Posted on 05/01/2014 6:55:33 PM PDT by goldstategop
Every passing day bring it share of utterly nonsensical news out of the rump-Ukraine aka "Banderastan". Today is not exception, see for yourself this headlines from the BBC's website:
Ukraine reinstates conscription as crisis deepens
Sure enough, for the zombified TV watchers this might sound like something meaningful. But is it? Let's recall where the current Ukrainian military comes form by remembering what the Ukraine's military was at the moment this Soviet Republic became independent.
I have long destroyed my old archives and I simply did not want to scout the Internet for hours to find out what the Ukraine had inherited from the USSR. I knew that the Ukies had inherited what was called the "2nd strategic echelon" which translates into "not the newest weapons systems, but a lot of them". And today, I suddenly came across an interesting article in the Russian press which gave me exactly what I wanted: a description of what the armed forces of the independent Ukraine began with. As it turns out, the Ukraine had:
700,000 servicemen 14 motorized rifle divisions. 4 tank divisions 3 artillery divisions 8 artillery brigades 4 Spetsnaz brigades 2 airborne brigade 7 attack helicopters regiments 3 air armies (about 1100 combat aircraft) 1 independent Air Defense Army
Not bad eh?
Today there are all sorts of figures thrown around about how big the Ukrainian military is, anywhere from several tens of thousands to a few hundred. It really all depends on what you count and how you count. We should stay clear from this kind of bean count and simply state the Ukrainian military is both unwilling and/or unable to crush a rebellion composed only of a few hundred armed men backed by a few thousand unarmed civilians (I am talking about the folks actually manning barricades and occupying buildings, not about sympathizers). In other words, the pro-Russian insurgency in the eastern Ukraine could be defeated with just one battalion of airborne troops. And yet, the regime cannot even muster that much.
Why?
There are two reasons. The first one is that there is a stream of consistent and mutually corroborating reports on the Runet (Russian Internet) which says that the pro-Russian insurgents and the Ukrainian servicemen simply do not want to shoot at each other, even when given the order to do so. Furthermore, they appear to be in regular contact with each other and there is an informal understanding that neither side will fire at the other.
The other reason is, of course, 22 years of "democracy". Keep in mind that only 9 years of democracy almost destroyed Russia which by 1998-9 was pretty close to a total collapse. Several factors contributed to avoid this outcome, first and foremost the nomination of Putin, but Russia came very, very close to simply disappearing as a unitary state. If democracy could do that to a giant like Russia in only 8-9 years, one can only imagine what it could do to a much smaller and weaker Ukraine over 22 years.
Keep in mind that if the military was simply neglected and abandoned, then the rest of the economy pro-actively pillaged by the oligarchs. Think Berezovsky, think Khodorkovsky, then multiply them by 10 or 20 and increase their period of malfeasance from 9 years to 22 years and it is outright amazing that there still is a little something left of the Ukrainian economy in 2014. True, most of that is located in the East and was kept on life support by Russian money. Still, I have to say that while I am most definitely not an admirer of the Soviet system, the fact that it took so long to truly obliterate the Ukraine is a testimony to the resilience and what I would call a "capital of momentum" left by the Soviet Union to its successor states. Even Russia survived the absolute horror of the 1990s only thanks to all the "momentum" it inherited from the USSR.
No wonder that so many people today are becoming nostalgic of the Soviet era - by a strange self-protection mechanism the human being remembers the good much better than the bad (anybody who has gone through bootcamp will attest to that). And it is undeniable that compared to the empty promises, and actual horrors, of democracy the Soviet system was much, much better.
What is clear now is that the Ukraine has eventually wasted all of what it had been given by the Soviet Union. There is no more momentum left. The Ukraine is at a full stop, and it is rapidly disintegrating.
So what about this idea of return to a conscript military?
It is, to put it mildly, of truly breathtaking stupidity. There is no other way of putting it.
First, and this might sound paradoxical, the Ukraine simply does not need a military at all, if only because it cannot afford one. In fact, a country is MUCH safer not having a military than having a useless one because the latter can always be used to justify an attack whereas a country without a military is extremely hard to attack, at least in political terms.
Then, it takes decades and huge sums of money to (re-)built a military. The Ukraine simply cannot afford that at all, so why bother?
Also, the military is not the correct tool to use to put down insurgents, not the Russian speakers in the East, not the Banderists in the West. That is a mission for Internal Troops which have a totally different training and equipment than the regular military. In other words, what the Ukraine needs first and foremost today are forces like the Berkut which the junta has destroyed.
Then consider the economy. How wise is it to pull out of the economy a large segment of young men precisely when they could be the most dynamic and productive? And for how long to do pull them out? It takes 4-6 months to train a solider. Then, a typical term of service would be no less than 6-12 months depending on your system. In other words, at the very least a young conscript would leave home and be pulled out of the market and the economy for a full year. Without a well-oiled system and legal framework this can be catastrophic.
Besides, what does a large, under-paid, under-fed, and under-trained force become? Slave labor for the generals. They can be used to make roads and build mansions, but as a combat force their value is zero.
Furthermore, what does a conscription look like in a country which is breaking apart? It looks like a free distribution of firearms.
Last but not least - Turchinov and Iatseniuk are kidding themselves: a bigger Ukrainian army by no means implies a less pro-Russian one. What is the point of creating a conscript army if all it does is increase the numbers of servicemen changing sides and helping the Russian-speakers? Did I mention that the biggest population centers are, of course, also in the East?
To put it bluntly: to propose to return to a conscript army for the Ukraine is nothing short of absolute and total lunacy. I can only wonder which crazies in the West gave Turchinov and Iatseniuk this crazy idea. McCain? Hillary? Kerry?
The good news is that this kind of lunacy shows that the leaders of the junta in power have completely lost any sense of reality and that every single measure they officially announce with great pomp and earnestness only makes their situation worse.
If this insanity continues at the same pace the end of Banderastan might be very near.
His main point is that if President Putin had not cracked down on the Russian oligarchs and given them the ultimatum to either get out of politics or go to prison - it possible Russia could well have disappeared like Ukraine is on the verge of doing today.
It took less than 20 years for Ukraine's oligarchs to loot the country until there was nothing left to preserve of it. No one in Ukraine was strong enough to destroy them like Putin was in Russia.
Now about why conscription won't save Ukraine: it can't afford it and does not have the vast sums of money on hand to rebuild its military. And it got rid of the Internal Troops - formerly the Berkut - necessary to protect the regime's existence. And then given that the bulk of the population is in the Russian-speaking East and South, no one will enlist to fight for a regime hostile to them.
Unlike in 1861 on the eve of the American Civil War where the North had overwhelming demographic and industrial strength,in 2014 in Ukraine in complete contrast, the balance of forces, demographically and in terms of industrial strength, is decisively tilted against the Kiev Maidan regime. It does not have the manpower and the trained troops to defeat its adversaries.
Then again this is why Kiev is out of touch with reality and is circling the drain.
For those interested, the post can be read here:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/05/yet-another-totally-crazy-idea-from.html
This article reinforces my opinion that the US should stay out of it. Their oligarchs looted the country. Why should the US step in to bail them out.
The problem is both linguistic and geographical.
The “nation” being discussed is really Lower Elbonia, not the Ukraine.
Happy May Day Comrade!!
Your efforts to spread disinformation are well known here.
Yet you continue.
Why argue for the disintegration and occupation of a sovereign nation?
Weird, its almost like you can criticize both Kiev and Putin. Not sure whether you will be called a commie Putin buttboy or an Soros EU-nista. Bravo!
I’m not arguing against the existence of an independent Ukraine. I am pointing out any military effort to preserve it is pointless.
That can only be done through constitutional and economic reforms.
We are at the beginning of May and the last two months have been positively wasted.
Ukraine is not getting the leadership it desperately needs and deserves. A civil war is not going to save the country.
Fortunately, sane people realize a bloody crackdown is not the solution. Right now politically and economically, Ukraine is the black hole of Europe.
Its the prize no one wants.
“I’m not arguing against the existence of an independent Ukraine.”
You actually are, and you know it. It seems to be you’re only purpose on FR. Shouldn’t you be at a May Day parade with all your neo-soviet putin bootlicking friends?
Surprisingly reasonable, if you ignore his calling of Maidan-controlled Ukraine “Banderastan”.
It’s definitely true that Putin reined in the destructive corruption in Yeltsin’s Russia, even if he acts like the world’s most powerful mob boss running what basically amounts to a protection racket on Russian oligarchs and businesses.
Having that is still better than oligarchs stealing and ransacking post-Soviet assets, because as Obama would say (and he would be right here!), “You didn’t build that”. Ripping off the collective sweat of millions of USSR proleteriat and profiting billions overnight was crony capitalism at its worst.
On the other hand, the Ukrainian oligarchs have a lot to lose by letting their country be annexed by Russia, or even the EU. They will lose their monopolies in either sphere, and the Russian-led oligarchs led by Putin will devour them alive especially now that they’ve completely thrown their lot in with the Maidan, fearing confiscation of their wealth.
For this reason I don’t think the Maidan government has much to worry about when it comes to capital, for now. The oligarchs are already spending billions on the army, refitting the army through supplies of oil and reestablishing supply lines for a desiccated Ukrainian army. They are flying into provinces as governors and power players and undoubtedly had a hand in this conscription deal, as part of their attempt to ‘hold their turf’, which is where their ill-gotten billions come from.
Even if just the East goes, oligarchs will lose whatever they had in the East. If everything goes, all oligarchs that remain will be eliminated by Putin. These are the same oligarchs that have left Ukraine in limbo for 25 years, and they will fight hard and spend big knowing the consequences if Putin succeeds in Ukraine.
Ukraine is one of those countries that cannot afford to offend or to fight Russia.
Its military potential to contribute to the NATO alliance is zero. And it will need years of Russian and Western economic assistance to get back on its feet.
The other thing is it lacks the political, legal, administrative and economic qualifications to be in the EU at this point in time.
Reconstruction of Ukraine will take many years, if not decades to be realized.
And a complete unwillingness to fight for their own. They would rather somebody else do that for them.
Stating facts that you don’t like and don’t want to hear don’t make them go away.
Ukraine is very much on life support right now. A disintegrating country is in no one’s interests.
It doesn’t make me happy to see the pain and suffering the people of that country are going through right now. No decent human being wishes for a world reduced to a Hobbesian state of affairs.
I pointed out the only way out of the abyss is a peaceful one. There is no alternative.
Bullshit, you advocate and support a military takeover of a sovereign nation every day here on FR. You are supporting neo-soviet stalinists.
I'm not so sure about that.
From an outsiders point of view, who studies a little bit, Ukraine might benefit from an integrated Russian stabilization program. Cash, investment, law and order and some degree of certainty and security in the commercial endeavors.
That's not to say it wouldn't rub a lot of people the wrong way and that a lot would not be hurt.
But it's a HELL of a lot better than an ongoing terrorist and civil war as we saw in the Balkans. That is the worst possible outcome.
Speaking of the Balkans. Putin is merely copying what we and our NATO allies did there. Hell, he's even been more restrained than that.
And the unelected Maidan regime is what exactly? A democracy?
A sovereign Ukraine has the right to exist - on a lawful and transparent basis.
We don’t disagree about the goal and I have not said on this thread the Russians ought to come in and take over that country.
Not necessarily, an effective enough army could potentially remove the Russian infiltrators and their native auxiliaries, which as the article says are not that many. The only question is whether the Ukrainian army can be stiffened up enough to do it. A military success would force Putin to finally move into the open with an invasion of Eastern Ukraine, or back off.
"That can only be done through constitutional and economic reforms.
We are at the beginning of May and the last two months have been positively wasted."
In fairness, Putin immediately racketed up the pressure almost immediately after Yanukovych fled the country. He has been hitting them with such a dizzying display of aggression, I suspect that that's what they spend most of their time talking about and reacting to. Maybe they could have done better had circumstances been otherwise.
"Ukraine is not getting the leadership it desperately needs and deserves.
A civil war is not going to save the country.
Fortunately, sane people realize a bloody crackdown is not the solution. Right now politically and economically, Ukraine is the black hole of Europe.
Its the prize no one wants."
Agreed. Neither the EU or Russia really wants Ukraine as it is, although I suspect that Putin could conceivably seize Eastern Ukraine and argue that Western Ukraine should shoulder all the debt of both (since Eastern Ukraine would then be part of Russia, and Western Ukraine is recognized as the contiguous successor of the original Ukraine.
He could then impose order and install the same system of institutionalized corruption that he has in Russia. Blood tribute is still better than gushing blood, I guess. In this way, he could seize territory, fatally weaken Western Ukraine and gain a potentially prosperous territory with apparently few drawbacks other than Obama's and Kerry's outrage.
Maidan was a bunch of students kicking out the Russian Government. Democracy? no....just people looking for freedom from Russian. It’s a struggle that’s been going on for over a century. Ukraine wants to be left alone, and Russia needs to occupy and destroy Ukraine out of existence. Both ideals are not compatible.
You’re right small nations are at the mercy of larger ones.
Thucydides made the very point two millenia ago. Human nature being what it is, the strong seek to subdue the weak and the weak are fated to suffer.
This is as old as time and we’re not going to see that change in the future.
If Putin does not carve off the fattest piece of Ukraine, all the way to Odessa and Transwhatever...he'll go down in my book as once of the nicest guys to have ever run a mob syndicate.
There would be no long-term penalty to him whatsoever.
Hell, he'd go down in history as a dumb-assed pu$$y of a dictator if he doesn't.
And people who advocate for the destruction of others are scumbags. This point has been made...well...forever.
Before you attack me again, the West did nothing in East Germany in 1953, in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968.
And it will do nothing in Ukraine in 2014. I’m not advocating the demise of Ukraine.
If you have a grievance, bring it up with the West.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.