Ukraine IX A victory for The West, Putin or Ukraine?

[Phaing]

That is fascinating.

Does anyone think that Russia would try to actually get all of Ukraine? I mean not just attempt to annex the eastern parts of the country but actually go after Kiev? No way, right?

The plans they have in palce are for 2 Armies to strike at the Ukriane from the east and one Division to make a lunge at Kiev from the north... meaning from Belaruss.

But since its a publicly known plan, it could just be part of the usual disinformation campaign.

There are a total of 4 Armies in the military districts bordering the Ukraine. In addition to that, Russia can now jump off from the Crimea and also has the TransDneister area under its control. The Ukraine is surounded, and unless they mass all of what they have along the Dnieper RIver they can't even hold that barrier.

And as of this moment, indications are that they are trying to save the eastern part of their country... in other words, they are going out on a limb.

As of a month ago, the Ukies admitted that they thought they could only rely on about 6,000 men in their "Army". That's about 1/10th of what one Russian Army has.

So, physically speaking, it would be a cake-walk for the Russians, and it would be over in a couple of days.

Politically, it all depends on what is on Putin's mind at the moment.

And your guess is as good as mine when it comes to that guy.

[E-Ro]

^yeah, all of Ukraine is not "just" Crimea. Its a completely different animal.

How much money would invading Ukraine cost? Is this even economically feasible?

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

Well, I think there's a chasm of a difference there.

Annexing Crimea was something that got the attention of western hawks, but it wasn't anything that anyone was going to do shit about.

Trying to take Kiev would be all-out war, and something that all of Europe plus the US would take extremely seriously.

^yeah, all of Ukraine is not "just" Crimea. Its a completely different animal.

How much money would invading Ukraine cost? Is this even economically feasible?

Both of you are probably correct. I guess I was just thinking out loud.

[Horza]

Russia has something like 40,000 combat troops mobilised on Ukraine's eastern borders and 25,000 in Crimea, though obviously not all of that force would be deployed in an invasion operation (bigger numbers are using paper strength).

That's very likely enough to stop effective Kievan resistance to an invasion of the Donbass and Black Sea coast. It's unlikely that an invasion would extend beyond those regions, as far greater resources would be needed to secure territory and suppress local resistance. Russia has a large army, but the bulk of it isn't up to high-intensity operations and it already has significant counterinsurgency operations ongoing in the Caucasus on top of other potential security issues in Central Asia.

In other words, this isn't COD4: logistics matters.

[jurble]

In silly news, there's rumors spreading now in eastern Ukraine that the fliers promoting resistance to Pro-Russians that the Ukrainians have been dropping are in fact chemical weapons to kill eastern Ukrainians.

[Linsox]

That is interesting, thanks for posting.

Unfortunately, those positive to a Russian intervention certainly make more noise, and, from what we've seen so far, their reaction probably will be that "we don't care about suspicious Western ideas such as this "poll" stuff, whatever it is".

It's a complicated issue with plenty of blame to go around. But the prospect of foreign troops invading your homeland to "help" is never a good one when you get down to it.

ETA:

And, tellingly, in their somewhat skewed reporting of the detained OSCE people situation, Russia Today fails to mention that one of the detainees is a Swedish officer. That is, non-NATO.

I don't need to click that link to tell you it's nonsense. I no longer watch or read Russian media except for the facepalm value. RT in particular was set up to control the flow of (dis)information after Georgia.

That is fascinating.

Does anyone think that Russia would try to actually get all of Ukraine? I mean not just attempt to annex the eastern parts of the country but actually go after Kiev? No way, right?

No.

[Phaing]

Will the West defend the Ukraine more staunchly than they defended Czechoslovakia in 1938-39?

I kinda doubt it, but like I said, what matters is what Putin thinks, and nobody else.

After all, that other guy didn't stop at the Sudetenland.

[grumdin]

That is fascinating.

Does anyone think that Russia would try to actually get all of Ukraine? I mean not just attempt to annex the eastern parts of the country but actually go after Kiev? No way, right?

I don't think Putin is interested in annexing the whole of Ukraine, just the bits he feels are part of the Russian homeland. IMO Putin is a true believer in the idea of a greater Russia, he is not talking smack to win concessions. What will the west do? Not much. There is absolutely zero appetite in Europe to get into a conflict with Russia over Ukraine and imposing meanigful sanctions without doing irrevicable damage to European industry (in the midst of a severe economic downturn) would be incredibly unpopular. Putin holds all the aces here and he knows it.

[KAH]

Will the West defend the Ukraine more staunchly than they defended Czechoslovakia in 1938-39?

I kinda doubt it, but like I said, what matters is what Putin thinks, and nobody else.

After all, that other guy didn't stop at the Sudetenland.

"That other guy" never had any plans to stop at Sudetenland, because his Weltanschauung made a further push eastwards a matter of life and death. Putin has not shown the same ideological penchant.

That doesn't mean an alternative Roman-style expansion-for-security dash westwards is out of the question on Putin's part, but such a dash can be deterred if the established military threat from the West is credible. That credible threat can only reasonably be established on NATO borders, which excludes Ukraine.

[E-Ro]

http://news.yahoo.com/east-ukraine-irregulars-sign-fight-rebels-russians-192001777.html

Just read that, interesting stuff. Remember, these are people that live in EASTERN Ukraine.

At this point im pretty sure a Ukrainian insurgency has the potential to make what we are dealing with in the middle east look like a bunch of school children.

[Kungsmurfen]

Vice dispatch 30

[Ghjhero]

http://news.yahoo.com/east-ukraine-irregulars-sign-fight-rebels-russians-192001777.htmlJust read that, interesting stuff. Remember, these are people that live in EASTERN Ukraine.At this point im pretty sure a Ukrainian insurgency has the potential to make what we are dealing with in the middle east look like a bunch of school children.

Russia also wouldn't be as lenient as we are with insurgents if they were to invade. There's a reason why the Middle East was much calmer back in the Cold War than it is now. The would be terrorists were afraid of the Russians, unfortunately they don't have the safe level of fear for us.

[Horza]

...right, this is why the Caucasus is an ocean of tranquility.

[davos]

Russia also wouldn't be as lenient as we are with insurgents if they were to invade. There's a reason why the Middle East was much calmer back in the Cold War than it is now. The would be terrorists were afraid of the Russians, unfortunately they don't have the safe level of fear for us.

I think the example of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and its subsequent failure in the face of a intransigent insurgency rather thoroughly invalidates your hypothesis. Russia's willingness to use brutal methods so as to inflict fear failed to pacify a resistant populace.

Additionally, the middle east was not exactly a sea of tranquility during the cold war. 4 major wars between Israel and the Arab states (if you count the conflicts during Israel's founding), the Lebanon conflict, the Iranian revolution, and the Iran-Iraq war come immediately to mind as counter examples showing that the region experienced extensive conflict between the end of WWII and the fall of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It also bears mentioning that the Soviets at no point occupied any part of the region except the aforementioned Afghanistan (which is often not considered a Mideastern nation). While the tensions between the superpowers shaped the politics of the region, neither had control of it.

In regards to the outcome of a possible insurgency following a Russian occupation of all or part of the Ukraine, it is not clear-cut how it would play out. I tend to suspect it would be a long and bloody conflict, given how strongly those of Ukrainiane decent wish to remain free of Moscow's control.

[Suttree]

The would be terrorists were afraid of the Russians, unfortunately they don't have the safe level of fear for us.

Were the Lion of Panshjir still alive, I'm guessing he would strongly disagree.

[Horza]

Never agree to a video interview unless you're sure the camera isn't a bomb.

[Shryke]

And now another instalment in "The Problem with Annexing Crimea":

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27155885

Russian officials say a water shortage in Crimea is threatening to become acute as Ukraine has reduced the supply via a key canal.

Ukraine does not recognise the new authorities in Crimea who are backed by Moscow. Russia made the peninsula part of its territory last month.

Crimea's harvest of grapes, rice, maize and soya will be ruined if it does not get more water soon, officials say.

The North Crimea Canal delivers water to Crimea from the River Dnieper, in Ukraine's southern Kherson region. The canal accounts for 80% of Crimea's water.

The current water shortage is threatening 120,000 hectares (296,000 acres) of Crimea's crops, which rely on irrigation, Russian Agriculture Minister Nikolai Fedorov said.

A ruined harvest across that area would mean losses of up to 5bn roubles (£83m; $140m), he told the Gazeta.ru news website.

The canal authorities in Ukraine say Crimea has accumulated a huge debt for water supplied last year. The dispute is aggravated by the breakdown in relations between Kiev and Moscow.

The water supply to Crimea has diminished from 50 cu m (1,765 cu ft) per second to about 16 cu m per second, Crimea's new pro-Russian authorities say.

To deal with the shortage, new wells could be dug or water could be brought in from Russia, but such options are expensive, officials warn.

This could get ugly as well.

[The Iceman of the North]

Regarding a possible invasion of Ukraine, I don't believe anyone doubt that the Russians would have a rather quick win if they did invade, but as the Americans are well aware of, this would just be the beginning of the problems for Russia. Fear of the consequences of an armed insurgency prevented the Red Army from intervening in Poland in the early '80ies, the situation in Ukraine would be far worse.

True, Putin did put an end (more or less) to the troubles in Chechnya, but the population there is merely a million. In the Donbas area, where support for Russia is highest, there's about 6.5 millions, where the majority would oppose a Russian invasion (69% according to one poll). An invasion would be a cakewalk, retaining control, not so much.

[Borque]

True, Putin did put an end (more or less) to the troubles in Chechnya, but the population there is merely a million. In the Donbas area, where support for Russia is highest, there's about 6.5 millions, where the majority would oppose a Russian invasion (69% according to one poll). An invasion would be a cakewalk, retaining control, not so much.

And even in Chechnya, the current order is fragile, and has been accomplished only through major efforts and huge costs for Russia.

[Horza]

Kharkiv mayor in critical condition after an assassination attempt, apparently shot taking his morning swim