Skip to comments.Russia Could Achieve Ukraine Incursion In 3 To 5 Days, NATO General Says
Posted on 04/02/2014 4:40:39 AM PDT by Fennie
Russia has massed all the forces it needs on Ukraine's border if it were to decide to carry out an "incursion" into the country and it could achieve its objective in three to five days, NATO's top military commander said on Wednesday.
Calling the situation "incredibly concerning", NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe, U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove, said NATO had spotted signs of movement by a very small part of the Russian force overnight but had no indication that it was returning to barracks.
Russia's seizure and annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region has caused the deepest crisis in East-West relations since the Cold War, leading the United States and Europe to impose sanctions on Moscow. They have said they will strengthen those sanctions if Russia moves beyond Crimea into east Ukraine.
(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...
Boogie man alert!
Let Europe handle it.
Well, they had better be prepared for lots of grave concern, and maybe some strongly worded letter.
Their track record isn't too hot. I presume that your point is that we are over-extended and financially broke. That's a valid point.
I would be looking for ways to leverage asymetric warfare against the Russians if it comes to that.
1,000 Javeline anti-tank missiles in the hands of the Ukrainians would cost us about $80 million, but could cost the Russians ~$300 million in equipment. It wouldn't stop the Russians, but it would create a historical situation comparable to Hungaria '56, instead of the Anschluss. Going forward, that would make a significant difference in the Ukrainian and Russian mind.
I still think that a good solution would be for Ukraine to invite in Polish, Czech, and Slovakian peace keepers.
The 3-5 days estimate is probably about right. The Russian troops are already in place. If they go in ‘Blitzkrieg Style’(the irony), Ukraine would be lost practically by the time anyone realized it even started. We couldn’t do anything about it, if we wanted to. All we could do is stand there and watch.
Worst case scenario would be if Putin decided to get REALLY aggressive and roll into multiple former Soviet countries simultaneously.
A splendid little war, or even a horrible big one, would serve as a nice distraction to the financial situation at home.
It would be nice if the priority were US troops massing along our southern border, wouldn't it? We're the ones who need saving from an invasion.
The Ukrainians are looking for a few good hombres to stand a post on the Russian border, why don’t you volunteer?
Until they put about 10,000 manpads into their proxies in south America to be distrubted freely in mexico.
Use your head before you point a weapon.
Its a poor weapon that does not point both ways...
And what good would 10,000 MANPADS in Venezuala do them? What good would they do in Mexico?
I’m far more worried about their nuclear support for Iran, which is already in action.
Putinistas never care about Putin’s support for a nuclear Iran; it’s beyond their concerns.
The Caiden books had a lot about the politics of the era, and the inter-service rivalry. Wolfgang Spate flew and fought in Crimea and Ukraine before being tapped for the Me-163 project.
It was scary. We are seeing the same old dance with a new tune.
If you don’t see the havoc that they could wreak on us then you are frighteningly dull witted.
I will not support anyone who wants to tweak Russia by arming insurgents to kill their soldiers.
I can clearly see where that would lead, and thankfully so does our military.
Yes it would. And the fusion of transnational provocateurs with neocon chicken hawks into Obamacons, they would have synthesized an ersatz unity for warmongering.
I think further domestic controls will be in order next, at this manufactured dire hour for “the republic”.
At a minimum, a comparable retaliation in Mexico.
That's quite a point by point argument that you've got there. Has it ever worked for you in the past?
But rejecting the notion of discouraging an aggressor, I was wondering whether you feel safer with your head in the sand or your fingers in your ears?
The long-term consequences of making Russian conquest expensive and unpleasant isn't nearly as dangerous as allowing it to be easy and rewarding.
~1,000 Javeline anti-tank missiles in the hands of the Ukrainians would cost us about $80 million, but could cost the Russians ~$300 million in equipment. It wouldn’t stop the Russians, but it would create a historical situation comparable to Hungaria ‘56, instead of the Anschluss. Going forward, that would make a significant difference in the Ukrainian and Russian mind.~
And American interest is..?
Always a logical question to ask, but not a question without logical answers.
If you recognize historical tendencies, then preventing WWIII, which you might agree could be harmful in many respects to Americans, could be a strong motivation.
In retrospect, what American interests were at stake when Hitler moved into the Rhineland? If American assurances to France could have bolstered the French to counter the Rhineland invasion and drive Hitler from power, would that have been in our interest?
Had the United States had 1,000 anti-tank guns to give the French in 1939, and that would have stopped the German Blitzkrieg, would that have been in our interest?
If I help my neighbor when he is threatened, there are many conceivable ways in which I am also acting to protect my own interests. I don't even have to like or approve of neighbor for that to be true. You are correct that positive results aren't a foregone conclusion, but successful preventive action never has the benefit of clear proof either.
What is the American interest in allowing Russia to reassert dominion over Ukraine and any other former soviet republic, czarist kingdom, or Warsaw Pact client state that it desires? If you can see any negatives to American interests, then you have answered your initial question.