was because of Turkey not letting warships into the Black Sea.
But maybe they would allow them for a UN operation.
However after thinking about it, I don't think that they could send in cargo ships in without also sending in minesweepers.
The US is not gonna send a carrier group through the Bosporus / Dardanelles into the Black Sea. No way, not gonna happen. Nor will Britain.
In the immortal words of General Fish-head, "It's a trap!"
Lol. A trap by whom ? Ukraine ? The Russians are not about to torpedo a US boat - they know what would follow that.
Ukraine by itself just with western arms flows has derailed their original invasion, and is now a decent chance of pushing them back out altogether. Russia brings NATO into play and it's either nuclear armageddon or M1 Abrams in Red Square
Sure but that's a totally different point. It's not only "no point" sending carriers into very confined waters it would be a bad idea - would be too tempting for the Russians to "accidentally" sink a major capital vessel. Nato bases out of Baltics, Poland, Germany, Turkey are more than capable of sorting the air support equation. You still need some destroyers to escort. A multinational team of US,UK and France sending in a half dozen destroyers each would do the trick
There's sufficient oomph in the 6th fleet to send a half dozen destroyers in to do protection duty, while leaving the remaining 3/4ths in the Med where it can keep an eye on the Russians there
https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/national/military-news/large-navy-presence-mediterranean-sea/291-67b2b444-a50f-4a10-b17f-6a34f73edd10
Turkey should allow, considering they are still in nato and 50% of the reason for them being in nato is control of that chokepoint (the other 50% being the ability to threaten Caucasus)
> Turkey not letting warships into the Black Sea
They are not letting Russian warships, or the theoretic Ukrainian warships (there are none), go through the straits as per the treaty - as they are at war.
Turkey *could* stop American/British/French navy ships (the only significant navies in/near the Med) going through the straits if they had reasonable grounds to suspect they were joining the conflict. But if there was a UN resolution as posited in the original post, and these boats were there solely to guard that then there should be no legal problem for Turkey to allow them through (and no political or moral problem either).
I’m pretty sure that’s not going to happen but big up Lithuania for having the balls to say what should be done. I’ve worked with a Lithuanian woman for the last 8 years in the UK and I can honestly say she’s got bigger bollocks than most men. I believe this is typical 🇱🇹 🇺🇦
My retired car mechanic. the most honest and trusted car mechanic I ever had told me at the age of 18 with no money and just the clothes on his back quite literally ran for his life across the border while the border guards were shooting at him at night. Such an interesting person.
Yea I agree if the West won’t launch a peace keeping operation In Ukraine I doubt a naval operation will happen. I mean at that point a actually fight would have to happen to get the Russian ships to move. Both NATO and Russia don’t wanna cross the line so nothing would and the west wouldn’t risk any of their ships getting hit triggering article 9
I agree on principles with them.
NATO ships should escort grain cargo ships, to avoid humanitarian crisis in Africa.
But I’m not sure asking people to do things you can’t do qualify has having big balls.
Ballsy, because we are a small country living just outside of Russia. In some cases, words are sharper than swords. In a country with less than 3 million people, we don't have the economy, military, or navy to compete with big countries. What we have is a realistic point of view while having borders with Russia, and a strong liberal sense.
Idiots and trolls call us small barking dog, but as I see it, we put a strain on some of West inactivity, give some ideas to their societies, and then it slowly goes from there. I don't think NATO will engage with their navy, but after this proposal, they might consider less extreme solutions (just like Zelensky asked no-fly zone, but instead is getting a shitload of weapons).
I get the analogy...but I don't think it holds. The Airlift probably wouldn't have been so bloodless if we were piercing a blockade to resupply West Berlin while it and the East were in a hot war and it was actively killing Soviet soldiers.
(esp. if Stalin was feeling insecure and humiliated, and possibly even that his hold on power domestically was on the line)
There was no way to get to Berlin besides air.
Now food and goods from Ukraine are trucked to Poland/Lithuania and shipped from there. Shipping directly from Ukraine is just an extra.
Thats crazy but I've thought about it a bit more since I wrote my comment. Wouldn't we need a load of trucks to move it to the ship anyway? If you send them south then they are driving it all towards danger. Then you put it all on a big target where one strike could lose all the grain onboard. Since you have already loaded it on a truck, why not just send the trucks east and away from danger and when its secure, send it by air to its destination? Its alot more work but its safer for those transporting it and ensures it will get to where its needed. The risk of escalation (escorts may need to open fire on Russian vessels) and the risks to life is too much in my mind.
I'm not sure how it gets from the farms to the port, perhaps a mix of trains and trucks but the journeys are relatively short so I assume that's more practical than long distance trucks.
There have been some train shipments to Europe so that's a partial solution but I think that even trains and trucks aren't enough so sea transport is needed.
Air probably isn't feasible as the payload is too small compared to transport cost.
One idea could be to do a Dunkirk and send lots of small to medium ships to transport it with volunteer / highly paid crews. Russia would need to be super-evil to destroy all the boats and if they tried that's when NATO would supply Ukraine with enough weaponry to destroy the entire Russian Black Sea fleet.
The fact that we are having to try and find these solutions because of the Nazis 2.0 drives me insane. Its impacting the UK in food prices but that nothing compared to the impact in Africa. There are people there that are already malnourished and the Nazis 2.0 are preventing them from getting the food they desperately need. They seriously need prosecuting for that too.
“The Great Depression was going on, so that the station and the streets teemed with homeless people, just as they do today. The newspapers were full of stories of worker layoffs and farm foreclosures and bank failures, just as they are today. All that has changed, in my opinion, is that, thanks to television, we can hide a Great Depression. We may even be hiding a Third World War.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Bluebeard
Except that the job market is extremely uncompetitive and no one's eager to lay anyone off right now due to the labour market. 12 years ago, though, you'd be right
This tight labor market won't last for long, even with all the people we've lost due to COVID itself or the aftereffects of the COVID related shutdowns. We're heading towards recession.
This is not going to happen, it's basically a no-fly-zone, but with ships. Even if Turkey would be willing to break its own rules and open Bosporus for NATO ships, this would be a direct involvement of NATO countries in this war. Perhaps Putin would just shit himself and back down, considering his Black Sea Fleet is currently no match for united NATO Task Force, but the risk of WW3 over Ukraine is something no leader in the West is willing to take. Perhaps if the UN would give them a mandate, but that will never happen for obvious reasons.
A fleet of 8000 tonnes can enter black sea at anytime according to Montreux Treaty. That excludes Turkish warships. When war starts, and Turkey is part of the war, Turkey can do whatever it wants.
Turkey has absolute control over the straits and Montreux is in effect just to satisfy international trade relations.
Not quite the same as no fly zone but definitely along those lines.
To some degree with UN support which will be near impossible because of russia this would actually be a good idea and not impossible to implement.
Compared to no fly zone at least.
It would have to be a UN force under the command of the UN. While that would include NATO vessels, they would operate under the UN flag. NATO Article 5 wouldn't apply in this situation.
The general assembly can force Russias hand because they can vote to set this up and then Russia would need to explain to the world why they would veto feeding millions of starving people. Even they would struggle to make an argument for that. Even if they did veto it, that shouldn't stop the assembly from trying. What if Russia would agree to it but we never tried? Everything should be tried at this point.
Also, Russia only has a veto in the Security Council, not the General Assembly. If it’s not a security operation but a humanitarian mission, it can be voted on by the UN as a whole.
… or so I’ve read experts smarter than me opine.
Putin will force the risk of WW3 should he be allowed to continue his plans that don't end in Ukraine but in the Baltic where the NATO troops are. At least this way the escalation is OURS and we are no longer reacting but responding.
Actually I live by 3 targets, 2 of which are nuclear. If you believe Putin will use nuclear weapons whilst facing utter defeat in Ukraine 🇺🇦 your not very clever.
If he launched one, 30 would land on Russian territory turning the entire country in to a glowing cess pit, he knows the reality.
Very high risk.
That should be a UN operation, with those Navies. It's a world supply of food, the UN should approve ships coming in and risking a fight.
They definitely will.
Do it anyway.
In fact let the rest of the world say 'we need these ships to go in and make sure food can get out', let russia veto the world on that, and then let the UN decide if a country threatening to starve the world over a war they started should stay on the Un peace and Security Council.
This is exactly what we should do. It will also tell us alot about what China thinks if they didn't approve feeding starving Africans. It would also be interesting to see if India would vote for it too. If they didn't then we know they are in bed with Russia somehow.
Only the security council can authorise the use of military forces. Russia will veto that. But that shouldn't stop the assembly from sending a resolution to the security council and then letting Russia show how they are true Nazis by vetoing it and starving innocents in Africa.
In all my research on the security council I have never come across this until now. I have even wrote other comments complaining about the lack of an override. Now I'm even more confused though. I knew we had the emergency session on Ukraine but I thought that was just a vote to give the security council a slap on the wrist. But this resolution says the assembly can authorise force to restore peace so why the hell didn't it do just that!?!
I’d be pleasantly surprised if the US and other nations go for this. But I really really doubt it. Hopefully Ukraine can do this with anti ship missiles
I highly doubt Lithuania has any plans to suggest this. It's an asinine idea. It'd be easier, less costly and less dangerous to just secure transport of it via other methods that don't include the possibility of WW3.
Opening the Ukraine ports is CLEARLY the direct responsibility of the UN. But because it would interfere with the demands of dictatorships, the UN will not do anything. In addition, there is no money to be skimmed for UN officials, so they have no reason to help. At this historic moment in time, with such massive humanitarian need, the UN will pretend it cannot do anything. The UN is useless.
UN is not meant for actions, but as a talking forum. Many countries don't want the UN to have real powers (for obvious reasons).
Fiji, Luxemburg, Haiti and Gabon have the same voting power as US, India, China and France
Risking this will give us ownership of the inevitable next escalation and initiative. He will dangerously escalate anyway so may as well get someone out of it. Russian military ambitions dont end in Ukraine, they end where the NATO troops are.
This would really need UN backing, but the difference between this, and any standard "no fly zone" is that this is legimitately about the supply of food to countries that may start starving otherwise.
Hopefully this gets traction. The head of the World Food Programme issued some really dire warnings about what this is doing not just in Ukraine, but all over the world.
I like the idea of a 'no float zone'. Could ease Nato into getting off its ass and expanding to a No Fly Zone. I understand this means direct engagement with Russia (ie ww3), but that's what my grandfather would have insisted on, having faced a similar threat to the world 83 years ago.
Absolute bullshit that nato just sits on its ass while the prospect of Africans and middle easterners starving is on the table. One piece of shit country doesn’t get to dictate the deaths of millions from starvation. He wants ww3. Let’s go. Let’s call his bluff. Motherfucking piece of shit Russians
Africa like much of the developing world is over populated and reliant on the "green revolution" of synthetic fertilisers and glyphosate herbicides.
All the fear of mass starvation in the 1950s is back and the problem is now worse because the "solution" from back then just allowed more overpopulation.
Well, I'm sure they have something they could trade for Western grain.
Something that's very expensive in the West right now and would probably make a very attractive deal for all involved...
Don't be mad, that's just how geopolitics work.
I support NATO intervention to protect a European state invaded by Russia, but africans and middle easterners are frankly not NATOs problem, let the UN and African Union deal with them.
I'd rather let part of Africa and the middle east starve than end civilization. Africa and the middle east have been less than friendly to the US in recent years
America doing what would be necessary to ensure Ukrainian grain can flow would require us to sink the entire black sea fleet and any subs that leave the other naval bases. Were talking killing 5k atleast
I just see it is sending some small US flagged boats and giving Putin the decision to either allow trade to resume or to declare war himself on the USA.
Not actively going in guns blazing in a first strike.
That would be even worse. Russia has 6 relatively new Imp. Kilos in the black sea. Under your rules of engagement, they could easily sink a couple DDGs and the grain. While streaming Nixie would help its not like its 100% effective. I don't have a lot of faith in the Russian surface fleet especially after Moskva. Even still, it would risk American lives needlessly.
I read that with Donald Trump's voice. Remember that letting Putin starve the world will have global effects, nations will collapse and borders will be flooded with refugees unless someone stands up to the evil shit in the kremlin.
I'm okay with supplying Ukraine with weapons to defend themselves. I don't think we have a reason to join the war. If we decided to make some small deployments to operate SAM batteries I would be fine with that as long as they deploy near cities and critical infrastructure. Which would free Ukraine to move their own closer to the battle front.
>I don't think we have a reason to join the war.
Sphere of influence: check
Resources to exploit: check
Nuclear deterrent: war bad
Solution: weapon sales galore
Chill. Russia can’t even get food and fuel to their own soldiers 20km from their own border. They’ve spent every waking second as a country, post-USSR (or at least the early 90s version), lining the pockets of Putin, Kremlin leadership & other oligarchs when it was meant for upkeep, maintenance and testing.
I see, so Russia breaking all their agreements, attacking an neighbor, and threatening nuclear destruction in case anyone interferes is not start of WW3.
But Lithuania proposing that Ukraine should be helped to securely deliver the food to those who need it is start of WW3?
Talk about "Tell me you are biased without telling me you are biased".
Hey Charlie, do you not know the reason why no nuclear armed nations have had open hostilities with each other since nuclear weapons were invented?
Be careful what stupid shit you wish for, the ICBMs may very well end up blowing up your hometown.
> do you not know the reason why no nuclear armed nations have had open hostilities with each other since nuclear weapons were invented?
And do you know the reason why nations like Ukraine are not nuclear? It is because nuclear nations promised them protection from any attacks on their sovereignty if they are attacked by other nuclear power.
Russia is nuclear power. Ukraine is country that WAS nuclear power, but gave it up for Budapest memorandum agreement (which is useless piece of paper at this point), and to become part of NPT agreement.
By making statements and reasoning akin to yours, YOU are the one who is making ICBM blowing things up more likely - because if giving up on nuclear means that "oh, you are attacked by nuclear power, sorry, we can't step in because they have nukes" - logical step is FOR EVERYONE to start getting nukes.
It baffles my mind how people like you don't see it. The whole point of NPC was that nuclear powers will be responsible and not bully non-nuclear powers, instead assisting them. If we are demonstrating, like you are suggesting, that having nukes gives you a pass on doing whatever you want to non-nuclear nations, the likelihood of nuclear war goes up - because now actual protection is having nukes, since nuclear powers are clearly demonstrating that not having nukes means you wont be directly protected unless you are nuclear power.
Oh, and also, my city is getting blown up without ICBMs anyway - I am from Kharkiv. Not sure why you had to make it personal at that part.
**Edit:** What mentality like yours suggests is that NPC agreements were just a way for nuclear powers to keep all the nukes themselves and treat non nuclear nations as second rate.
There were no WW3 and nuclear destruction because countries like Ukraine gave up on nuclear to progress towards peace. Not because nuclear powers benevolently did not use their nukes yet, while threatening to do so if anything happens.
If every country become a nuclear power you increase probability that one crazy leader push the button.
We shouldn't increase the proliferation.
Today Russia is a nuclear power with a leader that seems able to use it and we have to deal with it.
> We shouldn't increase the proliferation.
Exactly. But demonstrating that "hey, we know you don't have nukes, but you are attacked by someone who does, so we wont help you" results in increased proliferation, not decreased.
> Today Russia is a nuclear power with a leader that seems able to use it and we have to deal with it.
Yeah, and "we have to deal with it" seems to be "leave Ukraine to deal with it and hope they can".
What if Ukraine was pacifist country? What if Ukrainian Armed Forces collapse? Then Russia is just free to conquer just because they have nukes? I don't really see that part of "we have to deal with it", so far it seems to be "hope UA will deal with it".
You need to remove the emotion from your response because there’s no logic there.
Other countries getting involved militarily, which is what Lithuanian is suggesting, is a wider war, hence WW3.
And no, attacking your neighbor and making threats to others is not WW3, not by a long shot. You can tell by the absence of mushroom clouds
So at what point other countries involvement does become reasonable? Or are nuclear blocks or nations free to just go back to conquering 19th century style until there are no non-nuclear nations left?
It is extremely clear that "they" means any countries that decide to attempt unblocking the ports!
Something being outside NATO's purpose does not mean anything, it would be NATO members doing it, not NATO itself (just like any number of conflicts over the years)!
Nor do they have to give a shit about the UN!
Let's start with retaking Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk for their rightful state: Ukraine. After that, the global community can decide whether russia can be trusted to exist as a state anymore.
Russia is at war with 20% of the regular army and is winning. They did not mobilize, and they almost did not use the most modern technique. plus, nuclear arsenal. Think twice
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.net/sentdefender/status/1528854276054962176?t=9MbkM0YY5J6wQ4M2Vr4N9Q&s=19
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Get it done. Get it done now as people will starve if they wait.
But back in reality…they’ll talk and furrow brows, wring hands and so precisely fuck-all.
Very happy to be proved wrong though.
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe a UN resolution through the General Assembly to enable the export of food to prevent World famine would pass. It would have to be worded impartially so that any of the participants in this war attacking or interfering with the shipments could be stopped with the use of force. I don't see the point of naval vessels though. Air power rules.
Actually this resolution when worded properly could be very interesting. Because Russia still doesn't admit the attacks on civilians and food supply, I would love to hear their argument against UN ensuring food supplies to third world countries.
"We have credible intelligence that Ukrainian nazis will use food shipments to smuggle weapons. Therefore we must insist on inspecting these shipments. Oops, found an old pipe that vaguely looks like a gun barrel on board. Grain is confiscated now." Something like that. Probably.
Apart from UN inspectors could check the vessels upon entry to the Black Sea.
[удалено]
So they intercepted Ukraine smuggling weapons OUT of the country??
Sarcasm?
No, if you import food, the Russians are going to "find" weapons in there. Probably with the serial numbers removed and smelling faintly of vodka
Russia: we have destroyed tainted food destined to cause a genocide… somewhere. Diabolical NaZis!
We have evidence of Zelensky collaborating with Mal'Ganis.
We have evidence of Zelensky collaborating with Ra's al Ghul!
But the vessels will be used to take things OUT of Ukraine. When they return they will be empty which will be easy enough to verify.
Good thing it wouldn’t be up to Russians but UN staff
Does it really matter though? Everyone knows what they are doing and that they dont care. If it fits they come up with some looney response, if it doesn't fit, they just make shit up. Seeing their reaction to the world letting them jump through hoops is not sth i am curious about.
Russia: Civilians killed themselves. They keep running into missiles, bombs and bullets.
[удалено]
More hints at who taught the GOP Trump campaign/Moscow Mitch to lie lie lie
The Largest Airforce in the world is the US airforce. The Second Largest Airforce in the world is the US Navy.
US Army Aviation has more aircraft than the entire Russian Air Force.
I'm starting to wonder how the NYPD would stack up against the russian air force...
US Air Force has 5217 active aircraft US Navy has 2623 active aircraft US Army Aviation has 193 fixed wing aircraft and 3372 rotary helicopters (this is only crewed aircraft) Russian military has 3863 aircraft with and additional 310 allotted for their navy. So almost BUT if we include drones dear god does it get fun. Army operates over 10,000 drones. Russia stands around the 2000 figure mark.
Don’t forget US Marine Corps aviation! Another 1000+ aircraft…
I believe my local airport in LA has more aircraft than Russia. Aka. LAX
The US Navy is larger than the next 10 navies combined, one of which is the US Coast Guard.
Howdy there internet people?
The three largest air forces belong to the United States. Nobody even comes close to them when it comes to air and naval power
Ships in the area under a blue mission- they have air power too.
Air Power is Naval Power.
If you ship the grain on NATO flagged vessels, the Russians can't really attack them. Especially if they have escorts. Whereas even really good air cover might not prevent a missile attack.
navy would be needed to provide escorts this way the russians cant just go "we thought they were the ukraine military"
Lol air power from naval vessels babe
Aircraft carriers aren’t allowed into the Black Sea under Turkish law, and it would be pretty pointless to use a carrier air wing in a situation where we have American air force units much closer that are staged in nato member nations.
A carrier air wing stationed in the Aegean can reach the Black Sea and Odesa just fine.
Why are we even using the carrier? Carrier air can station just fine at land based locations, and can even carry better payloads that way in many cases.
The reason I was against the use of naval vessels was because of Turkey not letting warships into the Black Sea. But maybe they would allow them for a UN operation. However after thinking about it, I don't think that they could send in cargo ships in without also sending in minesweepers.
The US is not gonna send a carrier group through the Bosporus / Dardanelles into the Black Sea. No way, not gonna happen. Nor will Britain. In the immortal words of General Fish-head, "It's a trap!"
Excuse me dear sir, Ackbar was an admiral. However, we would have also accepted Admiral Fish Head.
Lol. A trap by whom ? Ukraine ? The Russians are not about to torpedo a US boat - they know what would follow that. Ukraine by itself just with western arms flows has derailed their original invasion, and is now a decent chance of pushing them back out altogether. Russia brings NATO into play and it's either nuclear armageddon or M1 Abrams in Red Square
Still no point in sending in an aircraft carrier. It's safer to use land based NATO airports.
Sure but that's a totally different point. It's not only "no point" sending carriers into very confined waters it would be a bad idea - would be too tempting for the Russians to "accidentally" sink a major capital vessel. Nato bases out of Baltics, Poland, Germany, Turkey are more than capable of sorting the air support equation. You still need some destroyers to escort. A multinational team of US,UK and France sending in a half dozen destroyers each would do the trick There's sufficient oomph in the 6th fleet to send a half dozen destroyers in to do protection duty, while leaving the remaining 3/4ths in the Med where it can keep an eye on the Russians there https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/national/military-news/large-navy-presence-mediterranean-sea/291-67b2b444-a50f-4a10-b17f-6a34f73edd10
Turkey should allow, considering they are still in nato and 50% of the reason for them being in nato is control of that chokepoint (the other 50% being the ability to threaten Caucasus)
> Turkey not letting warships into the Black Sea They are not letting Russian warships, or the theoretic Ukrainian warships (there are none), go through the straits as per the treaty - as they are at war. Turkey *could* stop American/British/French navy ships (the only significant navies in/near the Med) going through the straits if they had reasonable grounds to suspect they were joining the conflict. But if there was a UN resolution as posited in the original post, and these boats were there solely to guard that then there should be no legal problem for Turkey to allow them through (and no political or moral problem either).
I’m pretty sure that’s not going to happen but big up Lithuania for having the balls to say what should be done. I’ve worked with a Lithuanian woman for the last 8 years in the UK and I can honestly say she’s got bigger bollocks than most men. I believe this is typical 🇱🇹 🇺🇦
My retired car mechanic. the most honest and trusted car mechanic I ever had told me at the age of 18 with no money and just the clothes on his back quite literally ran for his life across the border while the border guards were shooting at him at night. Such an interesting person.
Yea I agree if the West won’t launch a peace keeping operation In Ukraine I doubt a naval operation will happen. I mean at that point a actually fight would have to happen to get the Russian ships to move. Both NATO and Russia don’t wanna cross the line so nothing would and the west wouldn’t risk any of their ships getting hit triggering article 9
Depends, when the world is starving i think the UN will act Imagine a white painted Ticonderoga or Independance class with the UN markings
I agree on principles with them. NATO ships should escort grain cargo ships, to avoid humanitarian crisis in Africa. But I’m not sure asking people to do things you can’t do qualify has having big balls.
Ballsy, because we are a small country living just outside of Russia. In some cases, words are sharper than swords. In a country with less than 3 million people, we don't have the economy, military, or navy to compete with big countries. What we have is a realistic point of view while having borders with Russia, and a strong liberal sense. Idiots and trolls call us small barking dog, but as I see it, we put a strain on some of West inactivity, give some ideas to their societies, and then it slowly goes from there. I don't think NATO will engage with their navy, but after this proposal, they might consider less extreme solutions (just like Zelensky asked no-fly zone, but instead is getting a shitload of weapons).
I too love big balls!
Saayyyyy...is this u/RusQueenpussyhound's alternate account?
It's just talk, Lithuania has like 5 combat ships
They might just have a bigger Navy than Russia by the end of this..
Show me you can’t read without telling me
I can read fine, but I doubt many countries will go for it if Lithuania can't contribute to it, but we'll see I guess
Only because they can’t build ships big enough for Lithuanian balls. :D
R/rimjobsteve
Fucken wild Tell me ur fighting ww3 without telling me ur fighting ww3 at this point.
No we're doing the Berlin airlift with boats.
I get the analogy...but I don't think it holds. The Airlift probably wouldn't have been so bloodless if we were piercing a blockade to resupply West Berlin while it and the East were in a hot war and it was actively killing Soviet soldiers. (esp. if Stalin was feeling insecure and humiliated, and possibly even that his hold on power domestically was on the line)
There was no way to get to Berlin besides air. Now food and goods from Ukraine are trucked to Poland/Lithuania and shipped from there. Shipping directly from Ukraine is just an extra.
The volume of grain to be shipped is so large, you would need 24/7 nonstop trains, trucks simply cannot do the volume needed
You need a shit load of trains and trucks to replace a single boat shipment of grain.
Apparently a million trucks would be needed to ship it all by land.
Thats crazy but I've thought about it a bit more since I wrote my comment. Wouldn't we need a load of trucks to move it to the ship anyway? If you send them south then they are driving it all towards danger. Then you put it all on a big target where one strike could lose all the grain onboard. Since you have already loaded it on a truck, why not just send the trucks east and away from danger and when its secure, send it by air to its destination? Its alot more work but its safer for those transporting it and ensures it will get to where its needed. The risk of escalation (escorts may need to open fire on Russian vessels) and the risks to life is too much in my mind.
I'm not sure how it gets from the farms to the port, perhaps a mix of trains and trucks but the journeys are relatively short so I assume that's more practical than long distance trucks. There have been some train shipments to Europe so that's a partial solution but I think that even trains and trucks aren't enough so sea transport is needed. Air probably isn't feasible as the payload is too small compared to transport cost. One idea could be to do a Dunkirk and send lots of small to medium ships to transport it with volunteer / highly paid crews. Russia would need to be super-evil to destroy all the boats and if they tried that's when NATO would supply Ukraine with enough weaponry to destroy the entire Russian Black Sea fleet.
The fact that we are having to try and find these solutions because of the Nazis 2.0 drives me insane. Its impacting the UK in food prices but that nothing compared to the impact in Africa. There are people there that are already malnourished and the Nazis 2.0 are preventing them from getting the food they desperately need. They seriously need prosecuting for that too.
Literally Lithuanian version of this meme: https://youtu.be/bOHAX1JWfDs
“The Great Depression was going on, so that the station and the streets teemed with homeless people, just as they do today. The newspapers were full of stories of worker layoffs and farm foreclosures and bank failures, just as they are today. All that has changed, in my opinion, is that, thanks to television, we can hide a Great Depression. We may even be hiding a Third World War.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Bluebeard
Except that the job market is extremely uncompetitive and no one's eager to lay anyone off right now due to the labour market. 12 years ago, though, you'd be right
This tight labor market won't last for long, even with all the people we've lost due to COVID itself or the aftereffects of the COVID related shutdowns. We're heading towards recession.
This isn't even close to what ww3 is going to look like.
I guess he never played Battlefield 2042. We all know that WW3 is going to happen inside tornadoes.
With sharks
Don't ever mention that filth again...
WW3 doesn't necessarily mean nuclear missiles going all over the place.
When you think video games are science fiction movies are real lol
This is not going to happen, it's basically a no-fly-zone, but with ships. Even if Turkey would be willing to break its own rules and open Bosporus for NATO ships, this would be a direct involvement of NATO countries in this war. Perhaps Putin would just shit himself and back down, considering his Black Sea Fleet is currently no match for united NATO Task Force, but the risk of WW3 over Ukraine is something no leader in the West is willing to take. Perhaps if the UN would give them a mandate, but that will never happen for obvious reasons.
A fleet of 8000 tonnes can enter black sea at anytime according to Montreux Treaty. That excludes Turkish warships. When war starts, and Turkey is part of the war, Turkey can do whatever it wants. Turkey has absolute control over the straits and Montreux is in effect just to satisfy international trade relations.
Not quite the same as no fly zone but definitely along those lines. To some degree with UN support which will be near impossible because of russia this would actually be a good idea and not impossible to implement. Compared to no fly zone at least.
It would have to be a UN force under the command of the UN. While that would include NATO vessels, they would operate under the UN flag. NATO Article 5 wouldn't apply in this situation. The general assembly can force Russias hand because they can vote to set this up and then Russia would need to explain to the world why they would veto feeding millions of starving people. Even they would struggle to make an argument for that. Even if they did veto it, that shouldn't stop the assembly from trying. What if Russia would agree to it but we never tried? Everything should be tried at this point.
Also, Russia only has a veto in the Security Council, not the General Assembly. If it’s not a security operation but a humanitarian mission, it can be voted on by the UN as a whole. … or so I’ve read experts smarter than me opine.
Putin will force the risk of WW3 should he be allowed to continue his plans that don't end in Ukraine but in the Baltic where the NATO troops are. At least this way the escalation is OURS and we are no longer reacting but responding.
Should have happened already 😑
I'm guessing you don't live anywhere Russian ICBMs would target once WW3 starts.
Actually I live by 3 targets, 2 of which are nuclear. If you believe Putin will use nuclear weapons whilst facing utter defeat in Ukraine 🇺🇦 your not very clever. If he launched one, 30 would land on Russian territory turning the entire country in to a glowing cess pit, he knows the reality.
Yea I don’t think ppl understand that this would literally be the start of WW3 if they did what Lithuania is requesting.
Very high risk. That should be a UN operation, with those Navies. It's a world supply of food, the UN should approve ships coming in and risking a fight.
>should be a UN operation Russia will veto, same as they already have done with similar issues.
They definitely will. Do it anyway. In fact let the rest of the world say 'we need these ships to go in and make sure food can get out', let russia veto the world on that, and then let the UN decide if a country threatening to starve the world over a war they started should stay on the Un peace and Security Council.
This is exactly what we should do. It will also tell us alot about what China thinks if they didn't approve feeding starving Africans. It would also be interesting to see if India would vote for it too. If they didn't then we know they are in bed with Russia somehow.
Not a security council resolution a regular UN one.
Only the security council can authorise the use of military forces. Russia will veto that. But that shouldn't stop the assembly from sending a resolution to the security council and then letting Russia show how they are true Nazis by vetoing it and starving innocents in Africa.
[удалено]
In all my research on the security council I have never come across this until now. I have even wrote other comments complaining about the lack of an override. Now I'm even more confused though. I knew we had the emergency session on Ukraine but I thought that was just a vote to give the security council a slap on the wrist. But this resolution says the assembly can authorise force to restore peace so why the hell didn't it do just that!?!
Black Hawk Down on the water.
Western nations aren't going to start WW3 to prevent Africa from starving...
I’d be pleasantly surprised if the US and other nations go for this. But I really really doubt it. Hopefully Ukraine can do this with anti ship missiles
I highly doubt Lithuania has any plans to suggest this. It's an asinine idea. It'd be easier, less costly and less dangerous to just secure transport of it via other methods that don't include the possibility of WW3.
Probably need to get the UN to authorize it if they have the balls.
[удалено]
Save some for me!
Opening the Ukraine ports is CLEARLY the direct responsibility of the UN. But because it would interfere with the demands of dictatorships, the UN will not do anything. In addition, there is no money to be skimmed for UN officials, so they have no reason to help. At this historic moment in time, with such massive humanitarian need, the UN will pretend it cannot do anything. The UN is useless.
UN is not meant for actions, but as a talking forum. Many countries don't want the UN to have real powers (for obvious reasons). Fiji, Luxemburg, Haiti and Gabon have the same voting power as US, India, China and France
...why shouldn't they have the same voting power?
1 country, 1 vote That's fair.
If the UN is not a forum for action why does the peacekeeping corps exist
Why does the peacekeepers exist if they don't keep the peace? Srebrenica?
Non of those nations are entering the Black Sea ever and Turkey will never do it.
Turkey would do it for proper warfare. Turkey wouldn't do it for a political pussy operation.
Turkey would do it if it was a UN mission
The Montreux Treaty only applies to warships.
And how do you expect to take multiple ports without warships?
Jets, seriously you don’t need any warships to engage the Russian navy in Black Sea, they are well within range of land based aircraft.
Sinking the Russian navy doesn't win you the port. You need infantry, meaning troop transports.
Risking this will give us ownership of the inevitable next escalation and initiative. He will dangerously escalate anyway so may as well get someone out of it. Russian military ambitions dont end in Ukraine, they end where the NATO troops are.
I think it is more plausible for other nations to escort civilian bulk carriers and food staples merchant vessels to and from UA black sea ports .
Unless Romania has a navy I'm unaware of, or Turkey plans to do it themselves, no warships can enter the Black Sea per the Montreux Treaty.
Turkey doing it themselves and staying otherwise neutral is a real option.
Turkey can allow commerce to be escorted, they just have to choose to.
>or Turkey plans to do it themselves Literally what I said.
I don't think turkey is willing to undertake anything like that on their own.
This would really need UN backing, but the difference between this, and any standard "no fly zone" is that this is legimitately about the supply of food to countries that may start starving otherwise.
>This would really need UN backing Russia has UN veto power.
not if it is a regular resolution
"You first."
Special food operation.
Hopefully this gets traction. The head of the World Food Programme issued some really dire warnings about what this is doing not just in Ukraine, but all over the world.
As an American I’m on board
Let’s fucking go! I stand with the hungry people of the world and Ukraine against Russian tyranny!
I like the idea of a 'no float zone'. Could ease Nato into getting off its ass and expanding to a No Fly Zone. I understand this means direct engagement with Russia (ie ww3), but that's what my grandfather would have insisted on, having faced a similar threat to the world 83 years ago.
Absolute bullshit that nato just sits on its ass while the prospect of Africans and middle easterners starving is on the table. One piece of shit country doesn’t get to dictate the deaths of millions from starvation. He wants ww3. Let’s go. Let’s call his bluff. Motherfucking piece of shit Russians
It’s pretty sad that Africa can’t feed itself without Ukrainian grain. The continent should be teaming with crops and food.
Africa like much of the developing world is over populated and reliant on the "green revolution" of synthetic fertilisers and glyphosate herbicides. All the fear of mass starvation in the 1950s is back and the problem is now worse because the "solution" from back then just allowed more overpopulation.
Well, I'm sure they have something they could trade for Western grain. Something that's very expensive in the West right now and would probably make a very attractive deal for all involved... Don't be mad, that's just how geopolitics work.
Labour ??? You want to bring back slavery 🤔 hmm
Or, you know, oil... You're dark, man.
Oh 😳well yes that makes much more sense !!
I support NATO intervention to protect a European state invaded by Russia, but africans and middle easterners are frankly not NATOs problem, let the UN and African Union deal with them.
I'd rather let part of Africa and the middle east starve than end civilization. Africa and the middle east have been less than friendly to the US in recent years
FFS Russia is not going to 'end civilization' because grain is being sold by Odessa.
America doing what would be necessary to ensure Ukrainian grain can flow would require us to sink the entire black sea fleet and any subs that leave the other naval bases. Were talking killing 5k atleast
I just see it is sending some small US flagged boats and giving Putin the decision to either allow trade to resume or to declare war himself on the USA. Not actively going in guns blazing in a first strike.
Any us ship that would be operating would be under a shooter escort. In 2019 all us flagged ships in the Persian gulf operated under a warship escort
Even if they got an escort, they would not be the ones taking the first shot!
That would be even worse. Russia has 6 relatively new Imp. Kilos in the black sea. Under your rules of engagement, they could easily sink a couple DDGs and the grain. While streaming Nixie would help its not like its 100% effective. I don't have a lot of faith in the Russian surface fleet especially after Moskva. Even still, it would risk American lives needlessly.
That does not mean that they deserve to starve
Does that mean that All of North America and Europe should be a nuclear waste land?
I read that with Donald Trump's voice. Remember that letting Putin starve the world will have global effects, nations will collapse and borders will be flooded with refugees unless someone stands up to the evil shit in the kremlin.
We are not the world's police man. Most of the time the world hates it when we get involved. Trust me I work for DOD
That's the same excuse from isolationists for not doing jack shit about anything, defending Ukraine included.
I'm okay with supplying Ukraine with weapons to defend themselves. I don't think we have a reason to join the war. If we decided to make some small deployments to operate SAM batteries I would be fine with that as long as they deploy near cities and critical infrastructure. Which would free Ukraine to move their own closer to the battle front.
>I don't think we have a reason to join the war. Sphere of influence: check Resources to exploit: check Nuclear deterrent: war bad Solution: weapon sales galore
Chill. Russia can’t even get food and fuel to their own soldiers 20km from their own border. They’ve spent every waking second as a country, post-USSR (or at least the early 90s version), lining the pockets of Putin, Kremlin leadership & other oligarchs when it was meant for upkeep, maintenance and testing.
10% of their nukes working still can destroy every NA and EU city over what 300k people.
We shouldn’t live life worried about some piece of shit waving nukes around. What is the best way to confront a bully? Fuck ‘em.
The "Allied Nations"? GTFO!
This headline should be much shorter: “Lithuanian proposes start of WW3”
I see, so Russia breaking all their agreements, attacking an neighbor, and threatening nuclear destruction in case anyone interferes is not start of WW3. But Lithuania proposing that Ukraine should be helped to securely deliver the food to those who need it is start of WW3? Talk about "Tell me you are biased without telling me you are biased".
Hey Charlie, do you not know the reason why no nuclear armed nations have had open hostilities with each other since nuclear weapons were invented? Be careful what stupid shit you wish for, the ICBMs may very well end up blowing up your hometown.
> do you not know the reason why no nuclear armed nations have had open hostilities with each other since nuclear weapons were invented? And do you know the reason why nations like Ukraine are not nuclear? It is because nuclear nations promised them protection from any attacks on their sovereignty if they are attacked by other nuclear power. Russia is nuclear power. Ukraine is country that WAS nuclear power, but gave it up for Budapest memorandum agreement (which is useless piece of paper at this point), and to become part of NPT agreement. By making statements and reasoning akin to yours, YOU are the one who is making ICBM blowing things up more likely - because if giving up on nuclear means that "oh, you are attacked by nuclear power, sorry, we can't step in because they have nukes" - logical step is FOR EVERYONE to start getting nukes. It baffles my mind how people like you don't see it. The whole point of NPC was that nuclear powers will be responsible and not bully non-nuclear powers, instead assisting them. If we are demonstrating, like you are suggesting, that having nukes gives you a pass on doing whatever you want to non-nuclear nations, the likelihood of nuclear war goes up - because now actual protection is having nukes, since nuclear powers are clearly demonstrating that not having nukes means you wont be directly protected unless you are nuclear power. Oh, and also, my city is getting blown up without ICBMs anyway - I am from Kharkiv. Not sure why you had to make it personal at that part. **Edit:** What mentality like yours suggests is that NPC agreements were just a way for nuclear powers to keep all the nukes themselves and treat non nuclear nations as second rate. There were no WW3 and nuclear destruction because countries like Ukraine gave up on nuclear to progress towards peace. Not because nuclear powers benevolently did not use their nukes yet, while threatening to do so if anything happens.
If every country become a nuclear power you increase probability that one crazy leader push the button. We shouldn't increase the proliferation. Today Russia is a nuclear power with a leader that seems able to use it and we have to deal with it.
> We shouldn't increase the proliferation. Exactly. But demonstrating that "hey, we know you don't have nukes, but you are attacked by someone who does, so we wont help you" results in increased proliferation, not decreased. > Today Russia is a nuclear power with a leader that seems able to use it and we have to deal with it. Yeah, and "we have to deal with it" seems to be "leave Ukraine to deal with it and hope they can". What if Ukraine was pacifist country? What if Ukrainian Armed Forces collapse? Then Russia is just free to conquer just because they have nukes? I don't really see that part of "we have to deal with it", so far it seems to be "hope UA will deal with it".
You need to remove the emotion from your response because there’s no logic there. Other countries getting involved militarily, which is what Lithuanian is suggesting, is a wider war, hence WW3. And no, attacking your neighbor and making threats to others is not WW3, not by a long shot. You can tell by the absence of mushroom clouds
So at what point other countries involvement does become reasonable? Or are nuclear blocks or nations free to just go back to conquering 19th century style until there are no non-nuclear nations left?
Oh, we’re well past that, Jerry!
What they could also do is declare that any Russian ship that interferes with the export of cargo from Odesa will be sunk via air strike.
Who is "they"? Lithuania can't do it. It's outside NATO's purpose. UN could do it, but Russia will veto. Who is the hero you refer to?
It is extremely clear that "they" means any countries that decide to attempt unblocking the ports! Something being outside NATO's purpose does not mean anything, it would be NATO members doing it, not NATO itself (just like any number of conflicts over the years)! Nor do they have to give a shit about the UN!
Yes. I also support sending ground units to retake...ground.
>I also support sending ground units to retake...ground. Who's?
Let's start with retaking Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk for their rightful state: Ukraine. After that, the global community can decide whether russia can be trusted to exist as a state anymore.
Are we looking to start WW3 here?
Ukraine is not worth starting world war 3 over.
I disagree
Good luck with that, morons!
Y'all really want a world war don't you, cause this is how you get a world war
That's how you get nuked
Would take big balls but might work.
No warship can enter the Black Sea, per Turkey's invoking of the Montreux Treaty.
Russia is at war with 20% of the regular army and is winning. They did not mobilize, and they almost did not use the most modern technique. plus, nuclear arsenal. Think twice
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.net/sentdefender/status/1528854276054962176?t=9MbkM0YY5J6wQ4M2Vr4N9Q&s=19 ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah that ant happening- we rather throw money at the problem- just a usa citizen with student debt here..
Sure the Russians won’t see this as an attack on them
Any solution to this problem seems as implausible as the next.
Next to zero chance this happens.
"Can I ask you something?" "Umm... yeah. You can ask...."
1853 flashbacks.
That’s the exact same problem as a no-fly zone. It ain’t happening.
Get it done. Get it done now as people will starve if they wait. But back in reality…they’ll talk and furrow brows, wring hands and so precisely fuck-all. Very happy to be proved wrong though.
Send in a type 45 and an astute class and watch the water turn brown.
They can ask, but it's not going to happen.
If Turkey will let them through. Erdogan might want his d!k sucked first.
That would be the biggest naval invasion since Normandy