What if Putin annexes part of Ukraine?

[Tigers!]

I was listening to the news last night (SBS World News for those who wonder) when an item came on that said that Putin is considering annexing the conquered parts of Ukraine.
First question: Is is plausible?
2nd question: What will be done about it if it happens?

So far the west has been supporting Ukraine will weapons, slowly but increasingly, and imposing sanctions with varying degrees of enthusiasm.

If Putin is going to annex those areas, like he did Crimea, will the west react the same now as then? Lots of bluster, sanctions that were slowly rolled back but eventually that annexation was accepted, if not officially.

I ask because if we will accept such annexations as we did Crimea then why are why arming Ukraine if our support is so fickle? If we are going to abandon Ukraine later rather than sooner why why do we not get it over with? We are trying to limit the scope of the fighting which is good but we might be reaching the Rubicon soon.

I believe that we must support Ukraine as much as we can. If Russia tries annexation then I canot see how we can avoid widening the fight to include more active measures - NATO/US airstrikes, no energy of any description into Europe from Russia etc. and perhaps soldiers into Ukraine. Yet the thought of that is horrible.

 

[zorq]

Question 1. There are a few ways to win a war and take the land of your opponent.

A. Sue for peace. You can inflict so much pain and suffering on your opponent that they agree to let you have what belonged to them in exchange for peace.
B. Genocide. This is extremely difficult to conduct to completion (and abhorent), but if all of your opponents are dead (or "gone"), there is nobody to tell you their stuff isn't yours.
C. Draw a line and stand firm. If you can defend the land that you have already taken well enough, it doesn't matter if the opponent hasn't agreed to let you have it if there is nothing they can do to take it back.

As long as the west continues its support for Ukraine, I see scenario C as unlikely. The west has plenty of fancy long range toys which makes the long term holding of territory in a perpetual state of conflict too costly for Russia.

Scenario A is definitely plausible, but its success is highly dependent on the morale of the people.

Question 2: I don't know what the west will do if an annexation occurs.

Question 3: There is a good reason for the west to support Ukraine now EVEN IF that support is mostly withdrawn as soon as Russia digs in and claims victory with the territory it has captured. Every day, Ukraine is losing land, but Russia is losing soldiers and equipment. Making every inch of land stolen from Ukraine as expensive as possible is a worthy goal for three reasons.

1. Dead Russian soldiers make for unhappy Russian civilians. Every Russian casualty increases the chances of revolt, revolution, or assassination. This one is a long shot, but worth mentioning.
2. Russia is literally running out of several important types of munitions. This means that it will be years before Russia is restocked and ready to start her next criminal assault on her neighbors. Bleeding Russia of her military equipment buys the west time for peace and an opportunity to prepare Russia's next likely victims to defend against her next assault. This time might buy us a natural end to Putin's reign and there is always a chance that the transfer of power will lead to a regime who will actually value peace and the prosperity of the Russian people and not just the number in their swiss bank account.
3. The size of the piece of Ukraine Russia takes will be commensurate to their success in this conflict but that is proportional to the resources they are willing to commit to the conflict, and time is an important resource too. Slowing down Russia's advances in any way whatsoever will preserve as much Ukrainian land as possible. The surviving Ukrainian government is likely to be a strong ally to the west for the foreseeable future. It is in the West's interests that this new ally is as strong as possible and the strength that Russia will gain by taking land from Ukraine is as small as possible.

 

[Jayjay]

I think the annexation is mostly for Russian internal audience. It entrenches the idea that this is not a war of conquest, but defending the motherland and the sacred Russian soil (that it has had for couple of months). Selling that idea to the Russian people makes it easier to mobilize troops and factories to the war economy, and to justify more brazen threats, if not actual use, of nuclear weapons.

When the annexation happens, I don't think there is going to be any immediate change in Ukraine's or its western allies' behaviour. Strikes will continue, and we'll deny the legitimacy of such annexations. In that sense it'll be like Crimea, but with some differences: Russian ability to affect the public opinion in the West to accept the new geography has drastically reduced, and in 2014 there was no actual fighting going on in the Crimean border. The attitude towards the newly annexed territories will certainly resemble more the 2014-2015 situation of Donbas, rather than Crimea.

 

[marc]

I think at this point it is bluster and intimidation. The sanctions and aid to Ukraine has been effective. By declaring annexation, he is trying to make the argument/justification that an attack on his forces in those areas is an attack on Russia itself. Therefore any country supplying weapons for those attacks are the ones waging war against Russia. He know most countries do not want to directly engage against them, and thinks this might get at least some to back off. Of course the main reason to not engage directly is the threat of nukes. The longer this war goes on, the more we see the sorry state of the Russian military, so it looks like without the nukes they are not as big a threat to Europe.

 

[Jayjay]

The annexation of territory will be a big problem for Ukraine, who must at some point accept the reality that they will not get all of their land back. Making peace will be very hard. And that's also why the war will continue for a very long time, because politically it's easier to continue a low-level war than make concessions, even when it becomes expedient to do so.

 

[Elixir]

Meh. Putler can keep doing what he's doing, but as long as the US and EU keep feeding the Ukrainian war machine, it will keep bleeding Russia's resources. Annexation will simply be another bloviating declaration by the delusional despot. If the west can keep this up until Russia runs out of cash and conscripts, we might reach a point in a few years where Ukraine can take back all its territory, including Crimea. There will be plenty of pain for everyone (exc arms mfrs) in the meanwhile.