It seems to me that the Dutch in particular have a legitimate axe to grind over the situation in Ukraine. As I understand it, there are still a number of bodies rotting in the field there, and due to security concern the recovery workers are sitting in a hotel all day.
I am sure that the Dutch have some pretty well trained and equipped troops. And I am sure they could borrow some from their neighbors. Wouldn’t they be justified in dropping a bunch of commandos and Apaches on the site, setting up a 25 mile perimeter, and declaring that any combatants who enter the area will be shot. Let the investigators do their work and then just get the hell out.
I have a suspicion that, especially if they gave Putin a heads-up, they’d be allowed their minor and temporary invasion. The main reason for the Putin heads-up is to make sure no Russian nationals or forces wander into the area.
Could they hold the area effectively? Would they be justified? Would it likely set off a larger conflict? Should they do it?
This all just comes from thinking about how unreasonable it is that the parties there can’t seem to make a little space to get the civilian bodies out, and how the Dutch don’t seem adequately outraged.
If you get permission from Putin you’ve effectively ceded the question as to who owns eastern Ukraine. If you leave Putin out you and ask the rebels you’ve ceded the question of regional authority to the rebels and undermined the Ukrainian government.
Ask the the Ukrainian government and you’re now seen as agents of that government by the rebels.
So no, dropping paratroopers and setting up a perimeter is a bad idea.
I think the OP vastly overestimates the capabilities of the Dutch military. The Ukrainian government, with tanks and air support are having a hard time taking the territory where the crash site is. There’s no way the Dutch could do so.
Not to speak for the families of the victims, but if it was my family member rotting in the field I would be strongly opposed to sending someone else to risk their life to retrieve the corpse.
All fair points, but I suspect that if they didn’t ask, but told the parties what they were doing (with minimal notice) then everyone could save some face. I think the Ukrainians would choose to just stay away from the area. After all, Europe is on their side. The Russians would probably likewise be able to concentrate on other areas, quietly acquiescing. The wild card would be the separatists.
Perhaps it is naive on my part, but I would think the factions would be happy to have this mess off their collective lawn. Each of them has their own goals and this mess must be in their way…
That surprises me. I wouldn’t think it would be a major undertaking for a 1st world military to hold a small chunk of land, defensively, for a few weeks. I know nothing about military strategy & logistics, but isn’t that a false comparison? The Ukrainian forces are trying to root out enemies and hold the region. These hypothetical forces would just be trying to keep everyone at bay for a few weeks.
I am assuming that the factions wouldn’t attack these forces, and would generally steer well clear since they wouldn’t want to escalate something with a Nato member.
But I would be curious if there are any knowledgeable about what would actually be required to maintain a small bubble of security around the crash site. In my mind its a couple hundred troops, a few gunships inside the perimeter, air surveillance, and air support standing by. By military standards that isn’t a big operation, is it? Forgive me if that’s all just foolish on my part…
It’s not a silly mistake, but it’s a mistake: yes, it’s a major undertaking, even for a company sized occupying force–and you don’t hold a 25 mile perimeter with a company, you hold it with a division. But let’s say they try it with a company (i.e., 100-150 soldiers)
First and foremost, put a hundred people anywhere for a couple weeks, and you have major needs for food, water, and shelter. Paratroopers are geared to hold a position for hours at a time, long enough for the general advance to reach them; a few days is severely stretching their defensive capabilities, and that’s assuming no serious enemy engagement. No one who hasn’t been in war or real exercises understands just how much ammo you can go through in a day–far more than one person can carry by themselves. And unless the Dutch army is going to drive up, someone has to construct a rough airstrip so Dutch transports can start removing the bodies they’ve claimed.
And that’s the problem. If you dropped in a hundred commandos armed with everything that could be loaded on a couple C-130s, the most likely outcome would be rebel forces surrounding them and, over a loudspeaker, letting them know just how much artillery was aimed at them. The US has already publicly accused Russia of firing artillery and rockets into the Ukraine in support of the rebels. Were I the rebel commander, I’d drop some rounds on the Dutch and give them one chance to surrender, which they most likely would.
And then you, the Dutch prime minister, would go on TV to explain why you handed over a hundred commandos without nearly the gear and supplies to withstand even a minimal assault, to be captured or killed.
And even without all that, the operation you’re describing would cost millions for a dubious goal of militarily executing at great risk the normal mortuary duties that any civilized government should carry out anyway.
To give a brief idea of the ground covered by 200 soldiers: In WWII, Soviet rifle companies typically attacked on a front 350 metres wide, and defended 1,000 to 1,500 metres. Putting that into the context of a circular defense with the frontage as a circumference, you’re talking about a zone 300-500 metres in diameter. That might be enough to secure the crash site briefly; not nearly enough to hold for weeks in order to build a combat airstrip to ship bodies out, especially with top-of-the-line Russian AA batteries likely to shoot down your resupply planes.
Not just the Dutch, I do not believe that any European nation can project their military very far.
They do not have the military logistical infrastructure to do so.
The French and British have done interventions in Africa. Getting across the border into Ukraine would not be a massive problem for them.
But the operation would be large, intrusive and welcomed only by the Ukrainian government because they would latch onto it and use it to re-establish control in the region. It would flag to the Russians that the EU was directly aligning themselves with Ukraine. Russia, however, wants Ukraine either dependant on Russia or officially neutral and left outside of the EU. That’s ultimately the whole point of taking Crimea and stirring up trouble in the eastern regions.
Well, thinking that things won’t go wrong kind of started this stage of the mess in eastern Ukraine. Currently cooler heads have prevailed, but risky behavior on Putin’s part is what got us here. So far, no one has set off too much craziness in response, but it’s not over yet. If you start getting the NATO members’ militaries directly involved, what happens when things go wrong again?
And you’re 1000’s of miles from home with no support, vastly outnumbered, and literally surrounded by enemy troops with more than enough firepower to reduce you to your constituent parts who’ve shown no hesitation in doing so to others.
My mistake - obviously the point wasn’t that engaging in a fire fight with Russian proxies in a contested region could escalate and result in unintended consequences.
Naturally chest thumping over gun size was the the point Lemur866 was going for.