Russia Invades Ukraine

[SLD]

Russia of course denies it, but the presence of certain types of T-72 tanks confirm that Russia has launched an invasion of Ukraine, driving in the south towards the port of Mariupol. European leaders, including Merkel and Hollande are in anuproar and demanding answers fromPutin. Putin of course, as is typical, is denying it despite overwhelming evidence of the incursion. Apparently these are just Russian soldiers on leave taking a holiday.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28967526

So what happens next? What should be the west's response?

SLD

 

[Derec]

So what happens next?

Unfortunately, probably nothing.

What should be the west's response?

A rocket barrage on Sevastopol.

 

[Jayjay]

Fucking Putin. There is no easy way out of it now. Ukrainian army doesn't stand a chance alone, and the West isn't likely to get miltarily involved. So it jut means a long bout of sanctions and counter sanctions and bleeding money to Ukrainian corrupt oligarchs and it'll be a mess for everyone.

 

[SLD]

Fucking Putin. There is no easy way out of it now. Ukrainian army doesn't stand a chance alone, and the West isn't likely to get miltarily involved. So it jut means a long bout of sanctions and counter sanctions and bleeding money to Ukrainian corrupt oligarchs and it'll be a mess for everyone.

I suspect so. The West has too much to lose by taking really strong actions against Russia.

SLD

 

[SLD]

Here's an interesting take, but it is from before this latest incursion.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/co...ine-will-also-mean-the-end-for-vladimir-putin

He points out that even Merkel has abandoned Putin and called him delusional, and that Russian leaders seldom,survive foreign policy debacles. This could be a really stupid move by Putin that backfires. Especially if Ukrainian forces can inflict significant damage on Russian forces. Granted the Ukraine in the end is not likely to defeat Russia, especially if Russia commits the full weight of its forces against it. But lesser powers have been able to hold off stronger ones and inflict unacctable damage to them. Ukraine is not Georgia. If they can really hammer them, especially if there is no Russian air support, it would be an incredible psychological victory. If that causes Putin's downfall great.

But I think that too optimistic. I suspect Putin may pull these troops back quickly rather than risk a larger incursion and further sanctions. A simple one time incursion makes sense here. It draws off pressure from Donetsk and other areas, and a quick pull back gives him some kind of deniability. But he is playing a dangerous game.

SLD

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I just don't understand what Putin expects to get from this.

 

[Derec]

 

[maxparrish]

What can be / could have been done?

Apparently the US and major NATO countries are just hoping this will "go away". Putin accurately perceives that the leadership of the west does not have the will to do anything more than maintain the current level of sanctions AND that with relentless and increasing military engagement he can costlessly breakup and seize a good part of the Ukraine.

Naturally, Latvia and Estonia who have large Russian minorities, are nervous and may be next on the list.

You can't stop Putin if he is willing to go "all in", but you can make it far more costly and perhaps dissuade him from a Russian military adventure deeper into the Ukraine, and a repeat of Afghanistan. There are several measures the West should have taken, and still should take, immediately:

-Announce that Russia is in violation of the 1997 Nato-Russian accord.
-Station permanent NATO troops in the Baltic states requesting them.
-Provide serious military aid (ordinance etc.) and any necessary related training to the Ukraine.
-Increase sanctions.
-The US MUST legalize the sale of natural gas to Europe,

Or just pretend this will do away...

 

[Togo]

What can be / could have been done?

Apparently the US and major NATO countries are just hoping this will "go away".

Well, more specifically, they were hoping that Ukraine would simply beat the rebels. Until earlier today, that looked likely.

However we now have a major push, reportedly involving a few thousand Russian troops, in the south of the country in Novoazovsk, near the sea of Azov. That isn't well connected to the areas where the rebels were strongest, but it is an area that would provide a handy land bridge to the Crimea.

Putin accurately perceives that the leadership of the west does not have the will to do anything more than maintain the current level of sanctions AND that with relentless and increasing military engagement he can costlessly breakup and seize a good part of the Ukraine.

Not sure that is really accurate. The US and Britain don't really have the will to do anything, largely because of their extensive economic interests in Russia, but Germany, Sweden, and most of the Eastern European countries are very anxious about any kind of Russian invasion of disputed areas in eastern Europe, for obvious reasons. The Berlin wall came down in living memory.

The best response is still economic. Russia is militarily stronger than NATO in this region. Russia will unite behind Putin if faced with an existential threat, like a militarisation of the border, but economic measures threaten both the oligarchary and the ordinary people. I agree that beefing up defences in the Baltic and in Ukraine itself is necessary, but accompanying this with grandstanding military threats is counter-productive. Keep the talk about political and economic measures, and make sure Russia can't attack the Baltic without attacking (probably small numbers) of western troops on the ground.

 

[maxparrish]

Well, more specifically, they were hoping that Ukraine would simply beat the rebels. Until earlier today, that looked likely.

However we now have a major push, reportedly involving a few thousand Russian troops, in the south of the country in Novoazovsk, near the sea of Azov. That isn't well connected to the areas where the rebels were strongest, but it is an area that would provide a handy land bridge to the Crimea.

A closer look would show that it was only likely if Putin responded to sanctions as a deterrence. However, he has slowly increased pressure to, initially, create a stalemate and more recently to bring about insurgent/mercenary counter offensives and a new front with regular Russian units. He does not appear to be in panic, and is not unduly concerned with economic sanctions. Why? The Russian people believe the sanctions are just more evidence of American arrogance and unwillingness to honor Russia's 'place in the sun'. It will be YEARS (if ever) before sanctions undermine Russian support of Putin's adventurism.

Putin accurately perceives that the leadership of the west does not have the will to do anything more than maintain the current level of sanctions AND that with relentless and increasing military engagement he can costlessly breakup and seize a good part of the Ukraine.

Not sure that is really accurate. The US and Britain don't really have the will to d o anything, largely because of their extensive economic interests in Russia, but Germany, Sweden, and most of the Eastern European countries are very anxious about any kind of Russian invasion of disputed areas in eastern Europe, for obvious reasons. The Berlin wall came down in living memory.

So it would seem Obama is not even leading 'from behind' if his allies are pressing for serious counter-measures. As Central and Eastern Europe are the ones that are risking their own economic, political, and territorial security (including energy supplies) it seems rather odd that Obama would be essentially say to them "You don't know what's best for you, we are not going to let you take a risk by supplying military aid to the Ukraine". Is it any wonder the Poles scoff at Obama and Nato?

The best response is still economic. Russia is militarily stronger than NATO in this region. Russia will unite behind Putin if faced with an existential threat, like a militarization of the border, but economic measures threaten both the oligarchy and the ordinary people. I agree that beefing up defences in the Baltic and in Ukraine itself is necessary, but accompanying this with grandstanding military threats is counter-productive. Keep the talk about political and economic measures, and make sure Russia can't attack the Baltic without attacking (probably small numbers) of western troops on the ground.

Perhaps we agree. I am not proposing 'boots on the ground' in the Ukraine, or extensive militarization of the border. Nor am I suggesting air strikes. I am suggesting that sanctions alone as deterrence has failed. Other measures should have, and should be taken to increase the deterrence (and costs) to continued or increased adventurism. Instead of the paltry assistance provided to date (a few million dollars in 'non-lethal' aid) the West ought to be responding to Ukraine's pleas for military resupply and more sophisticated weapons. THEY are willing to take the risk, and we ought to AT LEAST have the backbone to ship them what they need. THEY are the one's who are going to pay for feckless and tepid policy.

And yes, NATO needs a tripwire force in the Baltic, and have a rapid deployment force ready. The Russians are already behind Putin's aggression, that boat left the dock long ago.

 

[arkirk]

Well, more specifically, they were hoping that Ukraine would simply beat the rebels. Until earlier today, that looked likely.

However we now have a major push, reportedly involving a few thousand Russian troops, in the south of the country in Novoazovsk, near the sea of Azov. That isn't well connected to the areas where the rebels were strongest, but it is an area that would provide a handy land bridge to the Crimea.

Putin accurately perceives that the leadership of the west does not have the will to do anything more than maintain the current level of sanctions AND that with relentless and increasing military engagement he can costlessly breakup and seize a good part of the Ukraine.

Not sure that is really accurate. The US and Britain don't really have the will to do anything, largely because of their extensive economic interests in Russia, but Germany, Sweden, and most of the Eastern European countries are very anxious about any kind of Russian invasion of disputed areas in eastern Europe, for obvious reasons. The Berlin wall came down in living memory.

The best response is still economic. Russia is militarily stronger than NATO in this region. Russia will unite behind Putin if faced with an existential threat, like a militarisation of the border, but economic measures threaten both the oligarchary and the ordinary people. I agree that beefing up defences in the Baltic and in Ukraine itself is necessary, but accompanying this with grandstanding military threats is counter-productive. Keep the talk about political and economic measures, and make sure Russia can't attack the Baltic without attacking (probably small numbers) of western troops on the ground.

So what good did we do dissolving the Soviet Union? We prepared a battleground. There of course will always be a Putin to play the real estate monopoly game with troops. That didn't go away. I am seeing in Russia the same out of control government as we have here, replete with military adventurism.

What is what in Ukraine? Didn't this start with a coup in Ukraine of an elected president, run by people favoring an alliance with the NATO countries and an alienation of their agreements with Russia. Considering the cloak and dagger nature of eastern European politics, it is hard to determine what if anything is legitimate and real in that location. As I have pointed out before, Russians I know in America regard Ukraine as "part of Russia." Because of the clandestine nature of both western and Russian operations in Ukraine, it is hard to get these parties above ground to honestly discuss anything that might be fruitful in terms of settling this conflict peaceably.

Both the U.S. and Russia need to abandon their cold war stances. Putin and Obama both are thumping their chests and acting like a couple of rival silverbacks, turning off the gas, sneaking troops, and in every way making life in the Ukraine miserable. We don't have a clue what the "average Ukrainian" would like to see, so our discussion on this matter will just reflect the part of the reality on the ground we truly don't know.

I for one feel it is a mistake to take sides between these posturing politicians with their fully sponsored cheering sections. The people living in Ukraine, regardless of their ancestry are unfortunate in that they are living in disputed territory that used to just be their home. Putin and his western adversaries with their geopolitical disputes can really tear this place up. This is what happens when people wheel and deal with lands that are really somebody else's home. I hope these two gorillas come to their senses and work out a settlement, though I fear it will always not be right for the people who have to live under an agreements made in foreign capitals.

 

[maxparrish]

Well, more specifically, they were hoping that Ukraine would simply beat the rebels. Until earlier today, that looked likely.

However we now have a major push, reportedly involving a few thousand Russian troops, in the south of the country in Novoazovsk, near the sea of Azov. That isn't well connected to the areas where the rebels were strongest, but it is an area that would provide a handy land bridge to the Crimea.

Not sure that is really accurate. The US and Britain don't really have the will to do anything, largely because of their extensive economic interests in Russia, but Germany, Sweden, and most of the Eastern European countries are very anxious about any kind of Russian invasion of disputed areas in eastern Europe, for obvious reasons. The Berlin wall came down in living memory.

The best response is still economic. Russia is militarily stronger than NATO in this region. Russia will unite behind Putin if faced with an existential threat, like a militarisation of the border, but economic measures threaten both the oligarchary and the ordinary people. I agree that beefing up defences in the Baltic and in Ukraine itself is necessary, but accompanying this with grandstanding military threats is counter-productive. Keep the talk about political and economic measures, and make sure Russia can't attack the Baltic without attacking (probably small numbers) of western troops on the ground.

So what good did we do dissolving the Soviet Union? We prepared a battleground. There of course will always be a Putin to play the real estate monopoly game with troops. That didn't go away. I am seeing in Russia the same out of control government as we have here, replete with military adventurism.

What is what in Ukraine? Didn't this start with a coup in Ukraine of an elected president, run by people favoring an alliance with the NATO countries and an alienation of their agreements with Russia. Considering the cloak and dagger nature of eastern European politics, it is hard to determine what if anything is legitimate and real in that location. As I have pointed out before, Russians I know in America regard Ukraine as "part of Russia." Because of the clandestine nature of both western and Russian operations in Ukraine, it is hard to get these parties above ground to honestly discuss anything that might be fruitful in terms of settling this conflict peaceably.

Both the U.S. and Russia need to abandon their cold war stances. Putin and Obama both are thumping their chests and acting like a couple of rival silverbacks, turning off the gas, sneaking troops, and in every way making life in the Ukraine miserable. We don't have a clue what the "average Ukrainian" would like to see, so our discussion on this matter will just reflect the part of the reality on the ground we truly don't know.

I for one feel it is a mistake to take sides between these posturing politicians with their fully sponsored cheering sections. The people living in Ukraine, regardless of their ancestry are unfortunate in that they are living in disputed territory that used to just be their home. Putin and his western adversaries with their geopolitical disputes can really tear this place up. This is what happens when people wheel and deal with lands that are really somebody else's home. I hope these two gorillas come to their senses and work out a settlement, though I fear it will always not be right for the people who have to live under an agreements made in foreign capitals.

Yes it did start with a popular revolt, and the 'elected leader' fled the country. Since then the Ukraine has had, by all accounts, free elections and what remains of the Ukraine has spoken. This is not a case of moral equivalency or the cravings of Russophiles to rebuild Imperial Russia and coronat Czar Putin. The Ukraine belongs to the Ukrainians, not the Russian oppressors. The Ukrainians are not their slaves...in case your Russian friends don't get it.

So why can't you get that?

 

[barbos]

Russia of course denies it, but the presence of certain types of T-72 tanks confirm

SLD

This is truly laughable evidence.
If I were you I would point to a dozen of unexplained funerals among russian military men and admission of rebel leader that some russian millitary take vacations to go to eastern Ukraine. And It's not really a secret that there are a lot of russian citizens among rebels. As for tanks, then your evidence is laughable at least for now.

 

[barbos]

Well, more specifically, they were hoping that Ukraine would simply beat the rebels. Until earlier today, that looked likely.

However we now have a major push, reportedly involving a few thousand Russian troops, in the south of the country in Novoazovsk, near the sea of Azov. That isn't well connected to the areas where the rebels were strongest, but it is an area that would provide a handy land bridge to the Crimea.



Not sure that is really accurate. The US and Britain don't really have the will to do anything, largely because of their extensive economic interests in Russia, but Germany, Sweden, and most of the Eastern European countries are very anxious about any kind of Russian invasion of disputed areas in eastern Europe, for obvious reasons. The Berlin wall came down in living memory.

The best response is still economic. Russia is militarily stronger than NATO in this region. Russia will unite behind Putin if faced with an existential threat, like a militarisation of the border, but economic measures threaten both the oligarchary and the ordinary people. I agree that beefing up defences in the Baltic and in Ukraine itself is necessary, but accompanying this with grandstanding military threats is counter-productive. Keep the talk about political and economic measures, and make sure Russia can't attack the Baltic without attacking (probably small numbers) of western troops on the ground.

So what good did we do dissolving the Soviet Union? We prepared a battleground. There of course will always be a Putin to play the real estate monopoly game with troops. That didn't go away. I am seeing in Russia the same out of control government as we have here, replete with military adventurism.

What is what in Ukraine? Didn't this start with a coup in Ukraine of an elected president, run by people favoring an alliance with the NATO countries and an alienation of their agreements with Russia. Considering the cloak and dagger nature of eastern European politics, it is hard to determine what if anything is legitimate and real in that location. As I have pointed out before, Russians I know in America regard Ukraine as "part of Russia." Because of the clandestine nature of both western and Russian operations in Ukraine, it is hard to get these parties above ground to honestly discuss anything that might be fruitful in terms of settling this conflict peaceably.

Both the U.S. and Russia need to abandon their cold war stances. Putin and Obama both are thumping their chests and acting like a couple of rival silverbacks, turning off the gas, sneaking troops, and in every way making life in the Ukraine miserable. We don't have a clue what the "average Ukrainian" would like to see, so our discussion on this matter will just reflect the part of the reality on the ground we truly don't know.

I for one feel it is a mistake to take sides between these posturing politicians with their fully sponsored cheering sections. The people living in Ukraine, regardless of their ancestry are unfortunate in that they are living in disputed territory that used to just be their home. Putin and his western adversaries with their geopolitical disputes can really tear this place up. This is what happens when people wheel and deal with lands that are really somebody else's home. I hope these two gorillas come to their senses and work out a settlement, though I fear it will always not be right for the people who have to live under an agreements made in foreign capitals.

I agree. But would point out it's West and mostly US utter ignorance which led to all of this.
They had no idea how flimsy ukrainian state was in terms of loyalty and such. Even Putin may have underestimated weakness of the Ukraine
NATO really thought they had a shot at having a base in Crimea, with all that russian population including aging soviet navy veterans over there. Fucking nuts.