Skip to comments.Ukraine facing replay of Moscow '93
Posted on 04/12/2014 1:53:32 PM PDT by Lorianne
Russia might very soon do something rather counter-intuitive: nothing at all.
All the signs are that the freaks in Kiev have decided to put down the demonstrations in Kharkov, Donetsk and Lugansk by force. YouTube is full of amateur footage showing all sorts of militarized units, APCs and even artillery pieces being moved towards these cities. Local people have tried to stop them, but without success.
It appears that the attacking force will include loyal cops from other cities, regular military units, private contractors hired by the oligarchs, riot police, "anti-terrorist" units of the SBU and volunteers from the Right Sector.
Facing them are crowds of largely unarmed or minimally armed civilians. In Lugansk some of these civilians have looted the SBU armory and have assault rifles (AKM-74s). The crowds are relatively large, but not huge, most of the local activists have taken up positions inside key government buildings which they occupy and while there are some barricades around these buildings, they do not appear to be properly defended, at least not in a military sense.
This all reminds me of Moscow in 1993 and it scares me. Badly.
For those of you who do not remember, let me remind you of what happened then.
(Excerpt) Read more at atimes.com ...
Stupid article. The Ukrainians aren’t going to use artilery against their own government buildings. That equipment is being mobilized to counter a Russian invasion. As for the Russian protestors, it seems the ones that led a coordinated raid against police departments and government buildings in several cities are likely Russian Spetznaz. One of them showed off a medal he got while in Afghanistan. They are heavily armed with advanced weaponry. And the cities they are targeting are strategic ones for taking control of major roads leading into Ukraine.
These “protestors” are, essentially, Russian pre-invasion forces with a smattering of local radicals or organized crime.
That leads me to believe that we may be seeing war very soon.
Looks like the regime in Kiev was smarter than that. Hopefully this can be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction without violence.
I doubt the artillery and such is being moved to counter an invasion, because it would useless in the event of such a thing. Russia would steamroll the Ukrainian military quicker than the Georgians.
Ridiculous. That's like saying that Tanks or soldiers won't be used to counter an invasion, because they would be defeated quickly. As for Georgia, Ukraine is far larger and has a far larger army than that country, and the battle will be fierce and bloody.
The Georgians had training and experience thanks to the US.
The Ukrainian military meanwhile is effectively rusted, and is mired with administrative problems, since Yanukovych’s ouster and subsequent arrests. It’s seen high level defections at least on the naval side.
If this region has a referendum and Russia wins, then troops come across the border to enforce the result, I highly doubt a shot will be fired.
It will not work like that. Russia does not have popular support in eastern and southern Ukraine according to recent polls, even among the ethnic Russians. What will occur are provocations, and any reaction will be used to justify a Russian invasion, which is already being prepared.
South Korea and South Vietnam had training and experience imparted by the US under conditions of high- and low-intensity warfare and were stomped by their northern counterparts during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Georgia literally had no fighter interceptors at the time it fought the Russians. It still has no fighter interceptors - its complement of fixed wing aircraft consists of 50-odd Cold War-era SU-25 ground attack aircraft and 9 L-39 trainers, none of which can operate in the face of attacks by Russian fighter interceptors. Israel spends 6.2% of GDP on defense. That number used to be in the teens. Georgia's number is 2.9%, and it's a neighbor to the country whose manpower and material superiority turned back both the Napoleonic legions and the German Wehrmacht. Bottom line is that Georgia was never equipped to fight the Russians, whereas Ukraine does actually have a fighter interceptor fleet of around 100 planes (active and mothballed), 9x the land area, 10x the defense budget and 10x Georgia's population.
I will also add, a large patriotic force of Ukrainians who won’t take things idly.
Here’s another footnote - Ukraine had a peak presence of 1,650 troops in Iraq while the coalition was deployed there. Come to think of it, Iraqi troops have had the benefit of billions in American equipment handed to them, unlike the Georgians, in addition to almost a decade of intensive live fire training against real adversaries, yet are encountering the highest death tolls from guerrilla attacks since the invasion of Iraq. If American training were somehow this magical cure-all, Batista and Somoza might still be honored names in Cuba and Nicaragua.
No, it isn’t a magical cure for any military, but in an even match-up between armed forces numbers-wise, I’d say Georgians are better than Ukrainians.
~Iraqi troops have had the benefit of billions in American equipment handed to them, unlike the Georgians~
Prior to 2008 Georgia was spending for military like crazy, mostly at US taxpayers’ expense. They has troops in Iraq as well.
Does the president of Ukraine understand that he can’t send tanks and artillery into a city to be used against his own citizens, even rebellious ones, without earning the enmity of the civilized world?
It would be like Tiananmen Square. Russian news agencies would go berserk feeding scenes of giant Ukrainian weapons creating blood in the streets to every Internet news site on the planet.
No wonder Obama didn’t want to send weapons to Ukraine. He doesn’t want to see American-made tanks gunning down Ukrainian citizens all over the global news media.
That they are, and it is by their own making. Stupid decision to give up nuclear weapons.
S. Korea had essentially no effective army when the North invaded. The US had done very little to turn them into an army. Over the course of the war they were trained and eventually became a formidable force. They fought in Vietnam quite successfully.
After we pulled our troops out of Vietnam, the South successfully squashed the first invasion by the North.
Over the course of the next year, the US Congress abandoned S. Vietnam in the aftermath of Watergate, demoralizing them. The next Northern offensive succeeded.
There is no comparison.
Obama doesn't want to send weapons to Ukraine because he doesn't care about Ukraine. He only cares about weakening the US and strengthening is Muslim buddies.
And BTW the Ukrainians make their own tanks.
He is a Russian who hates the Banderists - but he does not think Russia will intervene militarily. The Donbass is not Crimea. The Ukrainian fascists are doing a good enough job all by themselves of destroying the country. Russia can afford to let the Kiev regime discredit itself. Which is inevitable. As in his conclusions, which are inarguable here:
Can Russia intervene? Yes.
Can the West do anything about it? No.
Can the Ukrainians stop them? No.
Is Russia willing to go to war with the USA and NATO over this? Yes.
Can NATO win a war against Russia in the Ukraine? No.
Is Putin bluffing? No.
Is Russia trying to subvert the regime in Kiev? No.
Is Russia using its power to instigate the rebellion in the eastern Ukraine? No.
Why not? Because Russia has a much better option: to wait and let the attempt to build a Banderastan in the Ukraine collapse by itself.
Will Russia do anything then? Yes, it will choke down the Ukraine economically as long as the freaks are in power in Kiev.
What would trigger a Russian military intervention in the eastern Ukraine? Enough violence to outrage the public opinion on Russia, at which point Putin will have to order a military intervention.
Will Russia intervene in case of a “not massive” (I cannot bring myself to write “limited”) but bloody crackdown in the eastern Ukraine? No.
What will Russia do in that case? Let the inevitable blowback from this violence result in more rebellion in the eastern Ukraine and offer indirect support (safe haven, medicine, equipment, money, etc.) from western Russia and Crimea. Of course, Russia will continue to denounce the illegitimate neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, blame the West for what it has done and for its shameful support of the Banderites and appeal to the world public opinion directly.
Rotflmao. Nice job adding BS to your facts.
Yes, he sounds to me that he knows what he is talking about. But what do I know? It seemed badly handled on all sides to me, but maybe Putin knows what he is doing.
I don’t believe Ukrainian or Russian troops would fire at each other if there wouldn’t be any grave provocation from a third party.
For some reason ethnic Ukrainians are over represented within Russian armed forces and many ethnic Russians are serving with the Ukraine’s military, including many senior officers.
But even you do not argue with his conclusions. Which no one has contradicted.
Ukraine is not a vital American or even European interest. Its the economic leper of Europe. Only a fool would want to militarily occupy a bankrupt country. And Russia can certainly do great damage to Ukraine through the economic leverage it already has over that country.
The bottom line is Russia will not live with an anti-Russian Ukrainian regime on its borders. Any one who thinks they will have to put up with it needs a reality check.
Thank you for your succinct, concise, accurate, and rational summary of those two conflicts..
I think your point is valid. Russia does not want to absorb Ukraine but to control it politically and economically. We will not do anything but draw a red line and make useless commentary