Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[Dayuhan]

What one "sees" is not what you "get".

I could actually go day by day the last two weeks and depict in detail that while you, EU and Obama "thinks" you are ahead---Putin has actually taken three steps forward and only a half step backwards.

What exactly were those steps, and where have they gotten him?

What I see is that some people here who are personally invested in the idea of an ascendent Russia and the West in retreat are very eager to cling to that construct.

He is in a race---namely does he get what he needs and wants and that is the New Russia ie the Donetsk before his economy tanks for a long while. Why Donetsk---it is where the bulk of all Russian military production which Russia needs for their 2020 rearming program is currently being produced and it would take Putin ten years to rebuild it inside Russia---he needs the Donetsk.

That is his race and we do not even see it---strange is it not?

A race against what? If he wants Donetsk, all he has to do is take it, as he took Crimea. He could do it today. He could have done it months ago. He hasn't, which suggests that either he doesn't want it all that badly or he's concerned about potential consequences.

You honesty think Putin thinks for a single moment he is losing come on Dayuhan.

It would be silly for anyone here to speculate on whether or not Putin thinks he's winning or losing. No way to know what he thinks.

If you think for one moment those Russian "war tourists" or what I call irregulars are not being slid through a border that Putin "claims" was secure with the approval of the FSB ---check this link showing documents of a killed "Russian war tourist"---down to the Russian military unit he was assigned to.

We all know they are there. Are they winning?

The Ukrainian government could still blow it, of course, if they lay siege to Donetsk and create a bloodbath. I don't think they are that stupid, though. If they can back the rebels into a few urban centers they can hold up, offer a conditional amnesty that would send the Russians back to Russia without consequence and give the local irregulars a way out that does not involve urban warfare.

We'll see soon enough, but surely you notice that all the talk about how Putin is bound to seize all of eastern Ukraine and link up with Transnistria has completely evaporated.

[Ulenspiegel]

outlaw,

if you use the situation in 2012 as starting and reference point, you have real trouble to explain where Russia won.

Russia is actually paying for less she had in 2012, this is not a gain, especially when your opponent can use asymmetric economic warfare to hurt you. An occupation of eastern parts of Ukraine would increase the problems, a cynic would actually hope for it.

Putin is minimizing losses, sorry.

[JMA]

The annexation of Crimea for one. This is now part of Russia and not part of a neighbouring state which was increasingly difficult to dominate.

outlaw,

if you use the situation in 2012 as starting and reference point, you have real trouble to explain where Russia won.

Russia is actually paying for less she had in 2012, this is not a gain, especially when your opponent can use asymmetric economic warfare to hurt you. An occupation of eastern parts of Ukraine would increase the problems, a cynic would actually hope for it.

Putin is minimizing losses, sorry.

[Ulenspiegel]

The annexation of Crimea for one. This is now part of Russia and not part of a neighbouring state which was increasingly difficult to dominate.

They (re)occupied a region, that is supplied by Ukraine, with an economy much weaker than their own in order to secure a maritime base. This menas in my book they will have to pay.

Without occupation of eastern Ukraine Russia faces the interesting situation that parts of "her" industry are now located in a country that was turned from neutral/friendly to hostile by Russian operations. Great. BTW there are not only some production facilities for military hardware but also for oil/gas production and distribution in Ukraine. Of course they can rebuild this industry in Mother Russia, however, that will cost.

Occupation of eastern parts of Ukraine, again a region with weaker economy, may solve the industrial problem, but requires even more investments than the Krim.

Western Ukraine, a neutral or friendly buffer, is lost and a country with around ~30 million citizen (around 1/4 of the Russian population) will now spend recources to defend against Russian operations in future.

[Firn]

They (re)occupied a region, that is supplied by Ukraine, with an economy much weaker than their own in order to secure a maritime base. This menas in my book they will have to pay.

Without occupation of eastern Ukraine Russia faces the interesting situation that parts of "her" industry are now located in a country that was turned from neutral/friendly to hostile by Russian operations. Great. BTW there are not only some production facilities for military hardware but also for oil/gas production and distribution in Ukraine. Of course they can rebuild this industry in Mother Russia, however, that will cost.

Occupation of eastern parts of Ukraine, again a region with weaker economy, may solve the industrial problem, but requires even more investments than the Krim.

Western Ukraine, a neutral or friendly buffer, is lost and a country with around ~30 million citizen (around 1/4 of the Russian population) will now spend recources to defend against Russian operations in future.

I agree. A key to understand the current crisis is that the personal goals of Putin and Russia aren't necessarily the same, to put it midly. This is true even if there is no doubt that for now, after massive propaganda campaigns, the Kremlin leader has a very strong popular backing.

PewGlobal has some interesting new polls:

More than seven-in-ten Ukrainians also express disappointment with Putin. Broad majorities of Ukrainians in the west (89%) and the east (66%) express no confidence in Russia’s president, while just 5% of residents of Crimea say the same. About half of Russian-only speakers (51%) in the east lack confidence in Putin’s foreign policy compared with 43% who say they trust him.

Ukrainians’ attitudes toward Russia also have changed significantly over time. Six-in-ten in Ukraine rate Russia unfavorably today, compared with just 11% in 2011, the last time the question was asked. Within Ukraine, there are deep divides by region and language. More than eight-in-ten in the country’s west (83%) give Russia low marks, compared with 45% in the east and only 4% in Crimea. Within the east, Russian-only speakers (28%) are less negative toward Russia than their neighbors (58%).2

It strongly supports the comment of many that almost all of Ukraine will be lost for quite some time for Russia as friend and partner. The aspect of the minority of the minority of Russian-only speakers which trust Putin is of course interesting.

But another survey, published by Ukraine's Razumkov Center last week, makes unhappy reading for the Russian President. The Razumkov pollsters said 54 percent of Ukrainian people want their country to join Nato, with just 32 percent against.

P.S: Good to see oversampling in the East and Crimea, given their smaller size. Russian-only speakers tend of course to be over-rappresented as they are considerable more urban then bilinguals.

Country: Ukraine
Sample design: Multi-stage cluster sample stratified by Ukraine’s six regions plus ten of the largest cities – Kyiv (Kiev), Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, Lviv, Kryvyi Rih, Lugansk, and Mikolayev – as well as three cities on the Crimean peninsula – Simferopol, Sevastopol, and Kerch
Mode: Face-to-face adults 18 plus
Languages: Russian, Ukrainian
Fieldwork dates: April 5 – April 23, 2014
Sample size: 1,659
Margin of error: +/-3.3 percentage points
Representative: Adult population (Survey includes oversamples of Crimea and of the South, East and Southeast regions. The data were weighted to reflect the actual regional distribution in Ukraine.)

[JMA]

They (re)occupied a region, that is supplied by Ukraine, with an economy much weaker than their own in order to secure a maritime base. This menas in my book they will have to pay.

Are you saying you don't understand the importance to Russia of the access to the Black Sea afforded by bases in Crimea? I would suggest they are prepared to pay... and with the annexation it will make it that much more difficult for Russia to hand Crimea back.

It seems that the patheticly weak response from the US and Germany to the annexation will serve to embolden Russia (as did the pathetic response from the West to the Russian aggression in Georgia in 2008). When will Russia make its next move? Not a matter of if, rather one of when.

When Ukraine promised to take Crimea back the Russians threatened to use nukes. That got the urine flowing on the White House floor again and the Germans no doubt making promises of no more sanctions.

Game, set and match to Russia.

Without occupation of eastern Ukraine Russia faces the interesting situation that parts of "her" industry are now located in a country that was turned from neutral/friendly to hostile by Russian operations. Great. BTW there are not only some production facilities for military hardware but also for oil/gas production and distribution in Ukraine. Of course they can rebuild this industry in Mother Russia, however, that will cost.

Occupation of eastern parts of Ukraine, again a region with weaker economy, may solve the industrial problem, but requires even more investments than the Krim.

I am no suggesting that Putin is the master strategist. Maybe his critics are correct that he is taking a short term view. It is not like he has any opposition... Obama and Frau Merkel's Germany are a joke. He has two years left of Obama... he can operate with much freedom, even a challenge to NATO (he would probably get away with).

Western Ukraine, a neutral or friendly buffer, is lost and a country with around ~30 million citizen (around 1/4 of the Russian population) will now spend recources to defend against Russian operations in future.

Ukraine was drifting away from Russia anyway (for good historical reasons) and Putin would have seen that. Putin would be smart enough to realise that there is no military threat from Ukraine and Europe (although he may play to the Russian audience in this regard).

[mirhond]

When Ukraine promised to take Crimea back the Russians threatened to use nukes

Nope, they didn't. Lavrov's speech doesn't contain word "nuclear". Besides, Ukropian army isn't fit to hold a candle to Russian one.

[JMA]

Nope, they didn't. Lavrov's speech doesn't contain word "nuclear". Besides, Ukropian army isn't fit to hold a candle to Russian one.

Yes... they don't need to use the word to make the point. Russia is the bully boy of the region, that is why I suggested that the US should offer to supply Ukraine with tactical nukes - they will use them and make Russia pay a heavy price for any future adventurism.

[OUTLAW 09]

Nope, they didn't. Lavrov's speech doesn't contain word "nuclear". Besides, Ukropian army isn't fit to hold a candle to Russian one.

come on Russian expert mirhond---what a broken record---this is the same Russian Army that sends in Russian SF carrying their own passports and they get killed and have those passports on them, the same Russian Army that "somehow" misplaced 25 T64 tanks that were to be destroyed under the OCSE regime, the same Russian Army that drove Grads to the Ukrainian border parked them and then did what---walked away, the same Russian Army that yesterday admitted to sending advanced weapons into the Ukraine since 3 Jul, the same Russian Army that somehow cannot secure even the Russian/Ukrainian Army after being told to do it by Putin himself.

so come on Russian expert mirhond--we are talking about the same Russian Army---right?

Or maybe Russian expert mirhond the Russian Army you are talking about is lost somewhere on the Chinese border using a map and compass to find St. Petersburg?

[mirhond]

The Ukrainian government could still blow it, of course, if they lay siege to Donetsk and create a bloodbath. I don't think they are that stupid, though. If they can back the rebels into a few urban centers they can hold up, offer a conditional amnesty that would send the Russians back to Russia without consequence and give the local irregulars a way out that does not involve urban warfare.

Actually they are that stupid - Kievan authority promised to surround and blocade Donetsk and Lugansk. I won't be bloodbath, it will be surrender by starvation.

[JMA]

We'll see soon enough, but surely you notice that all the talk about how Putin is bound to seize all of eastern Ukraine and link up with Transnistria has completely evaporated.

Yes Putin had the US, Germany and the EU in a state of panic over what they thought Putin's next move would be.

His first step was Crimea, the second was the threat to what you mention.

No question he has won outright on Crimea. (His step one)

He is still sitting with Donetsk so maybe only a half step back... Which is understandable given US weakness and German gutlessness.

I guess he is judging his moment to repeat the two steps forward.

[Dayuhan]

No question he has won outright on Crimea. (His step one)

That will seem a pretty hollow win if the rest of the Ukraine ends up under a pro-western government.

He is still sitting with Donetsk so maybe only a half step back... Which is understandable given US weakness and German gutlessness.

How is that understandable? If he sees himself faced by weakness and gutlessness, wouldn't the logical move be to take what he wants and establish a fait accomplii, as he did with Crimea? What does he gain by waiting? Not as if things have been going his way in the meantime.

[Ulenspiegel]

Yes Putin had the US, Germany and the EU in a state of panic over what they thought Putin's next move would be.

His first step was Crimea, the second was the threat to what you mention.

No question he has won outright on Crimea. (His step one)

He is still sitting with Donetsk so maybe only a half step back... Which is understandable given US weakness and German gutlessness.

I guess he is judging his moment to repeat the two steps forward.

To your surprise maybe, good strategy is developed and executed in cold blood with brain, guts, especially, testicles are no substitute. :-)

You have not delivered one coherent argument yet why the current strategic setup is a loss for the west. Hint, a good strategy emphasise own strengths and exploits at best at the same time the weaknesses of your opponent, that actually happens. The PR could be better, however, sunstance is more than ok.

Minor point, you obviously do not understand that the country which could put the Russians really between a rock and a hard place is not Germany, but the UK.

[JMA]

To your surprise maybe, good strategy is developed and executed in cold blood with brain, guts, especially, testicles are no substitute. :-)

You have not delivered one coherent argument yet why the current strategic setup is a loss for the west. Hint, a good strategy emphasise own strengths and exploits at best at the same time the weaknesses of your opponent, that actually happens. The PR could be better, however, sunstance is more than ok.

Minor point, you obviously do not understand that the country which could put the Russians really between a rock and a hard place is not Germany, but the UK.

I would suggest to you that the annexation of Crimea by Russia is a big win for Russia. The western loss is that they - in this case - the US and Germany to be impotent and unable to restrain Russian territorial aggression.

Who are you trying to lecture?

Russia has made a move - even when not militarily in great shape which says more about the US and Germany than Russia - and the West have proved to be impotent. Russia has exploited the weakness in potential opponents with their current limited strength. That is not too difficult to understand is it?

The UK? Really? I suppose you are able to explain that?

[Firn]

A more recent map, the Ukrainian cyrillic script shouldn't pose much of a problem.



As I have written before the Lysychansk hub with a normal population around 350.000 seems to get increasingly isolated by the Ukrainian forces. Liberating such a densly populated area would greatly reduce the amount of citiziens living in what is to a good degree a reign of terror and crime.

Difficult to know from my perspective, but to me it seems that securing the borders does have a higher priority for the Ukrainians then taking the fight at once to Luhansk and Donetsk. At least most of the casualities come from border areas and some military progess too. There seem to be good reasons for such a focus:

1) The 'Grad' strike which created many military casualties underlines how important it is to stop at least heavy weapons like tanks and additional artillery supply coming from Russia. At least they are harder to smuggle then Manpads and ATGM once the border area gets secured.

2) Russian 'volunteers' will also have a bit harder time to get in and might fear that they won't get home that easily. Even if the 'frontline' seems to be rather porpous the risk to get killed or captured will be increased. Ideally this means that a good deal try to leave foreign land and go home as quickly as possible.

3) The civilians have more time to leave the cities and bring themselves in safety which means a lower risk of civilian casualities by combat and seperatist atrocities.

There has been certainly made considerable progess and for now the three largest broder crossings seem to be under Ukrainian control. Still it would surprise me if there still wouldn't be a constant influx of Russian war material into Ukraine, be it over the flat open countryside or the Seversky Donets.

Lots of fog of war of course and many unkowns. We will see.

[BrentWilliams]

A more recent map, the Ukrainian cyrillic script shouldn't pose much of a problem.



As I have written before the Lysychansk hub with a normal population around 350.000 seems to get increasingly isolated by the Ukrainian forces. Liberating such a densly populated area would greatly reduce the amount of citiziens living in what is to a good degree a reign of terror and crime.

Difficult to know from my perspective, but to me it seems that securing the borders does have a higher priority for the Ukrainians then taking the fight at once to Luhansk and Donetsk. At least most of the casualities come from border areas and some military progess too. There seem to be good reasons for such a focus:

1) The 'Grad' strike which created many military casualties underlines how important it is to stop at least heavy weapons like tanks and additional artillery supply coming from Russia. At least they are harder to smuggle then Manpads and ATGM once the border area gets secured.

2) Russian 'volunteers' will also have a bit harder time to get in and might fear that they won't get home that easily. Even if the 'frontline' seems to be rather porpous the risk to get killed or captured will be increased. Ideally this means that a good deal try to leave foreign land and go home as quickly as possible.

3) The civilians have more time to leave the cities and bring themselves in safety which means a lower risk of civilian casualities by combat and seperatist atrocities.

There has been certainly made considerable progess and for now the three largest broder crossings seem to be under Ukrainian control. Still it would surprise me if there still wouldn't be a constant influx of Russian war material into Ukraine, be it over the flat open countryside or the Seversky Donets.

Lots of fog of war of course and many unkowns. We will see.

The conflict seems to be fueled by a Russian UW campaign. Boarder to stop Russian support should be the primary military aim.