[openasocket]

It should be made clear that the promise not to extend the boundaries of NATO was an informal understanding, it was not written into any treaty, and was made by someone without the authority to ensure that would actually happen. JCPOA aside, there's plenty of treaty-breaking that Russia has engaged in. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine wound up with a large supply of nuclear weapons on its soil, making it the country with the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile. Ukraine agreed to give up those nuclear weapons to Russia, on the condition that Russia not violate its territorial sovereignty, in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The annexation of Crimea is a clear violation of that agreement (maybe Ukraine will ask for its nukes back). There's also the INF treaty, which the Russians violated with variants of their Iskander missile system. Granted, the Trump administration decided to piss in the proverbial swimming pool rather than try to get Russia back into compliance, but Russia did genuinely start this.

> And it's worth noting that the Russian troops are all still in Russia (apart from the troops in Crimea, and the surrogates in eastern Ukraine).

To be clear, more than a few Russian soldiers have been captured in eastern Ukraine, it's not just surrogates fighting.

> I'm not for a moment trying to defend Russian bellicosity in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea. I'm just noting that it's understandable, given repeated Western violations of promises and treaties.

I really don't see how military actions in those places is "understandable," in the context of "Western violations". Annexing Crimea did nothing to improve Russia's security against NATO. If anything it hurt Russia's place in the international community and hardened NATO against it. Keep in mind that they didn't annex Crimea because Ukraine was thinking of joining NATO, it's because they were thinking of joining the EU. This isn't about security concerns, this is about maintaining regional hegemony over Eastern Europe.

[denton-scratch]

> Annexing Crimea did nothing to improve Russia's security against NATO.

Really? Russia's naval base at Sevastopol is in the Crimea. That's a very large naval base, and provides their only naval access to the Mediterranean. In order to station an old carrier off the shore of Syria, they had to sail it from the Baltic, through the English Channel, round through the Straits of Gibraltar. That must have been pretty humiliating.

It would have been smart for Ukraine to negotiate something with Russia giving them the right to continue using that naval base.

[openasocket]

> Russia's naval base at Sevastopol is in the Crimea. That's a very large naval base, and provides their only naval access to the Mediterranean

This is incorrect on several levels. For starters there's the route you mentioned from the Atlantic through the Straits of Gibraltar. Maybe you discount that because it goes through NATO-controlled waters, but to get from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean you have to go through the Bosphorus, which is controlled by Turkey, also a NATO member. Second, Russia has several other naval bases on the Black Sea. The port of Novorossiysk, for example, is the largest port in the entire Black Sea, and one of the largest ports in all of Russia, and is not in Crimea.

> It would have been smart for Ukraine to negotiate something with Russia giving them the right to continue using that naval base.

They did in 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_Pact . Ukraine gave Russia a lease on the facility until 2047 in exchange for a discounted contract on natural gas. Russia unilaterally left the treaty after the annexation of Crimea 4 years later. As far as I can tell, the Russian Black Sea fleet has always had access to a naval base in Sevastopol, and at no point was this access threatened.

> In order to station an old carrier off the shore of Syria, they had to sail it from the Baltic, through the English Channel, round through the Straits of Gibraltar. That must have been pretty humiliating.

Their carrier is deployed with the northern fleet, and while it was built in Ukraine during the Soviet area it doesn't seem to have actually ever performed operations in the Black Sea, though it certainly could be moved there. I also don't see what about that is "humiliating".

[denton-scratch]

> The port of Novorossiysk, for example, is the largest port in the entire Black Sea

Thanks - I am now better-informed.

> I also don't see what about that is "humiliating"

The ship's passage through the English Channel was constantly monitored by UK military jets, as well as by news reporters, who mocked the condition of that decrepit carrier. I don't know if Russian leadership actually felt humiliated, but I'd have been humiliated had it been me (I wouldn't have embarked on the voyage in the first place, unless I had a shiny new ship).

[323]

What sort of argument is this?

Should Denmark also invade Crimea so that it has access to the Mediterranean?

[denton-scratch]

Crimea was a Russian-speaking region of Ukraine before the coup. It's still mainly ethnic-Russian. It was a favourite holiday destination for Russians. It adjoins Russia (well, almost). I'm not aware that Ukraine is fighting Russians in the Crimea; they seem to have surrendered it. I guess they decided that the Crimean population weren't in favour of Ukrainian control, and so it wasn't worth the candle.

What's Denmark got to do with anything? Denmark has zero interests in the Crimea.

[323]

So then you admit that your argument about Mediterranean access is irrelevant.