Ukraine-in-a-thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

This is your original post:

This is the one you are referring to Afghanistan:

Either we are assessing the situation very differently but from your first one i got the expression that you do not think peacekeepers as viable option. In my opinion using them now could possibly deter the situation from becoming "hot" at any point.

From the second i understood that you thought that in your view a peace forcing mission would be needed before peacekeeping mission, with your reference to Afghanistan. Maybe we are simply misunderstanding each other, but i want to make clear that in my opinion peacekeeping mission now could very well be viable option in order to avoid the conflict turning "hot".

---

IMO, the situation is already hot, or at the very least will be before such a force can be mustered and deployed. The "Rapid" in RDF's is, of course, rather misleading... Moreover, the peacekeeping missions so far have happened with the acceptance of the parties of the conflict(excluding the unofficial ones). How do you propose to get Putin to agree to international troops in the Crimea...? You could go on without Putin's approval, but that leads us to the next point:

"ISAF without Enduring Freedom" doesn't mean ISAF won't work without Enduring Freedom. "Without" simply means exclude Enduring Freedom from the equation altogether, both its goals and its consequences. I don't make a general claim that ISAF needed an Enduring Freedom. Rather, I suggest that pvc's proposal would look like an ISAF operation without the need for an accompanying Enduring Freedom operation, and I question what good that would do in Ukraine.

This is one of the strangest threads in a while. The speculation on a potential shooting war between the CIS and NATO is a real laugh, and something I'd expect to hear from a middle-aged Midwesterner, not liberal Europeans. Putin has everything to gain by simply waiting for things to proceed in his favor, rather than starting a pointless conflict in which everyone stands to lose.

If Ukraine outright joins NATO tomorrow, Putin will simply effectuate the secession of Eastern Ukraine; "rump" Ukraine will end as an inconsequential economic cripple and will be of no threat to Russian interests ever again.

The alternative of course being a resolution to the crisis in the form of tolerable new elections followed by a steady slide into the same Russia-dominated oligarchy that we've seen for the past 20 years.

All in all, very predictable. Leave the Cold-War era fantasies out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

IMO, the situation is already hot, or at the very least will be before such a force can be mustered and deployed. The "Rapid" in RDF's is, of course, rather misleading... Moreover, the peacekeeping missions so far have happened with the acceptance of the parties of the conflict(excluding the unofficial ones). How do you propose to get Putin to agree to international troops in the Crimea...? You could go on without Putin's approval, but that leads us to the next point:

"ISAF without Enduring Freedom" doesn't mean ISAF won't work without Enduring Freedom. "Without" simply means exclude Enduring Freedom from the equation altogether, both its goals and its consequences. I don't make a general claim that ISAF needed an Enduring Freedom. Rather, I suggest that pvc's proposal would look like an ISAF operation without the need for an accompanying Enduring Freedom operation, and I question what good that would do in Ukraine.

---

Thank you for the clarifications. About the situation. The situation is "hot" only after the first shot and so far it has not happened. The Russian troops in Crimea have coordinated the takeover there very professionally and i am quite sure that there is actually large reluctance on both sides to open fire against each other. Russians and Ukrainians dont exactly hate each other at all.

About the possible operation. It should have full UN mandate and that means that Russia has to accept it. I am certain that there is no real wish for Russia to engage, if they dont see it as absolutely last option. How they have behaved so far shows it quite clearly. If Russia could be convinced by the UN that they will be offered a real starting point for the negotiations. I think they just might accept the mission, if it consisted of troops that they would see as not backing certain power block. I think someone ought to bring this up in UN and fast rather then individual countries and NATO making aggressive statements towards Russia.

To me the most important thing is to avoid things getting out of hand. It will be hard, but it can be achieved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

If Ukraine outright joins NATO tomorrow, Putin will simply effectuate the secession of Eastern Ukraine; "rump" Ukraine will end as an inconsequential economic cripple and will be of no threat to Russian interests ever again.

The alternative of course being a resolution to the crisis in the form of tolerable new elections followed by a steady slide into the same Russia-dominated oligarchy that we've seen for the past 20 years.

---

That is all true, but who in Ukraine is ready to end the status quo now in effect by making a deal? That person will commit political suicide, and possibly a real one. The other question is how will the protesters, and especially, the militant arm, react? The proposal for new government was first given to them to approve, before it was taken to the parliament.

The longer the status quo is in effect, the more danger something will go wrong. The only ones in Ukraine that would jump to respond to the call for mobilization will be far-right, anti-Russian organizations and their supporters. It might take only a few bullets by a single company to light up this powder keg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

As serious as Mister Kerry.



Well yeah, there is also not much of a Ukrainian army on the Crimean peninsula because the government of the Crimean peninsula turned all ukrainian soldiers on the peninsula into crimean soldiers two days ago. Why did they do that? Because they were not happy with the revolution and do not want to support it.
The only one making a big fuss about all of this are Westerners who think a pro-western revolution of ~50% of the population has to be a good thing simply because it's pro-west and against the evil russian empire. That doesn't mean that I liked Yanoukovich, it just means that when 51% of Ukrainians elected him ,what gives the other 49% the right to overthrow him? It's no wonder that the country is full of corruption because that's a corrupt way of thinking.



Exactly. While I fully support the ideas of the revolutionaries in general, their way of getting there leaves a very bad taste and wasn't the right way to do it.
As Pannonian says, that's what elections are for.

---

Except that the majority of the Rada voted to impeach the President and the first people to deploy troops were the Russians.

If, after the May 25th elections the Crimea was to demand greater autonomy, or even secession, then the West would likely support that. However - the fact is that, from what we know, the ex-President ordered the paramilitary Berkut Police to shoot protesters with sniper rifles, then fled, then was impeached, then the Russians invaded.

So the Russian-backed stooge screws up, then the Russians invade.

The opposition has a lot of answer for, mostly for screwing up in-office and letting Yanoukovich back in, but it's still RUSSIA who are the aggressors here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

That is all true, but who in Ukraine is ready to end the status quo now in effect by making a deal? That person will commit political suicide. The other question is how will the protesters, and especially, the militant arm, react? The proposal for new government was first given to them to approve, before it was taken to the parliament.

The longer the status quo is in effect, the more danger something will go wrong. The only ones in Ukraine that would jump to respond to the call for mobilization will be far-right, anti-Russian organizations and their supporters. It might take only a few bullets by a single company to light up this powder keg.

---

If that's the case, why can't we give them a bunch of AK-74s and an agreed on battlefield and call it natural selection?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

If that's the case, why can't we give them a bunch of AK-74s and an agreed on battlefield and call it natural selection?

---

If only the world would work like that.~:)

Rapid admission to NATO with mutual defense treaties for Ukraine is a way to prevent further aggression. Additionally, NATO should begin building a Black Sea response fleet on newly acquired maritime borders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

However - the fact is that, from what we know, the ex-President ordered the paramilitary Berkut Police to shoot protesters with sniper rifles, then fled, then was impeached, then the Russians invaded.

So the Russian-backed stooge screws up, then the Russians invade.

---

That is a highly simplified and fairly inaccurate version of the events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

That is a highly simplified and fairly inaccurate version of the events.

---

No more simplistic than Putins shenanigans since the begining of this crisis.


This is quite simply his crisis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

That is all true, but who in Ukraine is ready to end the status quo now in effect by making a deal? That person will commit political suicide, and possibly a real one. The other question is how will the protesters, and especially, the militant arm, react? The proposal for new government was first given to them to approve, before it was taken to the parliament.

The longer the status quo is in effect, the more danger something will go wrong. The only ones in Ukraine that would jump to respond to the call for mobilization will be far-right, anti-Russian organizations and their supporters. It might take only a few bullets by a single company to light up this powder keg.

---

Well, sure, a government of national unity is unlikely - that makes the alternative, a split Ukraine, in turn more likely.

Are you thinking of a situation in which far-rightists take over Western Ukraine and foment a civil war with the secessionists?

Assuming it does get to that point, I don't think it would still be very much of a West vs. Russia sort of thing, and more of a UN intervention with Russian cooperation - or else the West stays out entirely.

No one in the West has the stomach to prop up bloodthirsty fascists just to annoy Russia - not on this scale.

Even in the worst case, I doubt a belligerent far-right govt in Western Ukraine would be able to justify itself to the population long enough for any real conflict to get underway.

You're right. He could have decided to ignore everything.

But, that would still leave the government in Kiev semi-legitimate with a significant neo-nazi involvement, which would probably try to enforce it's rule in the rest of Ukraine.

I would be of the opinion that there was no way in hell Ukraine would have got into Nato or the EU.

Putin acted stupidily and now its not impossible that he has made it more likely himself.

What he should have done was merely stay on the border with his iron fist in his glove, this would have let the new government know what it had to do.

Instead he is acting like some 19th century colonial govennor annexing mboto gorge.

Most of USA's Military Technologies are hidden from the Public.
Russia or USSR could invade USA with P.R.C and maybe N.Korea in 1950 to 1975..... because at that time USA & USSR's Military Technology were somehow equal but USSR Could bring much Damage and Destruction to USA if he would attack alone until 1975s.
but after that time USA's Military's Technology got an strange high speed in advancing and invented much warfare that could easily blow the whole USSR.
now? now USA can destroy the WHOLE WORLD with two or three buttons!! dont make mistake! i dont mean Nuclear! much other Secret Technologies that is much more better and Fearsome than Nuclear War!
i watched a video was for 1988 that Doctor, a friend of D. VON . BRAUN that she acknowledged that there are massive American Military Technology that they want to be hidden many time so they can face with some unknown threats that they completely KNOW about it and then they will uncover that what great masterpieces they have....for now i will only Example the EX-NAZI Warmachine.... THE "UFO" ! said doctor Rosenberg i think (i will try to re find the video and bring you her name or maybe even the video itself!

so USA is Ready for WW3 or maybe Praise it ?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

That is a highly simplified and fairly inaccurate version of the events.

---

Well - I did gloss over the part where he signed that relatively vague "peace" deal and then the protestors threw rocks at the opposition.

In Crimea, however, the Police were trying to protect both groups of protesters - and the first violent move was the seizure of the Parliament and forced expulsion of the regional Prime Minister (and his replacement with a pro-Russian one).

You would not be entirely wrong to compare that to what happened in Kiez, except that nobody in Kiev had an RPG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

You're right. He could have decided to ignore everything.

But, that would still leave the government in Kiev semi-legitimate with a significant neo-nazi involvement, which would probably try to enforce it's rule in the rest of Ukraine.

---

They're planning an election in six weeks, Sarmation, it wouldn't "leave" anything. As far as Neo-Nazi's go, Putin is a Neo-Stalinist, so they're two sides of the same coin. In any case, they are the united "opposition against", it's not the pure Facist government Putin has described it as, it's just that the Facists hate Yanakovich as much as the other groups in the Rada - including his own party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

They're planning an election in six weeks, Sarmation, it wouldn't "leave" anything. As far as Neo-Nazi's go, Putin is a Neo-Stalinist, so they're two sides of the same coin. In any case, they are the united "opposition against", it's not the pure Facist government Putin has described it as, it's just that the Facists hate Yanakovich as much as the other groups in the Rada - including his own party.

---

That's the problem when you decide to throw out the basic rule of democracy. You may decide on a new set of rules, but until things settle down, someone with backing may decide they may not want to play by your new rules. And you can't complain, since you've already discarded the previous mutually agreed on rules. Be strong enough to enforce your new set of rules, have the backing to enforce it, or play by the agreed on rules. The Ukrainian protestors rejected the third, are dubious on the first, and are looking for the second, whereas the pro-Russians seem confident on the second.

Also, I note that you pointed out the Ukrainian Parliament voted to impeach the old president, with the argument being that the replacement of that government was backed by democratic legitimacy. If so, would the Crimean regional government, similarly democratically elected, have democratic legitimacy in saying they want nothing to do with the rest of Ukraine? Both political bodies have democratic credits in their own way, and the rules concerning the status of government have already been dismissed, so they're free to define the new rules. The Ukrainian parliament defined it by legitimising the replacement of the previous government, whereas the Crimean region have defined it by declaring their independence from the rest of Ukraine. Is one right and the other wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well - I did gloss over the part where he signed that relatively vague "peace" deal and then the protestors threw rocks at the opposition.

---

Which is one of the most significant events in the whole drama. You had a deal which included early elections, reducing presidential powers, forming a government a of national unity and even freeing Timoshenko. The protesters decided it was a much better idea to simply break into and seize government buildings.

Quote:

---

In Crimea, however, the Police were trying to protect both groups of protesters - and the first violent move was the seizure of the Parliament and forced expulsion of the regional Prime Minister (and his replacement with a pro-Russian one).

You would not be entirely wrong to compare that to what happened in Kiez, except that nobody in Kiev had an RPG.

---

I'm more scared of a mob than of guy with an RPG. The mob is governed by herd mentality and is difficult to control. Guys with RPG's are usually professionals and most often follow someone's orders, and you can reason with that someone.

Quote:

---

They're planning an election in six weeks, Sarmation, it wouldn't "leave" anything. As far as Neo-Nazi's go, Putin is a Neo-Stalinist, so they're two sides of the same coin. In any case, they are the united "opposition against", it's not the pure Facist government Putin has described it as, it's just that the Facists hate Yanakovich as much as the other groups in the Rada - including his own party.

---

Is this the case of "you can't fire me, I quit!" talk? They were getting elections which would have been infinitely more fair than when the biggest opposition party (after the revolution) was threatened and bullied into submission.

Well, they got what they wanted. Now a big part of the country doesn't see them as a legitimate government and we're back on square one because, apparently, two can play that game. And the reason is that opposition leaders couldn't control the most militant protesters, bringing us to a point where it will take immense effort to keep the country in once piece, if it is at all possible.

Remember the time Russia invaded Georgia and had to cannabilze their APCs for parts?

Brutish and stupid, like they have always been.

Quote:

---

Russia has the most capable conventional Army in the western world right now for a conflict in Ukraine.

---

Citation needed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In Crimea, however, the Police were trying to protect both groups of protesters - and the first violent move was the seizure of the Parliament and forced expulsion of the regional Prime Minister (and his replacement with a pro-Russian one).

You would not be entirely wrong to compare that to what happened in Kiez, except that nobody in Kiev had an RPG.

---

The locals seem to like the "invaders", on every scary german news report about the "invaders" there are a lot of comments saying that the locals are cheering for the soldiers, taking photographs with them and giving them food and drinks.
Is that what oppression looks like?

http://rt.com/news/crimea-airport-terminal-capture-095/

Quote:

---

The people patrolling the territory of the airport did not mind being filmed. Only a few spoke to the journalists though. AP managed to interview one person, who said he was member of the People's Union of Crimea.

“No to radicalism and fascism in Crimea,” the man who only gave his first name, Vladimir, said. “That’s our slogan. And we don’t want radicals either from other regions of Ukraine or from other countries to come to Crimea.”

---

The soldiers have just seized the island without any real opposition, without bloodshed and casualties. They just protect the Crimeans from the new fascist government in Kiev and its corrupt leadership that seized power through lots of violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The locals seem to like the "invaders", on every scary german news report about the "invaders" there are a lot of comments saying that the locals are cheering for the soldiers, taking photographs with them and giving them food and drinks.
Is that what oppression looks like?

http://rt.com/news/crimea-airport-terminal-capture-095/



The soldiers have just seized the island without any real opposition, without bloodshed and casualties. They just protect the Crimeans from the new fascist government in Kiev and its corrupt leadership that seized power through lots of violence.

---

Streets kinda empty though, eh?

It's possible a majority of the people support the invaders, but they're still invaders who manufactured strife as a pretext and a significant minority, including the Tartars, won't support them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Remember the time Russia invaded Georgia and had to cannabilze their APCs for parts?

Brutish and stupid, like they have always been.

---

Remember the time Russia(ish) invaded Germany and had to cannibalize their APCs for parts?

They made it through, like they have always been.

From my military experience, I honestly can't remember a time in the field where we did not have to scavenge to make things work. But hey, as long as you make things work...

"Russia has the most capable conventional Army in the western world right now for a conflict in Ukraine.
Citation needed."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Citation needed

---

I would say that the one who has the military doing exercises in the borders of Ukraine is in a very capable position for a conflict in the Ukraine. They also have access to the main port in Crimea. It will take a lot more logistics for any other conventional army to make it there.

Half the energy for Ukraine comes from Russia. All Russia needs to do is turn off the taps when the pipes go beyond a pro Russian region.

So access, energy supplies and a local populace that is spilt 50:50 in support of the invader. I'm not sure how many trump cards they need. No one else is really in the same position.

MY OFFICIAL BET:

Russia will keep stirring the pot, and then send troops in to restore order.

Ukraine will be split after cultural lines.

Crimea with its strategic ports will become Russian.

- Kadagar 3rd March 2014.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Ya I was pretty specific in saying Ukraine. We have enough tanks in Germany to make them think twice, but it wouldn't be Desert Storm. Newer Russian tanks are as good or better than an Abrams, and Russia hasn't been gutting its Armored forces for the last decade. The US isn't going to do anything, especially given our Asia Pacific priorities.

---

Russia's army is also in transition though - in particular they are moving from an Officer heavy army with a broad conscript base to an NCO-heavy one with a semi-professional base. Putin has a limited number of deployable brigades right now, rather like the Nazi's in France, he has breadth but not depth.

By contrast, Europe and the US have armies which are largely deployable, and battle hardened. The major problem is that a lot of the gear is in Afghanistan right now, being shipped home, while the troops have already left. The UK has, theoretically, two deployable Divisions, but it can probably only deploy one right now, it could scrape together and second and third, but only on an actual war-footing.

America's tanks may be a problem, but the Germans, British, and French all have modern gear - just not enough of it.

Even then - what we've seen are Russia's most deployable troops - their army is just as much a paper Tiger as NATO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Russia's army is also in transition though - in particular they are moving from an Officer heavy army with a broad conscript base to an NCO-heavy one with a semi-professional base. Putin has a limited number of deployable brigades right now, rather like the Nazi's in France, he has breadth but not depth.

By contrast, Europe and the US have armies which are largely deployable, and battle hardened. The major problem is that a lot of the gear is in Afghanistan right now, being shipped home, while the troops have already left. The UK has, theoretically, two deployable Divisions, but it can probably only deploy one right now, it could scrape together and second and third, but only on an actual war-footing.

America's tanks may be a problem, but the Germans, British, and French all have modern gear - just not enough of it.

Even then - what we've seen are Russia's most deployable troops - their army is just as much a paper Tiger as NATO

---

As to the bolded part, ever heard of Russia?

Your reasoning however is in tune with several other great military minds, Charles the XII, Napoleon, Hitler... To name a few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

As to the bolded part, ever heard of Russia?

Your reasoning however is in tune with several other great military minds, Charles the XII, Napoleon, Hitler... To name a few.

---

I was talking offensively

Defensively, you'd need to fight through layers of armour and motor-rifle Brigades.

Offensively, though, there's an upper limit to the number of those formations Putin can employ - not least because he has to leave a large portion of his army facing China.

Charles XII was overconfident, and he wasn't expecting to face the reformed Russian army, Napoleon had already started to lose his marbles to a God complex and Hitler attacked prematurely and got bigged down in the snow.

Rule one to conquer Russia: Obey the seasons. If it wasn't possible, the Tsars couldn't have done it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I was talking offensively

Defensively, you'd need to fight through layers of armour and motor-rifle Brigades.

Offensively, though, there's an upper limit to the number of those formations Putin can employ - not least because he has to leave a large portion of his army facing China.

Charles XII was overconfident, and he wasn't expecting to face the reformed Russian army, Napoleon had already started to lose his marbles to a God complex and Hitler attacked prematurely and got bigged down in the snow.

Rule one to conquer Russia: Obey the seasons. If it wasn't possible, the Tsars couldn't have done it.

---

Bolded part: Kind of like in the Stalingrad debacle?

Again - invaded in the wrong season - got bogged down in snow.

Even then, they almost pulled it off.

Still - we're not talking about invading Russia, we're talking about facing them down in Ukraine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Again - invaded in the wrong season - got bogged down in snow.

Even then, they almost pulled it off.

Still - we're not talking about invading Russia, we're talking about facing them down in Ukraine.

---

I totally get your point.

However, right now Russia has some 150.000 men stationed on the border. To compare, USA have spent their economical and military ability to fight some supposed terrorism supposedly threatening them.

The EU forces are more worried by balance of sexual minorities and tax cuts, so they have absolutely NOTHING to send.

Russia in the meantime, has let go of the cold war era thinking, as well as the terrorist era thinking, and now actually have a military force, both equipped and trained, to work in their immediate area.

Should I act surprised when they expand?