"What Might A More Serious Conflict In Ukraine Look Like?" Topic

"A deal aimed at imposing a ceasefire in Ukraine from this Sunday was concluded following talks between the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany. Yet despite 17 hours of talks in the Belarus capital of Minsk, during which President Vladimir Putin was seen breaking pencils on his desk in frustration, some of the agreement's most important provisions have yet to be clarified.

And although German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande proclaimed themselves satisfied with the deal, both should know the chances of a durable settlement remain slim.

Were the bloodshed to resume -- or, as is more likely, never stop -- what happens inside Ukraine largely depends on Putin; barring direct Western military involvement which remains unthinkable, the Russian leader maintains what strategy experts call "escalation dominance," namely the ability to decide how much or little he wants to apply pressure, in the re knowledge that, even if Moscow miscalculates, Russia will not pay a heavy price…"
Full article here
link

YouTube link

Amicalement
Armand

Dan

So bad?…

Amicalement
Armand

Lol.

But, I wonder … Did Russia withdraw every single one of her nukes from Ukraine when Ukraine got its independence in 1991?

Dan

Good question mi amigo!

Amicalement
Armand

link

After some quick Internet searches, it appears all nuclear weapons were removed from Ukraine.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

The Ukrainians gave up their nuclear arsenal as part of a deal between the West and Russians.

pjm

…in return for a guarantee of territorial integrity of their borders, as existing at that time, which included both Eastern Ukraine and Crimea…

Good news they have not nuclear weapons.

Amicalement
Armand

Yep, as Geoff correctly points out, this is a prime example of what agreements with Russia are worth.

They've been caught cheating on our nuke agreements too.

That Vlad, and ex-KGB man, can't be trusted, isn't very surprising.

this is a prime example of what agreements with Russia are worth

As we discussed when Russia took over Crimea last year, under dubious circumstances, it does mean that any deal with Russia in the future is bound to be met with a much higher degree of suspicion. I'm sure china has that in mind too…

The excuse they thought would get them out of the agreement seems to be some Ukrainian measures to make their language the only one used at schools, right?

Dan

…some Ukrainian measures to make their language the only one used at schools

That was a myth. There was never any question of excluding the Russian language in general in Ukraine.

The only changes were that Russian had been inserted as an official language on government documents by Yanukovich, and when the constitution was reverted to the older variant that concession was also reverted.

However Ukrainian had been the only official language (on government documents only) for the previous 20 years, so the (mainly Russian) media attention was disproportionate, sensationalist and even bordered on inciteful to the situation.

I would say that a worse scenario fro Ukraine would be an all out invasion by Russia with the intent to restore to Russian control. Then add to this that NATO does nothing…

Why would NATO do anything?

The Ukraine isn't part of NATO!

It's not like the 1994 agreement where the Ukraine surrendered all it's nukes in exchange for territorial recognition was a binding treaty…

Indeed, and presumably Russia is even now returning them.

Well the Choc king would like the uS and all of Europe involved totally hands on and attacking the borders of Russia he and his lot will then be able to split up the 40$ bill while its going on.

Yep, we'll do nothing, just like in 1956, 1968, 1979, 2008, 2014, 2015, etc.

That's true. You are not going to get that genie back into the bottle. Short of "…nukaler combat, toe-to-toe with the Ruskies" there is not a whole lot we can do about it. There are only two things that can stop Putin, 1) all countries bordering Russia will have to arm themselves at least to the level where they can convince Putin it's not worth attacking them, and 2) the Russians decide that the sanctions are damaging their already failing economy, and make him stop.

Haven't see the reports today, but last night the fighting was raging pretty intently, so one just needs to look at very recent history.

After the "ceasefire", there was still a lot of shooting going on.

The Afghans got the Russians to leave, so I suspect if the Ukrainians are given a lot of anti-tank weapons, ammo, and counter-battery artillery and radar systems, they'll be able to make it very rough for those "vacationing" Russian soldiers, and their compatriots.

The Russian public won't stand for another huge wave of casualties like in their last major international adventure.

Fighting seems to have centered mainly around Debaltseve. "Pro-Russian rebels had previously said they were entitled to fire in the town, as they believe the territory belongs to them." (?!)

Poroshenko says Debaltseve was resupplied with ammunition.

"OSCE monitors agree that the truce appears to be generally holding, but complain they have been denied access to Debaltseve."

The Afghans got the Russians to leave, so I suspect if the Ukrainians are given a lot of anti-tank weapons, ammo, and counter-battery artillery and radar systems, they'll be able to make it very rough for those "vacationing" Russian soldiers, and their compatriots.
-----------------
Compatriots – you mean most of the population of that area of Donestk and Luhansk? I think the comparison with Afghanistan is a bit misleading as theres not much evidence that in the areas held by the separatists that the civilian population are effectively an unwilling population cowed into submission by the the separatists. Making it rough in those areas might well entail driving the mostly pro-Russian population out – as I understand that area has always been eastward looking so really no surprise. As to what the Russian public will stand – do you think that the Western public will stand for rocketing and shelling of civilian areas or arms going to people who have swastikas tattooed on their bodies.

theres not much evidence that in the areas held by the separatists that the civilian population are effectively an unwilling population cowed into submission by the the separatists.

Actually there are reports from locals that those fighting are not local, and of a Stalinistic-esque environment with reports of midnight kidnappings, threats, public beatings, kangaroo courts and locals encouraged to shop in other locals.

Anyone painting tanks might like this photo:

This is apparently Donetsk rebels, 15 Feb 2015.

Note the damaged rubber cover on the tracks, missing from the other side, irregularity of the ERA blocks on the, what i assume to be irregular brown camouflage and what appear to be unpainted replacement ERA blocks.

Not to mention what looks like dents behind the missing ERA tiles… Not sure if that's a dent from the incoming weapon or a dent from the ERA going off!

Actually there are reports from locals that those fighting are not local, and of a Stalinistic-esque environment with reports of midnight kidnappings, threats, public beatings, kangaroo courts and locals encouraged to shop in other locals.
-----------------------
I can believe it to an extent (though depends on who the reports are via) but equally if you were living in Donetsk getting shelled do you blame the separatists or believe the propaganda that blames it on the 'nazis' in Kyiv (even though some of the people saying that are nazis too). My understanding (albeit very imperfect) is that even in comparison to other eastern mainly Russian speaking areas, the Donbas area has always been the most Russian orientated area of Ukraine by far