Exclusive: China sends surface-to-air missiles to contested island in provocative mov


Exclusive: China sends surface-to-air missiles to contested island in provocative move | Fox News

What’s the response? Why does the rest of the world believe appeasement works?


Yeah, if only Marco Rubio were president, he’d start a war with China over this. He already thinks we should go to war with Russia over Syria.


Rubio is all talk. Regardless, all of these problems (Ukraine, Syria, South China Sea etc.) would have been nipped in the bud, without war, by a true global superpower with a strong leader. Our feckless Nobel laureate brings us daily closer to the point of no return; surrender or war.


We don’t have force projection in the Ukraine; and we never did.

The situation was always going to come to a head due to differing values of the Ukrainians vs. the Russians, and whether we liked it or not, Russia, by virtue of the being the regional power, would get most of its way.

Being the most powerful does not mean all powerful; do not confuse the two. You do so at our own peril.


So whenever an ally or a country we have pledged to protect their sovereignty has “differing values” with the “regional power” we just throw them under the bus? Sounds great! Lets re-unite the Warsaw Pact by bits and pieces and re-do the Cold War.

How about arming the Ukraine? How about re-activating the EIS? How about parking a carrier group outside Sevastopol? How about doing all this before the Russian occupation?

I thought you were big on “free trade” “no tariffs” etc. but you’re ok with Russia, Iran, China and other “regional powers” running amuck. No way that will ever affect free trade, right?


We did not have the means to enforce it. It was foolish to put ourselves in the middle of a pan-Slavic dispute for a nation whose border may as well have been written in crayon.

The Ukraine is a buffer state, and Russia wants to keep it that way. The Ukrainians had their chance to better secure their position by joining NATO, but they declined. In so doing, they took their fate into their own hands.

How about arming the Ukraine?

Done that.

How about re-activating the EIS?

… Redundant, overpriced, and ineffective against 1st world nations with 1,000s of missiles to call upon.

Secretary Gates, not Obama, made the call to deactivate it, and Condoleeze Rice defends his decision to this day.

and I’m pretty sure they know what’s useful or not here.

How about parking a carrier group outside Sevastopol?

We parked missile cruisers in the Black Sea. They, btw, are why the EIS is redundant. They already provide ballistic & guided missile defense.

I thought you were big on “free trade” “no tariffs” etc. but you’re ok with Russia, Iran, China and other “regional powers” running amuck.

In their own backyard? We don’t have a choice; this is no different than if China initiated a crack down on Hong Kong; y’know, the BENCHMARK of free trade?

Why do I say they’re similiar? Because like Sevastopol to Russia, it’s on a conjoining land mass, it’s on a peninsula, and China would be invading a place they’re already at. They already have a fortress there, they already have assets positioned against a counter-invasion.

70% of Russia’s Black Sea fleet is located there at any point of time. The only difference “before the invasion” would have made, is whether they had 6 K-300P missile batteries positioned around it or 12.


Alaska Slim, I ask this only because you seem to be sharp on these issues, what is an appropriate response by the U.S to this growing issue? Oddly, this is the type of issue that Trump could exploit and bring support for his tariff stance against China as much as I don’t prefer him as president. I believe his tough talk against China has helped him immensely as it is.

Obviously going to outright war isn’t an option, but there needs to be a response doesn’t there? It seems to me the global unity that was once committed to human rights and reigning in aggressive nations has waned. You can almost be sure that sanctions is a non-starter for China, they could start WW3 and probably dodge sanctions.


Military aid to Ukraine:

Obama has resisted offensive military aid to Ukraine so as to not offend the Russians. A few Humvees last year. Congress authorized $50 million in November for offensive aid including such things as antiarmor weapon systems, mortars, grenade launchers, small arms, and ammunition; no tanks, SAMs etc. I don’t know if any of this has actually been delivered.

EIS cancellation:

This was cancelled by Obama on the day of the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union. Coincidence? Headlines in Poland screamed “Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back”. Meanwhile the Kremlin broke out into a happy dance and praised the American move. The Polish missle bases are to be replaced by Aegis equipped ships and a phase 3 to protect Poland in 2018 followed by a phase 4 capable of intercepting ICBMs by 2020. Phase 4 was cancelled in early 2013. Remember: “Tell Vlad that I can be more flexible after the election”.

Naval exercises in the Black Sea:

In March 2014 USS Truxton a guided missle destroyer conducted exercises in the Black Sea for a week or so. As far as I know this was the only US Navy presence in the Black Sea in the past 5 years.


No, wait minute. You didn’t respond to me here, you just nitpicked my claims.

So for the record:

  • The Ukraine isn’t within our capability to militarily respond to.

  • Attempting to do so would leave us vulnerable, as there is only one narrow exit/entry point into the Black Sea, that the Russians monitor 24/7.

  • The Montreux Convention forbids us for sending any ship to the Black Sea that displaces more than 15,000 lbs.

  • The Ukrainians chose themselves to not pursue a military alliance with us. They took their fate into their own hands.

*We have a missile system in Europe, and it is a better system than EIS.

So says the man who made the recommendation for both systems, Secretary Robert Gates:

In his memoir, “Duty,” Gates wrote, “I* never understood the fury of the U.S. critics. The new plan would get defenses operational in Europe and for our 80,000 troops there years earlier than the Bush proposal.***” As for the appeasement charge, he scoffed: “***Making the Russians happy wasn’t exactly on my to-do list.***”

Nor was anyone doing end-zone dances in the Kremlin. After Obama announced the new system, the Russians charged that it “undermines global stability and violates the current balance of nuclear forces.

You say “appeasement” while the Russians claim “aggression”.

In March 2014 USS Truxton a guided missle destroyer conducted exercises in the Black Sea for a week or so. As far as I know this was the only US Navy presence in the Black Sea in the past 5 years.

Then you didn’t look. The U.S.S Donald Cook, the U.S.S. Ross and the U.S.S. Vella Gulf were all in the Black Sea in 2014 alone. In a mere cursory search, I found out that both the Ross and the Donald Cook went back in 2015, along with the U.S.S. Porter. The American ships, while following the Montreux Convention that allows only 21 days of continuous operation per ship, have been cycling their positions with several other NATO vessels, whom have all been standing guard in the area since the Truxton showed up.

So, old dog? All of this you’ve been trying to claim? It’s nothing more than spin.

Spin made by people who cared less about strategic planning, than they did simply upshotting the President.

Hey, I’m all for being a partisan, but not if that means endorsing irrational policy that does substantively less.


You flatter me, but I haven’t kept up here very well, and I’m of course no expert. From what I’ve read, I just think we should keep on what we’re doing; “Freedom of Navigation” missions to ensure China doesn’t lock down international waters.

Another step might be, that if the Hague manages to rule on a claimant (not terribly likely, but there is a case with the Philippines vs China right now before them), then help that claimant set up a presence on the island(s) in question. Put on their own “defenses”.

That wouldn’t include Woody Island though; China’s the only country that’s been there for the last 50 years, and there’s over a 1,000 people living on it.

Another complication is that Taiwan views its claim as the same as China’s, and therefore supports the latter. China’s even agreed to split the resources with them to maintain that support. We could find ourselves at odds with an ally if we’re not careful.


I stand corrected on US warships in the Black Sea. Thanks.

Although we have historically adhered to it, the United States did not sign and has no obligation to adhere to the Montreux Convention.

As far as nitpicking what parts of a post to respond to, I will just say that it is a big club and both of us are members.’



Old Dog/AS - I don’t think your interesting discussion should miss a critical point.

Many things happen in the world that are beyond our control. That said, had we had strong/intelligent/effective leadership over the past several years it is very likely we would not be dealing with many of the issues both of you are rightly pointing out. We are now in a position of dealing with issues surrounding “putting the genie back in the bottle”. A VERY difficult proposition with few good options readily available. IMHO

Stated another way, would China or Russia be acting in the manner they are had we had a leader like Reagan in office the last 7+ years? I doubt it.

The term “politically correct” is an interesting one. Sadly, more often than not over a long period of time our leadership has acted politically, but not necessarily correctly. Correctly defined as acting in our nation’s best interest even when an action is not politically popular.



Arguing about what we could-have/should-have done doesn’t contribute at all to the difficult decisions the next president will face. And I fear the situation will be even worse 11 months from now. And some actions which might have been safe and effective a few years ago could actually be dangerous today.


Russia would have taken Crimea, and more importantly, sevastpool. That’s a certainty.

Their lease for the Naval Base was to expire in 2017, and the new Ukrainian Government insisted that they would not renew it. Russia however needs that base, to Putin, there could be no doubt. Their Black Sea fleet would be virtually bottled up without it.


You could be correct - you make a reasonable argument. I simply do not know.


Meanwhile, from the OP article:

This comes as President Obama hosts 10 leaders from Southeast Asia – Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Bruneil, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia

These wouldn’t happen to be all countries included in the Trans Pacific Partnership deal, would they?

Just wondering if China’s reason for their show of force isn’t two-fold.


2cent - for some time I’ve been at the point where my expectations for our leadership - specifically, Obama - is so low as to be nonexistent. On virtually every front his judgment/decision making has been deplorable. Leaders in China, Russia, N Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. understand that no matter what they do - and they have done and are doing a lot - Obama will respond with NOTHING but rhetorical flurries. As a consequence, these leaders are going to make as much hay as possible while Obama is in office - everything from weapons testing to weapons deployment to humiliation of the US and her military (ie: Iran capturing our seamen and filming their humiliation). All of this serves to enhance the power and recruitment efforts of our foes and weakens the projected power and influence of the United States around the world. Our allies have and are witnessing this decline and some are beginning to create alliances along lines they would never before have considered.

I for one, fully anticipate our decline on these fronts to not just continue over Obama’s final year in office - I expect our foes to accelerate their efforts as Obama looks on.

IF we are to turn this around - and “IF” is the operative word - it will likely take many years. Trust and confidence once lost, can be difficult to regain.

In the final analysis - looking to Obama’s lack of global coherency - but focusing on the Middle East - he has all but ensured we will be engaged in a full-blown war there once again. IMHO.


With gloating pleasure, I might add. There is no doubt in my mind that he wants the USA brought to its knees with humiliation.

IF we are to turn this around - and “IF” is the operative word - it will likely take many years. Trust and confidence once lost, can be difficult to regain.

Yes, it can. However, I think the right president can turn that right back around again, and quickly. I think this to be the case because the world is waiting for it! They want to see the USA back to being its old, reliable, self; LEADERS of the free world.

In the final analysis - looking to Obama’s lack of coherency in the Middle East/the deal with Iran - he has all but ensured we will be engaged in a full-blown war there once again. IMHO.

No doubt, I’ll be holding my breath for the next 11 months, praying that we elect a president of the strength, character, and determination to put a STOP HALT - before we get that far.
And if we DO get that far, I want somebody who isn’t going to mind turning that whole bastion of evilness into a glass ashtray, and collateral damage be damned!