We have a number of threads concerning the tense situation between Russia, the Ukraine and the Crimea. Peripherally the question in this OP has been touched on, but I don’t think anyone has really explored it in depth. I’m going to base the questions in this OP off of this CNN piece:
I’m not sure why more attention hasn’t been given to this topic. The possible implications of this are pretty frightening. That said, it seems crazy that the Russian’s might pull the trigger on a war with the Ukraine at this time. To me, it seems more likely that what Russia is really doing is basically making sure their land grab in the Crimea is unchallenged by showing the Ukraine a hammer that they will use on them if the Ukraine tries to use force to object to their loss of the Crimea. I suppose along those same lines, what Russia could be doing is putting forces in place in case they do provoke another Georgia and have an excuse to slice off more of the Ukraine while maintaining the fiction that they were attacked and are merely responding with force in kind. Or, maybe Russia is actually contemplating pushing this now, at this time in the thought that the West won’t really do anything if Russia bulldozes through the entire Ukraine (perhaps they figure that the Ukraine will or would fold if push came to shove and without much bloodshed).
I think they are keeping their options open, and if there is an opportunity, they will. If not, they will keep an intimidating presence so that Ukraine will lean more east than west. I suspect that will have the opposite effect.
Looks like Russia recalled their ambassador to NATO (I didn’t even realize people had ambassadors to NATO). Not sure if that means anything or not, but Russia is certainly willing to escalate toe to toe with the West.
Really? Usually recalling an ambassador is pretty serious, though granted I don’t really know what an ambassador to NATO really means in these terms. Why do you think it’s not an escalation?
Well firstly, as stated in your link, it comes after NATO announced it was halting cooperation with Russia. So it’s a predictable response. Secondly, it is pretty meaningless at this point.
According to the BBC, Russia is now claiming to have arrested 24 Ukrainian Terrorists inside Russia. The Russians are claiming these people are from the Right Wing/Nazi groups that they have been warning about WRT the power change in Ukraine.
Sounds to me like they have their pretext for a full tilt invasion all lined up.
I think that Russia will move into eastern Ukraine using the same flimsy premise that they used in Crimea (aiding ethnic Russians facing “oppression.”). This will cause condemnation from the West but once they are in, they’ll stay put as there will be no reason for them to leave.
The only things that I see preventing this from occurring would be:
[ol]
[li]**A sizable NATO build up in the countries bordering Ukraine **- Probably not going to happen[/li][li]The US unilaterally and publicly stating that it will provide the Ukraine with military and technical assistance - Also unlikely as it would require that current NATO members allow that their airspace,sea lanes and facilities be utilized for this effort.[/li][li]The current Ukrainian government taking a far tougher line than it has to date - Possible, but not appearing to be likely as the government is showing itself to weak and ineffective right now.[/li][/ol]
Frankly the Russian military isn’t even impressive on paper and it hasn’t won a significant conflict (or engaged in one) in almost thirty years. And that was against the rebel forces of a Third World nation aided by the US. If they were confronted,their performance would likely be average to poor.
One might wonder if Crimea was a test case. Russia figures it can just steal land with little repercussions. Why not grab more? Certainly those borders have been in flux over the centuries, as is true of much of Europe.
What are Ukraine’s armed forces like? Crimea seems to have been a cakewalk but what would a Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine expect to face (if the political will were there to use Ukraine’s forces)?
I don’t see halting cooperation as equating to withdrawing an ambassador. To me, it seems an escalation (and kind of a nitpicky point to be honest). YMMV of course. I’m curious why it’s meaningless, unless ambassador to NATO is meaningless (again, I have no idea what that even is or how meaningful a position it is…certainly it’s not on par with a regular ambassador I imagine).
I think it’s meaningless in that they’re probably not having particularly useful conversation with the Russian ambassador to NATO atm and there’s a bunch of other channels to go through when they want to make diplomatic discussions.
And when you publicly announce you aren’t going to cooperate then why the hell would you expect the Russian ambassador to hang around? And technically they used the code phrase “recalled for consultation”, which means they haven’t declared that they are out for ever. So yes, MMV
No. I’m pretty sure that Estonia and Latvia would be MUCH more worried right now if they weren’t in NATO. And it’s hardly surprising that non-aligned countries like Finland and Sweden are officially considering joining the organisation. I’m as critical of NATO as the next guy, but the current crisis has definitely given it the importance it lost during the past decade.
All the news sources I’ve looked into say that beside the numerical disadvantage Ukraine’s military has had issues similar to Russia’s when it comes to manning, paying and keeping up to date. Russia did have the advantage of starting with most of the former Soviet military so they could afford to cull out a lot of their rusty “fat” and end up with a leaner force that may not be up to a sustained major-power land war but can do a lot of damage against an inferior foe if it’s a limited operation or a punitive strike (and the Chechens or someone like that don’t open a second front). I suppose even more important would be, to what extent Ukraine’s organizational command must have suffered after the government upheavals, and still contain Russian sympathizers: witness how their Crimean fleet’s commanding admiral defected.
Also, remember that on their left flank they’ve got Russian [del]loyal vassal[/del] close ally Belarus who may not mind if Russians “absentmindedly” take the shortcut to Kiev through her territory and airspace.
You know, if this was an EU style of game, I’d press forward and take all of the Ukraine east of the Dnieper river. That would let Russia link eastern Ukraine into Belarus, gives a second secure passage to Crimea and puts Kiev effectively within range of artillery if you really wanted to make a point.
That would likely put the kibosh on Ukrainian membership in NATO and I could see them adopt the same political association with Russia Finland use to have. Both of which Russia would like to see.
Perhaps it’s because I’m European and most posters in this thread are American, I don’t know, but there are a lot of strange statements in this thread, IMHO.
In what way is the Ukraine goverment showing itself weak? What options do they have? War with Russia? That’s not “strong”, it’s suicide, and the goverment of a country has responsibilities towards it people. In my opinion the goverment of the Ukraine has been very rational and have done what they could have done so far.
Compared to what? Ukraine? Poland? Lituania? – What in god’s name are you blathering about?
So you think that Russia would not follow its own doctrine of protecting Russians in Ukraine, if it came to that, because the US may launch nuclear weapons? – How is that suggestion in any way connected to the real world?
Nato is very, very far from meaningless. Nato is today of extreme importance in Europe “as of the 21 century”.
Sweden is not officially considering joining Nato.