Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[Firn]

As best as I can tell, we should still have two ships in the Black Sea, although one has a new commander.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...er-sochi-tour/

I doubt we have too much else in the area. I don't believe we can get a carrier into the Black Sea, anyone know about Marine capabilities in the Mediterranean?

While this is all very interesting, it seems that cooler heads are prevailing at least on the Ukrainian side. They will not easily be goaded into a confrontation.

From an Ukrainian perspective a mobilisation or readiness of it's armed forces seems almost a necessity as they certainly won't want to lay their trust into the limited objectives of Putin. While most of the damage has been done already the own goal/imbecile language law was rightly withdrawn. Letting those Russian flags flutter for now in the Crimea and parts of the East may work well into the long-term favour of the current Ukrainian leadership.

1. It does almost force Western states to open their wallets and help the Ukraine politically, financially and economically. I was going to write more about it but it seems that the US president has already issued a statement in this regard:

The people of Ukraine have the right to determine their own future. President Obama has directed his Administration to continue working urgently with international partners to provide support for the Ukrainian government, including urgent technical and financial assistance. Going forward, we will continue consulting closely with allies and partners, the Ukrainian government and the International Monetary Fund, to provide the new government with significant assistance to secure financial stability, to support needed reforms, to allow Ukraine to conduct successful elections, and to support Ukraine as it pursues a democratic future.

2. It does also increasingly isolate Russia financially, economically and politically. Russia needs the European economy much more then Europe needs Russia, especially since Spring is coming. Compared to frozen conflicts in Moldova or Georgia this invasion had a different quality as Russia was clearly the aggressor.

3. The Russian speakers are only by a small margin the majority in the Crimea and the economy relies on tourism and agriculture. Electricity, gas and water comes seemingly from the mainland, just like most necessaties. While it is not out of the question that Putin will pump money into the Crimea to 'win' the 'referendum', incentives Russian tourists and organize the supplies it won't be a smooth ride for the people there. Once again the Russian occuption might be a rougher period for Russia and especially it's occupied Crimean then it imagined.

[Dayuhan]

Look, I appreciate you are lonely out there in the boonies but I am not well disposed to entertain you now it looks as if CrowBat has put you in your place in the syrian thread.

Last I looked he'd stopped dreaming about pipelines and US interests and gone back to reporting events, which seems a step in a reasonable direction.

The 'red-line' here is:

"The United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine."

Not much of a red line there. Of course intervention will always have costs, but they will probably not be imposed by the US or Europe.

Yes, in this case the message to Russia - and the rest of the world - is that whatever the Russians do the US will do nothing.

The world already knew that, just as the world knew that Russian and Chinese denunciation of American interventions would not go beyond words.

Think what message it sends to the rest of the world ...

Nothing they didn't already know.

[carl]

If the Russians annex the Crimea, it will give Turkey, the Ukraine, rich Gulf Arabs who want to prove their piety, Iran and anybody else who care to play the game a chance to practice unconventional warfare against the Russians through the good offices of the Crimean Tatars. Which will not only be bad for Russia, it will be bad for the rest of the world in that it may provide yet more fuel for the jihadist fire.

Russia has made more mischief and caused more suffering over the last 100 years than any other country, and they're still at it.

[Firn]

[URL="http://www.torontosun.com/2014/03/01/putin-proposes-use-of-russian-armed-forces-in-ukraine"An article[/URL] to finish off my day. An interesting one, to say the least. History was certainly made today.

This is probably the most dangerous situation in Europe since the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968," said a Western official on condition of anonymity. "Realistically, we have to assume the Crimea is in Russian hands. The challenge now is to deter Russia from taking over the Russian-speaking east of Ukraine."

The next bit is interesting, the part about the movie seems to strange.

This is probably the most dangerous situation in Europe since the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968," said a Western official on condition of anonymity. "Realistically, we have to assume the Crimea is in Russian hands. The challenge now is to deter Russia from taking over the Russian-speaking east of Ukraine."

WAR HAS ARRIVED

On Kiev's central Independence Square, where protesters camped out for months against Yanukovich, a World War Two film about Crimea was being shown on a giant screen, when Yuri Lutsenko, a former interior minister, interrupted it to announce Putin's decree. "War has arrived," Lutsenko said.

Hundreds of Ukrainians descended on the square chanting "Glory to the heroes. Death to the occupiers."

Grim reading about the WWII fights in the Crimea, which contained perhaps one of the most brilliant victories over the odds in the last 100 years. Didn't know much about that.

Von Manstein had five infantry divisions, one Panzer Division (22nd Panzer Division), and two and a half Romanian Divisions against 19 Soviet divisions and four armoured brigades at Kerch. He committed his units in the south against the 44th Army. The 902nd Assault Boat Command of the 436th Regiment, 132nd German Infantry Division, landed behind the Soviet lines and helped unbuckle the Soviet second lines. The artillery bombardment lasted only 10 minutes, and within three and a half hours of the assault being launched, the 44th Army collapsed. On the first day, XXX Corps, attacking with the 28th, 50th and 132nd Divisions had broken through in the south. At a cost of 104 killed and 284 wounded, they captured 4,514 Soviet soldiers. Kozlov did not appreciate the significance of the German breakthrough and failed to release reserves for a counter-attack. On 9 May, von Manstein committed the 22nd Panzer Division, which swung north and trapped the 51st Army against the Sea of Azov. Soviet morale and organisation collapsed, and a stampede to the rear areas began. Once this happened, the eight divisions of the 51st Army surrendered releasing XXX Corps to pursue the fragments of retreating Soviet forces to Marfovka, barely eight miles from Kerch.[12]

Aftermath

The speed of the advance was rapid. The 132nd Infantry Division overran several airfields, capturing 30 Soviet aircraft on the ground. On 10 May, Fliegerkorps VIII launched KG 55's He 111s against the Soviet forces. The large and slow He 111s made easy targets for ground fire, and eight were lost. However, the anti-personnel bombs (SD-2) were devastating to Soviet infantry. German bombers also attacked shipping evacuating personnel from Kerch. The 1,048 long tons (1,065 t) Chernomorets was sunk the same day.[13] By this time, the air battle was won by the Luftwaffe. Despite the withdrawal of some Geschwader to support the German 6th Army at the Second Battle of Kharkov, the Luftwaffe had destroyed Soviet aerial opposition and enabled the German Army to make deep penetrations, capturing 29,000 Soviet men, 220 guns and around 170 tanks.[14]

In 12 days, the VVS Crimean Front had lost 417 aircraft. The Luftwaffe assisted the final defeat of Soviet ground forces on 20 May, when Kerch finally fell. Some 116,045 Soviet soldiers were evacuated by sea. However, 162,282 were left behind, killed or captured. The Germans claimed to have taken 170,000 prisoners, but this number included a large number of civilians.[15] German casualties amounted to only 3,397 casualties in XXX and XLII Corps, including 600 dead. They expended 6,230 short tons (5,650 t) of ammunition, losing nine artillery pieces, three assault guns and eight tanks. In exchange, von Manstein had destroyed three Soviet armies. Although forced to return some Luftwaffe units and the 22nd Panzer Division for Operation Blue, he could now concentrate his forces for an attack on Sevastopol.[12]

[AdamG]

If the Russians annex the Crimea, it will give Turkey, the Ukraine, rich Gulf Arabs who want to prove their piety, Iran and anybody else who care to play the game a chance to practice unconventional warfare against the Russians through the good offices of the Crimean Tatars. Which will not only be bad for Russia, it will be bad for the rest of the world in that it may provide yet more fuel for the jihadist fire.

Already an issue, albeit a small one. Guess the Kremlin thinks the risk is acceptable, in order to keep their Black Sea naval base.

CRIMEAN TATARS IN SYRIA

There are no accurate figures of how many Crimean Tatars are fighting in Syria, but local sources say they are few.

Those Crimean fighters who have become known — like Abu Khalid — have tended to gravitate toward the Russian-speaking factions, particularly Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar. The current second-in-command of that group, now an independent faction, is a Crimean, whose nom de guerre is Abdul Karim Krimsky.

In September, the head of the Majlis of the Crimean Tatar People, Mustafa Jemilev, said that “only a handful” of Crimean Tatars had been recruited , and blamed the radical Islamic organization Hizb ut-Tahrir.

In response, Hizb ut-Tahrir said that it was not sending Crimean Tatars to Syria but that “some individuals” were going to take part in the conflict.

The accusations against Hizb ul-Tahrir came after Ukrainian media reported in April that a 20-year-old man from Crimea, Abdullah Jepparov from the Belogorsk region, had been killed fighting with “extremists” in Syria.

Ukraine’s Segodnya newspaper reported that Abdullah’s friends said he had become interested in radical Islam via Hizb ut-Tahrir, and then moved from Crimea to Turkey to work. From Turkey, Abdullah and six other Crimean Tatars went to Syria.

http://eaworldview.com/2014/02/syria...uicide-bomber/

[TheCurmudgeon]

I don't see Russia giving Crimea up without a fight. Too much of their ability to influence things in the Med and the Levant are dependent upon that sea port. Plus they have a reasonable argument that the population wants their protection.

The question will become the nature of the deal that ensues and whether the new Ukrainian government will concede the terrain or press for military assistance from the West. I saw they moved up a referendum on Crimean independence to the end of this month. Let's see if that's enough to appease the Kremlin.

[AdamG]

Seems like the Kremlin already anticipated a Mujihadeen move.

From a few days ago -

The Interfax news agency quoted Russian military sources as saying the incident at Belbek airport was intended to stop "fighters" flying in. However, Interfax later quoted a Russian official as saying that no units had approached the airport or blockaded it. NBC News was unable to independently verify either account.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukr...lockade-n40851

From today -

A leader of the Ukrainian radical group Pravy Sektor (Right Sector), Dmitry Yarosh, has called on Russia’s most wanted terrorist Doku Umarov to act against Russia in an address posted on Right Sector’s page in VKontakte social network, Russia Today reported.

http://inserbia.info/news/2014/03/uk...gainst-russia/

[carl]

Vlad may have bought himself a pack of trouble that Russia can't handle over the next 10 years. Aside from the needless suffering and death there may be some good come from it; the final washing away of the last vestige of the Soviet Union.

No matter what Vlad does it still doesn't solve the problem that has existed for the last several hundred years. They don't control the Dardanelles and the Bosporus.

[TheCurmudgeon]

So, perhaps the smartest thing we can do is let them have the Crimea and let the whole thing go to crap on Russia's watch.

[flagg]

Vlad may have bought himself a pack of trouble that Russia can't handle over the next 10 years. Aside from the needless suffering and death there may be some good come from it; the final washing away of the last vestige of the Soviet Union.

No matter what Vlad does it still doesn't solve the problem that has existed for the last several hundred years. They don't control the Dardanelles and the Bosporus.

Would increasingly aligned interests between Russia and Turkey to more closely partner in energy distribution to Europe for profit and influence eliminate that problem?

[carl]

So, perhaps the smartest thing we can do is let them have the Crimea and let the whole thing go to crap on Russia's watch.

No. Passivity favors the aggressor. In the long run the best thing to do is provide Europe with alternative sources of natural gas, which we can do. That would be similar to what we had the Saudis do to help end the Cold War, provide alternative sources of energy so the money doesn't flow to Vlad and the boys.

We should also stop pretending that Vlad's Russia are our buddies and if we just talk nice to them all will be well. That will have to wait until the current President is gone.

There are a lot of things we can do but the point is just standing around waiting for them to fall won't do. We have to help tip them over.

All this pertains to the Ukraine as a whole. There isn't much we can do about the Crimea now.

I wonder if it wouldn't be good to engage in unconventional warfare ourselves against the Russians in the Crimea. Or at least encourage and support Ukrainian efforts in that direction. That would cut off the jihadis.

[TheCurmudgeon]

We should also stop pretending that Vlad's Russia are our buddies and if we just talk nice to them all will be well. That will have to wait until the current President is gone.

There are a lot of things we can do but the point is just standing around waiting for them to fall won't do. We have to help tip them over.

I am not sure I would agree with your assessment of the current President. i think he is more savvy than most give him credit for. Just because he has butted heads with the military does not mean he doesn't understand the dynamics at play. But we will have to wait and see if I am wrong.

I think we have to be careful who we help and how. Crimean Tartars are Muslims and any effort by them may not take kindly to our assistance. I don't know if we have any good will considering recent events. We might be best to support them from a distance rather than directly.

[carl]

I think we have to be careful who we help and how. Crimean Tartars are Muslims and any effort by them may not take kindly to our assistance. I don't know if we have any good will considering recent events. We might be best to support them from a distance rather than directly.

That is why I suggested the Ukrainians, or maybe the Turks. The idea is the takfiri killers are going to come knocking at the door of the Tatars saying "Can I help?" and it will be much easier to reject the offer is they can reply "No, those other guys are already helping us thank you."

[TheCurmudgeon]

That is why I suggested the Ukrainians, or maybe the Turks. The idea is the takfiri killers are going to come knocking at the door of the Tatars saying "Can I help?" and it will be much easier to reject the offer is they can reply "No, those other guys are already helping us thank you."

I agree. But we still have to be invited to join the game. I have seen nothing yet that has indicated a formal ( or informal) request. UN is useless in this situation, so I would expect it to come via the EU or NATO after a request from the Ukrainians. I don't believe we have any grounds for unilateral action.

[carl]

I agree. But we still have to be invited to join the game. I have seen nothing yet that has indicated a formal ( or informal) request. UN is useless in this situation, so I would expect it to come via the EU or NATO after a request from the Ukrainians. I don't believe we have any grounds for unilateral action.

I don't know if any of this would be overt. I do think that somebody on our side had better make an offer before the jihadis do though. Those guys aren't going to wait for an invitation.

[Dayuhan]

In the long run the best thing to do is provide Europe with alternative sources of natural gas, which we can do.

Actually "we" can't do that in any direct sense: while the US is likely to become a gas exporter, it's not likely to provide more than a small fraction of Europe's needs. The main US contribution to European gas supply is less likely to be in direct export than in indirect displacement: the gas that the US used to buy on the global market will be available for purchase by other customers, and the gas that west coast US terminals ship to Asia will free up ME gas for European consumption. Australia's emergence as a significant exporter is also likely to address Asian demand and direct more ME gas to Europe. Europe will be able to find non-Russian gas, but it will not be directly provided by the US.

The main obstacle to reduction of Europe's gas dependence on Russia in the short term is not supply, but infrastructure. The gas is available, but Europe will have to make large investments in regasification terminals and rearranging their pipeline networks in order to use it, and these things take time, money, and commitment.

Even if Europe does wean itself from Russian Gas, the impact on security issues remains open to doubt. The Russians will still find buyers for their gas, though they will have to invest in infrastructure that points east instead of west. Even if Europe no longer depends on Russian gas, Europeans are still not likely to embrace a confrontational attitude toward Russia: European governments have neither the means nor the inclination to get confrontational.

Of course if the US really wanted to knock gas prices down and cause money issues for the Russians, we could always lift sanctions on Iran, but that's not likely.

In short, the global gas market is a large and complex thing with a lot of players and influences, and no unilateral US move is likely to have a very significant impact on Russia. Not much there that "we" can do to "them" directly.

We should also stop pretending that Vlad's Russia are our buddies and if we just talk nice to them all will be well. That will have to wait until the current President is gone.

Changing the way we talk to or about the Russians is not likely to change their behaviour.

There are a lot of things we can do but the point is just standing around waiting for them to fall won't do. We have to help tip them over.

An opportunity to do that may emerge, if they step on their dicks and create a mess. We can't create that opportunity, but we can remain alert and exploit it if it emerges.

All this pertains to the Ukraine as a whole. There isn't much we can do about the Crimea now.

Not much we can do about any of it, really... boycotting the G8 summit and talking a lot aren't going to stop the Russians from doing what they want to do. Most likely option is to watch, wait, and exploit any UW window they leave open. At this point a great deal remains unclear, and we're not in any way sure what the Russians intend to do.

I wonder if it wouldn't be good to engage in unconventional warfare ourselves against the Russians in the Crimea. Or at least encourage and support Ukrainian efforts in that direction. That would cut off the jihadis.

That opportunity may arise, and if an insurgency emerges we may be able to support it. Whether we can create one, or whether we should try to, is another question.

[Firn]

I got interested about the supposed reliance of the Crimea on the Ukraine for little things like water, electricity and gas, beside the stuff coming over by road and rain so I made a quick search.


1. Water

The Crimean population and it's agriculture depend on the Northern Crimean Canal from the Dnepr for water. This 2003 paper has looked closely at the problem from irrigation point of view.

Precipitation in Crimea on average 407 mm annually, which covers only half of the crop requirements. According to different estimations, in average, local water resources are able to provide only 15-20% of population requirements.

Hence, the deficit of water resources in Crimea is covered by de
livery of Dnepr river’s water through the Northern Crimean Canal (further NCC), first opening of which was held in 1963. Dnepr river’s water is delivered for water provision of Kerch, Feodosia, Sevastopol, Simferopol, Sudak cities and villages, as well as for irrigation

Roughly 80% goes to agriculture, one of the two pillars of the Crimean economy. So it is very vulnerable to any disruption of the water supply.


2. Electricity

There is no working power plant in the Crimea which grid depends to a 100% on the rest of the Ukraine.



Any disruption would be indeed very problematic for the local population and the economy. Of course there might be some generators and the Russian army might bring some more in, but that is pretty inefficient and full of frictions.


3. Natural Gas

All of it comes through a pipeline from the north. Find no good paper in my quick search, still it is obvious that the Crimea is to 100% reliant on the Urkaine for gas. Russia depends now on the Ukraine to get it's own gas it's newly occupied territory.




4. Communications

The Russian invader has cut all the links with the mainland. It would be interesting to know does still work, this might be a interesting topic to look into later.

Keep in mind that tourism is the second pillar of the economy. Without the ability to actually communicate with the guests and the other way around and the inability to use the 'net tourims will get another big hit.


5. Other stuff

Pretty certainly almost all coming from the north on the roads. The friendly Russian checkpoints will doubtlessy promote the transportation business.

In the long run Russia might of course connect the occupied Crimea across the Strait of Kerch with the proper infrastructure, apart from water. It is a pretty problematic place to put a bride across, so that there is none. Water will remain a big problem and the Russian government must put a huge effort into the rest to get it working in the mid to long term. But needless to say that in the best case for the next couple of months and perhaps couple of years the Crimean economy and population will be reliant on the good will of the national government.

[Firn]

An interesting, 3-year old paper about the tourism in the Crimea.

ORIGIN OF VISITORS

Crimea welcomes around 5 million visitors every year. Visitors to Crimea mainly originate from:

– Ukraine
65%
– Overseas
35%

Of the 35% overseas visitors, the origins are as follows:
• Russia
75%
• Belarus
2.7%
• UK
6.6%
• United States
7.3%
• Poland
2.8%

Overall, the numbers of foreign visitors in Crimea has declined since 2007 (Figure 6.1

So the Crimea is actually most reliant on it's own country for tourists. Even if that percentage has declined and the spending per capita is not as high it is still the most important stream of revenue. The decline of Russians is highly interesting, there are similar competitors out there.

I think there is no doubt that tourism will take a big, big hit unless the situations stabilizes or improves.

A bit more up-to-date, the domestic share has increased...

As for the structure of the tourist flow in the Crimea, domestic and inbound tourism prevail: domestic tourism accounts for 58.8% of total flow, inbound tourism for 36.7%, outbound tourism poses just 4.6%.

The citizens of Ukraine comprise the largest share (69.2%) in the structure of tourist visits. The share of 27.9% stands for the visitors from the former Soviet countries (Russia, Belarus, Moldova, etc.). The remaining 2.9% are associated with the tourists from other parts of the world.

[JMA]

Last I looked he'd stopped dreaming about pipelines and US interests and gone back to reporting events, which seems a step in a reasonable direction.

Not much of a red line there. Of course intervention will always have costs, but they will probably not be imposed by the US or Europe.

The world already knew that, just as the world knew that Russian and Chinese denunciation of American interventions would not go beyond words.

Nothing they didn't already know.

OK so you think you know it all... so run along now and play with someone else... there's a good boy.

[JMA]

OK, so that is your view of what Carl has posted.

Any chance of you stating your opinion on this matter and other on SWC clearly and fully?

Or are you happy to snipe at other peoples contributions without exposing yourself to same?

Have you considered discussing your disposition with a professional?

Actually "we" can't do that in any direct sense: while the US is likely to become a gas exporter, it's not likely to provide more than a small fraction of Europe's needs. The main US contribution to European gas supply is less likely to be in direct export than in indirect displacement: the gas that the US used to buy on the global market will be available for purchase by other customers, and the gas that west coast US terminals ship to Asia will free up ME gas for European consumption. Australia's emergence as a significant exporter is also likely to address Asian demand and direct more ME gas to Europe. Europe will be able to find non-Russian gas, but it will not be directly provided by the US.

The main obstacle to reduction of Europe's gas dependence on Russia in the short term is not supply, but infrastructure. The gas is available, but Europe will have to make large investments in regasification terminals and rearranging their pipeline networks in order to use it, and these things take time, money, and commitment.

Even if Europe does wean itself from Russian Gas, the impact on security issues remains open to doubt. The Russians will still find buyers for their gas, though they will have to invest in infrastructure that points east instead of west. Even if Europe no longer depends on Russian gas, Europeans are still not likely to embrace a confrontational attitude toward Russia: European governments have neither the means nor the inclination to get confrontational.

Of course if the US really wanted to knock gas prices down and cause money issues for the Russians, we could always lift sanctions on Iran, but that's not likely.

In short, the global gas market is a large and complex thing with a lot of players and influences, and no unilateral US move is likely to have a very significant impact on Russia. Not much there that "we" can do to "them" directly.



Changing the way we talk to or about the Russians is not likely to change their behaviour.



An opportunity to do that may emerge, if they step on their dicks and create a mess. We can't create that opportunity, but we can remain alert and exploit it if it emerges.



Not much we can do about any of it, really... boycotting the G8 summit and talking a lot aren't going to stop the Russians from doing what they want to do. Most likely option is to watch, wait, and exploit any UW window they leave open. At this point a great deal remains unclear, and we're not in any way sure what the Russians intend to do.



That opportunity may arise, and if an insurgency emerges we may be able to support it. Whether we can create one, or whether we should try to, is another question.