Bangorstu | 05 Jul 2014 7:49 a.m. PST |
Seems that the Ukrainian government has the rebels on the run. The rebels have evacuated Sloviansk, with a commander saying in the absence of Russian intervention, his men have lost the will to fight. Reports say Kramatorsk is also being evacuated with rebels heading to Donetsk for a final stand. I would suggest Putins' bluff has been called. |
Legion 4 | 05 Jul 2014 7:59 a.m. PST |
Putin will still feel he's "The Man" and dream of his old days in the KGB
|
PMC317 | 05 Jul 2014 8:00 a.m. PST |
He never wanted the east of Ukraine. He was after Crimea; the rest was just maskirovka. The poor s in the east have been hung out to dry as they were always going to be. Putin's popularity at home is up, the Crimea is secure, NATO has proved ineffective (again), and the Russians didn't have to do any shooting at all! The Kremlin must be laughing! |
EMPERORS LIBRARY | 05 Jul 2014 8:18 a.m. PST |
Its just as PMC317 said! NATO has been shown to be a paper tiger so whoever is next on Putin's list had better roll over now as help is not coming. |
James Wright | 05 Jul 2014 8:37 a.m. PST |
Yes, this is a win win for Putin. The violence and upheaval in the Ukraine also make it unlikely that the country will be brought into the folds of either the EU or NATO, both of which were tremendous Russian concerns. The Ukraine in chaos and upheaval are not necessarily what Russia wants, but I think they would prefer that to an effectively run, organized country acting in concert with the West, and they will do what they can, at least covertly, to subvert any of those efforts. |
Jemima Fawr | 05 Jul 2014 9:11 a.m. PST |
Why has NATO shown to be ineffective in this instance? Ukraine was and is not a NATO member. There was and is therefore no requirement or mandate (or desire) for NATO to intervene militarily. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 05 Jul 2014 9:25 a.m. PST |
Putin made an opportunist move that has paid big dividends. The Crimea was always a legitimate target – certainly a lot more legitimate than most of the other disputed areas in the world. Crimea was part of Russia until 1954. It was passed over as an administrative move while both Ukraine and Russia were part of the same entity. It includes an important Russian naval base. It was also nominally an independent state within the Ukraine. With a mainly Russian population that wanted to join Russia, I can't see any way in which NATO would want to interfere. Simply, Russia had a lot more to lose by not getting the Crimea than NATO would gain by securing it for the Ukraine. The regions within Ukraine itself are a different matter. They are generally recognised as part of the Ukraine so Russia would find it difficult to justify annexing them. On the other hand, by making the play that they have made, they have taken everyone's eyes off the more important Crimea. End of the day, they get their target, the West can say 'our pressure helped stop Russia taking over parts of the Ukraine proper.' Both can claim a win, even though Russia are the 'real' victors. |
Bangorstu | 05 Jul 2014 10:13 a.m. PST |
If Ukraine isn't likely to join the Eu, why has it just signed the agreement with the EU which Russia was complaining about originally? Putin has just more or less forced Ukraine into the EU and ensured NATO ups its defence spending. Whether he keeps Crimea remains to be seen – the Ukrainian President says he wants it back
. |
Garand | 05 Jul 2014 10:26 a.m. PST |
Agree with Bangorstu. For some reason there are those in the West that see Putin as a diplomatic and strategic mastermind. But in my view, what is going on now is a salvage operation to recover from mistakes in how Crimea and the Ukraine situation has been handled. Putin and Russia wanted the Ukraine to be a part of the Economic agreement he was trying to forge with the former Soviet Union states, as a counterbalance to the power and influence of the EU. While I cannot verify, I speculate that the complete right-turn of former Prez Yanukovich on the EU agreement was due to Putin's pressure, which ended up being unpopular and Yanukovich paid for it. Since then, both with the seizure of the Crimea as well as the handling of the Ukraine in general, has caused the Ukraine to go further into the arms of the West, has created an air of caution amongst former Soviet states with the motives of Russia, and has undermined any prestige Russia might have had from the Winter Olympics. It's possible that Putin just doesn't care, but I think he does (he just sent the US pres an Independence Day message stressing reconciliation, even if the message is a little cool), and I think the surrounding states will look at what happened in both Georgia in '08 and what now happened in the Ukraine, and seriously question whether Russia is going to be a good neighbor and whether close relations will pay any dividends to anyone save Russia. Damon. |
jpattern2 | 05 Jul 2014 10:45 a.m. PST |
What Bangorstu, R Mark Davies, and Garand/Damon said. How anyone can possibly spin this as weakness on the part of NATO is beyond me. |
doug redshirt | 05 Jul 2014 11:23 a.m. PST |
The Crimea is a financial basket case. It will be sucking money from Moscow for a long time. Think how many tanks and planes Moscow cant afford now. Plus more Europeon countries will look to fracking now to try and escape Russian natural gas monopoly. Anything that weakens Moscow is a good thing. No money, no army. Maybe in another hundred years they can join the rest of the world once they learn empires are a thing of the past. |
tuscaloosa | 05 Jul 2014 11:25 a.m. PST |
Putin has gotten what he wanted out of events so far. He has the Crimea as something tangible to show Russian citizens (never mind what it costs him long-term), and he has destabilized Ukraine. He doesn't want any more annexation of eastern Ukraine, he just wants to demonstrate that he can create chaos there at will. Remember, U.S. foreign policy is typically centered around getting other people to like us, and Russian foreign policy is typically centered around getting other people to fear them. So causing his neighbors to fear Russia is not a foreign policy loss for Ru, it's his goal. Ironically, these actions on the part of Russia are one of the few foreign policy events lately that have strengthened the U.S. hand (as far as the European situation). Now we have the smaller NATO members firmly behind U.S. policy, and wary of Germany's conciliatory policies. They fear that Germany is only too ready to sell them out (and I suspect they're right). |
whoa Mohamed | 05 Jul 2014 11:51 a.m. PST |
The US guaranteed Ukraine's security in exchange for it giving up its Nukes. I Personally am fed up by our government writing checks with its mouth that its body can't cash..weak or not the Fact is we look weak in the eyes of the world. There were concrete things that could have been done that would have not required a shooting war to show That we say what we mean and mean what we say and will waste no time in doing what needs to be done
The fact is even Poland is considering having the USA as a so called friend. |
Lion in the Stars | 05 Jul 2014 12:34 p.m. PST |
EU != NATO. The EU has been shown to be militarily impotent, but we've kinda known that for decades. The US still has egg on face over the 1994 guarantee, and I'm still ed at the current Administration over it. |
GeoffQRF | 05 Jul 2014 12:34 p.m. PST |
I'm with Stu. While this may have been spun as nationalism to the home crowds, it has severely dented the Russian image on a much bigger scale. Any future negotiations will be tainted with "Ah, but remember Crimea". Russia relies on the sale of gas as much as Europe relies on its purchase, but Europe will almost certainly now explore alternative sources against this back ground of "Be quiet or we will turn off your gas"
its a short term win, long term loss. Ukraine has been through a limited turmoil, that has really only affected localised areas in the east. It will recover. And Ukraine is never going to simply sit back and say "Crimea? Oh, we can just let that go
" |
Zargon | 05 Jul 2014 12:55 p.m. PST |
One question. What is/was US intentions in east Europe, not NATO not the EU I mean the US who are many many thousands of miles away. Also as Germany I'd also be wary of 'friends' that listen in on my private conversations? so bringing out a wide paint brush doesn't work here. That all I'm saying and sad for the locals that have to pay for the right to speak their own language. |
Bangorstu | 05 Jul 2014 1:35 p.m. PST |
the EU is indeed militarily puny, but economically it can crush Russia like an egg. Putin might just have realised he needs to sell gas to us. all of a sudden buying it from him seems like a bad idea. He's shot himself in the foot to gain formal control of a province that was de facto Russian anyhow. Makes as much sense as the USA annexing Diego Garcia. |
Bunkermeister | 05 Jul 2014 1:48 p.m. PST |
In my new wargame, "Diego Garcia, the 51st State", the US has to defend it's more recent addition from attacks by the Red Chinese. It's about long range power projection in the 21st Century. Mike Bunkermeister Creek Bunker Talk blog |
Legion 4 | 05 Jul 2014 1:58 p.m. PST |
the EU is indeed militarily puny, but economically it can crush Russia like an egg. The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. -Sun Tzu |
GeoffQRF | 05 Jul 2014 3:42 p.m. PST |
link Chief of the General Staff of Ukraine Viktor Muzhenko reported to President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko that at night, militants who had come under mortar fire of the Ukrainian servicemen tried to escape from Sloviansk. As a result, 1 tank, 2 IFVs and 2 ACVs of militants were destroyed. |
Mako11 | 05 Jul 2014 3:42 p.m. PST |
It's not over until it is. I suspect there are more events to come in this region, as in the South China Sea/Asia region too
.. |
tuscaloosa | 05 Jul 2014 5:15 p.m. PST |
I also agree with wM about the importance of not making threats we are not willing to back up, but that said
"There were concrete things that could have been done that would have not required a shooting war to show" Like what? |
tuscaloosa | 05 Jul 2014 5:26 p.m. PST |
"I suspect there are more events to come in this region" Absolutely, and not just Eastern Europe. The last six months have seen absolutely incredible turmoil and dramatic heightening of tensions all around the world: 1. In the Pacific, with China flexing its muscles and Japan abrogating their "no offense military" limitations; 2. Syria in flames as Bashar holds on, but Lebanon and Jordan are tottering; Iraq has officially becom an Iranian-controlled minor state (with U.S. troops theoretically fighting next to the IRGC!!), ISIS in power across a big chunk of the MidEast; and the Kurds having announced a referendum on independence next month. These incredible developments have the neighbors in the region on the edge of their seats, and could easily involve Turkey to Saudi Arabia in military action. 3. Israel/Palestine ripped apart by brutal murders of children by extremists on both sides. Now they can't suppress the way they feel about each other, and the clear-minded voices of restraint on both sides are being drowned out by calls for vengeance. I believe it is not an exaggeration to say that Israel's security situation right now is more precarious than at any time since the '73 war. And if Israel gets involved in a (metaphorical) knife fight with the Palestinians, it will be that much harder for it to deal with its Syrian and possibly Jordanian borders going up in flames. 4. The Ukraine/Crimea/Russian military confrontation. If you had told me five years ago there would be tank battles in the Ukraine I would have thought you were on drugs. What this all adds up to is an incredibly volatile world situation, where three different regions have all become dramatically more unstable in the last few months. I haven't seen anything similar to this in my lifetime since the collapse of the Soviet Union. |
zoneofcontrol | 05 Jul 2014 6:32 p.m. PST |
I saw two items come in to play: #1 – Russia grabs Crimea for gas & oil reserves ahead of the ISIS movements in the mid east for the same thing. Kind of a pre-emptive insurance policy. #2 – Russia uses the rebel rabble to supplement the "revolt" and succession of Crimea from Ukraine. Then lets the rebels be chewed up by the Ukraine counter attack. Much like the eastern European countries at the end of WWII. That way Russia does not have to deal with, share with, or worry about them. |
Chortle | 05 Jul 2014 9:11 p.m. PST |
Can anyone post a map of Ukraine showing forces as they are at present? |
GeoffQRF | 05 Jul 2014 11:36 p.m. PST |
Forces? You mean the pockets of the Ukrainian army near Slavyansk, or the random groups of separatists moving to Donetsk? Told by ex forces friend in Kyiv that the Ukrainian Army carrying out prolonged fights is laughable – they have no boots, no body armour and are worried about using the 10 rounds they were issued with as they are scared they might not get any more
|
Milites | 06 Jul 2014 7:58 a.m. PST |
Putin used the Ukraine side-show to deflect the acquisition of the Crimea, as for the EU crushing Russian economically, really? I don't think they could get everyone to ignore their self-interest to even get a proposal on the table. They are much more interested in re-creating a Russian style federation of states with reduced legal autonomy and sovereignty. Also if you believe how Europe will now be spurred to find alternative sources of energy should read this. link |
Striker | 06 Jul 2014 8:31 a.m. PST |
Will NATO member countries really up their defense budget and if so, for how long and which countries (probably just those on the eastern edge). The US defense spending wackiness will get squeezed after the crisis of the day goes to the back page and more "we paid a lot for this but it doesn't work" stories come around. I can't see a lot of domestic spending being diverted for a country not in NATO. |
Jemima Fawr | 06 Jul 2014 10:29 a.m. PST |
Quite a few of the Eastern Europeans announced an increase in defence spending a few weeks ago. |
Milites | 06 Jul 2014 12:12 p.m. PST |
Here in the UK, we cannot even find the money to adequately man the police, so unless we can find a few billion behind the sofa cushions, I doubt we will increase spending. Same goes for other nations, as for the increase in the Eastern Europeans, a good chunk of Poland's $43 USD billion, over 10 years, is going to spent on home grown products. So how much is a genuine response to Russian aggression and how much is a government economic subsidy. |
Bangorstu | 06 Jul 2014 12:29 p.m. PST |
Milites – last i heard the EU were indeed ready to take some economic pain to threaten Putin. Doubtless that fact was communicated to Putin. Given his links with the oligarchs, the vulnerability of their assets in London would have been a factor. Hell, if we played by Russian rules, nearly all oligarchs' kids are being educated in the UK
|
Milites | 06 Jul 2014 2:16 p.m. PST |
They 'threatened' it a week ago, but now the Ukrainians are the ones shelling civilian areas and the rebels are on the retreat, I think the implementation is farther away. You are right though, Putin knows that he has to soothe the EU as he transitions from the short-term euro-dependent market strategy, to a far longer term deal with China. As for playing by Russian rules, we don't and they know that. |
Garand | 06 Jul 2014 4:35 p.m. PST |
People keep talking about Crimea like this was some sort of Russian Plan A. It IMHO was not. This was very much a Plan B after the failure of pulling Ukraine closer into Russia's orbit. The seizure of Crimea represents not an unmitigated success on the part of the Russians, but a representation of their failure in larger, longer objective goals. If Ukraine could have been turned into a Russian ally or client state, seizing Crimea would have been unnecessary. But because Russia IMHO fears closer Ukrainian ties with the EU and especially NATO, it felt it had to take the Crimea to protect and ensure its Black Sea ports. Damon. |
GeoffQRF | 06 Jul 2014 5:01 p.m. PST |
Except it already has a large port in the Black Sea, and even with EU and or NATO membership (which, realistically, was not likely to happen in the foreseeable future, although Russia actions lately may have simply sped up that process) they had a long term economic deal with Ukraine over gas which could have continued thus ensuring the Crimean fleet remained. Annexing Crimea has done nothing but sour relations with Ukraine, the EU and the US for years to come. |
GeoffQRF | 07 Jul 2014 1:55 a.m. PST |
Despite all the comments about massed separatists regrouping in Donetsk, the webcam on the central square looks remarkable clean, empty and quiet: link |
Martin Rapier | 07 Jul 2014 3:29 a.m. PST |
"The US guaranteed Ukraine's security in exchange for it giving up its Nukes." If there is one lesson to be learned from the whole sorry mess it is this. Never, ever give up your nukes. Probably not a very positive message in the world today of course, considering the various unsavoury regimes so keen to acquire them so they can get away with behaving like North Korea. There seems to be some curious misapprehensions about EU defence spending. Britain, France and Germany alone spend twice as much on defence as Russia, let alone the entire EU. |
GeoffQRF | 07 Jul 2014 4:15 a.m. PST |
List of military expenditure: link Russia: $90 USDbn as of 2012
UK: £42.90 GBPbn (approx $57.9 USDbn) link France: $61 USD Germany: $48 USDbn UK + France + Germany = approx $167 USDbn, almost twice Russia's spend, even at its highest peak |
GeoffQRF | 07 Jul 2014 4:23 a.m. PST |
Interestin little 'hearts and minds' campaign. Government forces seem to have beseiged Sloviansk until supplies started running low, and now the separatists have fled there they ae able to be seen as opening supply routes. According to friends in Kyiv, with military links, this was separatists, as the army has no reason to blow the main railway line:
Luckily they only hit the freight train – a passenger train a short distance behind managed to stop. |
Jemima Fawr | 07 Jul 2014 7:25 a.m. PST |
Slightly hyperbolic there – the passenger train would have been at least one signal section behind the freight train (and therefore up against a red signal at all times), so was never in any additional danger of crashing into the back of the freight train. Yes, it 'managed to stop', but it would have been an entirely normal, controlled stop at a red signal, rather than a frantic emergency stop. But as you say; it was extremely fortunate that it was a freight train that was hit and not a passenger train. |
Deadone | 07 Jul 2014 5:56 p.m. PST |
I'd say Putin's got egg on his face. By not "protecting" the Russians in Ukraine, he will lose goodwill from ethnic Russians elsewhere and be seen to be weak in Russia. Yes he got Crimea but that was easy. Now the perception will change to Russians in Ukraine are being killed and their cities destroyed. Also Ukraine is getting closer to EU and NATO is at least prepared to assist more in terms of support for command and logistics. In essence Russia is out of the Ukraine. By taking over Crimea, the Ukranians have less reason to play ball with Russia. If the Ukranians follow through with economic reform and get closer to EU as planned, then the Russians lose their economic foothold as well. And the other thing that shows weakness was that it appears even minor US/EU sanctions on Russia forced an absolute backdown. Also it has made NATO start rethinking how it approaches deployment of troops in Eastern Europe (previously not allowed) and has pushed Sweden and Finland closer to moving to NATO (Finland might have referendum re: NATO next year). These are again losses for Russia. In Crimea Putin won the battle, but he lost the war overall. From a football perspective I'd say: West: 4 (pro-EU Ukraine, rethinking NATO operations in Eastern Europe, greater urgency for traditional non-NATO states to join NATO, Putin forced to back down) Russia: 1 (Crimea) |
Deadone | 07 Jul 2014 6:06 p.m. PST |
UK: £42.90 GBP GBPbn (approx $57.90 USD USDbn) linkFrance: $61.00 USD USD Germany: $48.00 USD USDbn UK + France + Germany = approx $167.00 USD USDbn, almost twice Russia's spend, even at its highest peak
In reality most of NATO doesn't contribute much in terms of military capability. And even when that capability is there, politics prevent it from being used in support of NATO (e.g. Greece). However western Europe is militarilty far more powerful than Russia.
Russia's military is designed to operate in its periphery too i.e. thump the likes of Georgia and Ukraine. It has virtually no capability to go toe-to-toe with first world powers. The Chinese are much the same – for all their investments, their main combat aircraft is still a MiG-21 knock off (J-7) and a wannabe MiG-23 (J-8) and their main tank is a T-54/-55 variant (Type 59).
The West had 50 years on China and Russia in terms of military development (Russia's military collapsed in 1990s to failed state levels).
Shiny new toys don't make up for decades of investment in command, control, logistics, tactics etc and combat testing of those systems. |
GeoffQRF | 07 Jul 2014 11:16 p.m. PST |
I will be able to give you a first hand impression shortly. Just sorting my tickets to fly out there |
GeoffQRF | 07 Jul 2014 11:54 p.m. PST |
The Russian perspective has been spun (or attempted to be spun) as a reaction against them joining NATO or the EU, with the whole "
joining NATO would be a red line for Russia", but the actions taken have pretty much burnt official trade relations between Ukraine and Russia (certainly while Crimea remains under Russian control) and so almost certainly forced Ukraine to choose closer trade relations with the EU, and potential membership. Instead of trying to woo Ukraine into the CIS, Russia has threatened them with a big stick if they don't come, so naturally Ukraine is now looking closer at military relations with NATO. Russia is currently occupying Crimea, and while it may have temporarily boosted popularity at home (while further crippling the economy as they try to find ways to pay for it), I think her status on a global stage will be tarnished for a considerable time, which is not good when your economy is already on a knife edge, and you just frightened all your best customers into looking elsewhere
|