alexkvaskov
New Member
Not that the rebels would want to with Kiev's population likely highly hostile to them.They're not going to take Kiev.
Not that the rebels would want to with Kiev's population likely highly hostile to them.They're not going to take Kiev.
I don't see the optimism behind your predictions. You are assuming that the size of the rebel force stays the same. We know this to be untrue over the course of the last year as Russia has constantly sent increasing materiel across the border.Panicky non-sense. The rebels are incapable of any large scale offensives. They've barely managed to close Debal'tsevo and then only because Ukraine doesn't seem to be willing to maneuver. Ever. They're not going to take Kiev. They're not even going to Kharkov or Zaporozhye. Chances are they won't even take Mariupol', though I suppose that one is at least possible.
Meanwhile, the cease-fire is holding - mostly. The only places fighting is continuing is the Debal'tsevo pocket. Ukraine is continuing to try to break through, to the city, but failing, meanwhile the rebels are pushing into Debal'tsevo slowly, but surely.
You're assuming Russia wants to escalate. So far ever escalation has been by the Kiev government, as it introduced heavier and heavier weapons to the conflict zone, and as it pushed harder and harder to retake the rebel territories. Russia has escalated in response to it. The first real rebel offensive has been Debal'tsevo (Ilovaysk and Novoazovsk were Russian Army). It's been very slow, and very clumsy, despite the near-ideal conditions for it. Given Russia's position, and the actual actions taken, I see no reason to think the rebels will realistically threaten anything outside of Lugansk or Donetsk region. But maybe you see something I don't. If so, please share what that might be. Where do you see the threat to Kiev (the city) in the current situation?I don't see the optimism behind your predictions. You are assuming that the size of the rebel force stays the same. We know this to be untrue over the course of the last year as Russia has constantly sent increasing materiel across the border.
I'm sorry, what makes you think Russia is going to rebuild it? They've just reaffirmed that they want the regions to remain part of Ukraine. At negotiations with the west, Russia strongly suggested that they expect the Kiev government to spend lots of money on rebuilding what they themselves have destroyed. It seems to me that Russia expects Ukraine, and the west, to pay for rebuilding the place. Whether that will actually happen or not remains to be seen, but I doubt Russia will pay for rebuilding the place.On another point has Russia calculated the ongoing cost of rebuilding and maintaining it's newly won territory? Isn't that region now going to present a financial black hole for the next 5 years?
Well, the first escalation happened when armed insurgents took over the centers of power in Kiev.Every escalation has been by the Kiev government? I'm afraid you're not thinking straight.
Firstly, how did the armed conflict begin? Did the Ukrainian government send its army to the east to attack the peaceful citizens of its own country, as they went about their lawful business? No, it began with armed insurgents taking over the centres of power. First escalation.
You're assuming Russia wants to escalate. So far ever escalation has been by the Kiev government, as it introduced heavier and heavier weapons to the conflict zone, and as it pushed harder and harder to retake the rebel territories. Russia has escalated in response to it. The first real rebel offensive has been Debal'tsevo (Ilovaysk and Novoazovsk were Russian Army). It's been very slow, and very clumsy, despite the near-ideal conditions for it. Given Russia's position, and the actual actions taken, I see no reason to think the rebels will realistically threaten anything outside of Lugansk or Donetsk region. But maybe you see something I don't. If so, please share what that might be. Where do you see the threat to Kiev (the city) in the current situation?
I'm sorry, what makes you think Russia is going to rebuild it? They've just reaffirmed that they want the regions to remain part of Ukraine. At negotiations with the west, Russia strongly suggested that they expect the Kiev government to spend lots of money on rebuilding what they themselves have destroyed. It seems to me that Russia expects Ukraine, and the west, to pay for rebuilding the place. Whether that will actually happen or not remains to be seen, but I doubt Russia will pay for rebuilding the place.
I don't think I could agree with you more. You nailed it on the head. But I'd like to also add, let's remember, the masked men seizing centers of power happended in the Crimea first, and Russia then as now, denied involvement. Some local units, backed up by Russian troops and equipment from Sevastopol helped first seize, then annex a territory belonging to a sovereign state. Then it happens in the Donbass, what was Kiev supposed to do? Wait until the Donbass was annexed and Putin decides he's ready to again admit the presence of Russian soldiers? When is it permissible, to defend the territorial integrity of your country? Isn't that what a Army is for?I don't even begin to understand your thinking Feanor. The conflict was initiated originally by masked armed provocateurs turning up at Government buildings in the East and persuading the local people that they were under threat of their lives from Nazi types in Kiev.
Then after the round up and expulsion of Kiev supporters, the conflict quickly turned into an armed one, with hoards of well armed troops appearing from no where with Russia made equipment.
So Ukraine naturally wanted to defend it's borders from the invasion. Russia initially denied that there was an invasion (an assertion it still maintains) while releasing contradictory statements that there were 'holiday troops' and 'volunteers' that have indeed crossed the border into Ukraine. Any attempt by Ukraine to win back the occupied territory was met with the supply of increased Russian troops and heavier weaponry as Russia insisted on keeping every military advantage against relatively out of date Ukrainian equipment.
So whatever Russia may call it, an invasion has taken place. Do you agree with this? Was Ukraine entitled to defend it's territory? Was it ever Russia's place to become involved under any circumstances? What else could Kiev have done? Stand by and watch more of it's territory get consumed?
So from the narratives I have (taken from RT, BBC, CNN, and any other website I can find and read) all concur with this. How could Ukraine have done anything differently?
How can Russia not take responsibility for it's newly acquired territory? Ukraine Government will as I understand have no jurisdiction in the newly acquired territories. How therefore can Europe contribute to rebuilding what it has no authority over? Are Russian troops now going to vacate the area and leave it to the Ukraine?
I can't see it. The East of Ukraine will now be treated the same as Crimea. A military annexed territory. No Western involvement.
Regarding further escalation, the 'rebels' still do not have all of the territory in the east. I bet they will try and claim it, with further support from Russia.
So which ever way you look at it Kiev has the moral high ground as far as I can see. Any region that shows a leaning to the West in that area suffers the same fate of destabilisation followed by Russian occupation.
Now Russia will face the same reality as the US did in Iraq; it must fund the cost. As proof of what I am saying, look at the millions already spent on those huge aid convoys. Why are they doing that do you suppose?
I don't think I could agree with you more. You nailed it on the head. But I'd like to also add, let's remember, the masked men seizing centers of power happended in the Crimea first, and Russia then as now, denied involvement.............../QUOTE]
I disagree with nothing there and thank you for the confirmation.
I'm gong to chance my arm knowing that there are a few Russian supporting members on the forum. Please feel free to agree/disagree ....... In the end no one really knows the motives of either super power, so we can only use intuition backed up by the limited events that we see unfolding now.
1) I don't see that the Kiev riots and overthrow of the Russia friendly regime was anything to do with the West or the US. It was the people themselves seeing the limitations of their current situation as the weaker 'bullied' partner to Russia.
2) Russia is trying to draw the West into a larger conflict. It's economy is in poor shape and no one knows how much the declining oil price is going to affect them in the coming years. War comes to the rescue of a struggling regime. Even if support for Putin is strong at the moment domestically, as poverty takes hold that may change rapidly.
3) The lies and deceit pouring out of Russia is making the leadership look highly corrupt. The US and EU know full what they are dealing with and fear that they have a potential lunatic on their hands. As you suggest the recent flights over EU and US airspace proves this. As does the massive spending on their military including their strategic nuclear arsenal. That weaponry is there to protect not the people but the corrupt leadership. Exposure to the values of the west such as true democracy, real laws and regulation is what that leadership fears the most.
4) Putin will try anything to score points on the world stage particularly if it means hurting the people who have administered sanctions. An example over the last two days is his visit to Hungary to secure a gas deal. He will try and drive a wedge in the alliance. I'm not saying that the alliance is solid; just that Putin will exploit any daylight in it to score points.
Yes, this is how this conflict started. It all started with Maidan, that's the root cause for all of this. Everything since has been a reaction by Russia.[Well, the first escalation happened when armed insurgents took over the centers of power in Kiev.
Russians in the East, basically, did the same thing that anti-Russian, gun totting Svoboda paralimitaries, allready did. One should have expected that the government take over by extremely anti-Russian Kiev extremists, would definitely prompt the similar response in the East, and that is exactly what happened.
So the first escalation was on the Ukrainian side.
Just quickly coming backing to this, but those 'Mech' bgdes are actually 'Motorised' Bgdes. Makes slightly more sense, considering the lack of MBT's available....New Ukrainian army units
...
14th Mech Bde - former 51st
53rd Mech
54th Mech
57th Mech
58th Mech
59th Mech
Ð”ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐœÐ¾ÐºÑ€ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½ - Ðовые чаÑти ВСУ
They most certainly were in danger of being oppressed! The first thing the Maidan government did was to abolish the Russian language. Then you started seeing roundups and killing in Odessa, ect. They are still ongoing, especially in Odessa.And Russia had no right to respond. The citizens in the east and crimea where never in danger of getting brutally and violently opressed by the new Ukrainian government.
I like how you start the story at the point convenient to your view point...Firstly, how did the armed conflict begin? Did the Ukrainian government send its army to the east to attack the peaceful citizens of its own country, as they went about their lawful business? No, it began with armed insurgents taking over the centres of power. First escalation.
It's escalation if the conflict is internal between two parties of the Ukrainian population. And yes, Russia backed the rebels just like the US and EU backed the Kiev government.Any attempt to retake lost territories isn't an escalation, unless the force used is disproportionate. If, for example, it's possible to retake territory with police, but tanks are sent, that is an escalation. But we know that initial attempts to reimpose central control with lightly armed forces were defeated. They were outgunned, & surprised by the strength of the resistance they encountered. Increasing inadequate forces to try to match the adversary isn't an escalation: it's a response to one.
What previous government held territory are you talking about? The rebels have only retaken territory they lost earlier. And only a fraction of it.We can skip over a lot of details, such as Russian material aid (an escalation), Russian troops (an escalation) to the late summer Russian/rebel offensive. This was a major escalation, the seizure of previously government-held territory by rebels & Russian regulars invading directly from Russia. How in the name of all that's holy was that anything other than the biggest single escalation in the whole war? You must admit that it was not done by the Ukrainian government.
Russia wants the territory reintegrated into Ukraine, but under special conditions and with special privileges.As for rebuilding by Ukraine & the West - that depends on who controls the region. If it ends up like Abkhazia or South Ossetia, or Transdnistria, it won't see any money from Ukraine or the west. It has to be reintegrated into Ukraine, or be dependent on Russian charity.
Really? It had nothing to do with western money, or western political support for the Maydan, or even the disgusting willingness of western leaders to sit down with Svoboda and Right Sector representatives? No?1) I don't see that the Kiev riots and overthrow of the Russia friendly regime was anything to do with the West or the US. It was the people themselves seeing the limitations of their current situation as the weaker 'bullied' partner to Russia.
Nonsense. Russia is trying to draw the line on western expansion. They want the west to stay out of the ex-USSR. They don't want a larger conflict, they want an end to NATO and EU expansionism. They want guarantees that they will not be ostracized and excluded and since EU and NATO membership is off the table, they need to make sure that all of Europe doesn't turn into one giant power.2) Russia is trying to draw the West into a larger conflict. It's economy is in poor shape and no one knows how much the declining oil price is going to affect them in the coming years. War comes to the rescue of a struggling regime. Even if support for Putin is strong at the moment domestically, as poverty takes hold that may change rapidly.
Nonsense. The corruption of the Russian leadership is making them look corrupt.3) The lies and deceit pouring out of Russia is making the leadership look highly corrupt.
Not really. Democracy has been marred in Russia with the stigma of the 90s. The liberals in Russia are the weakest political group. The biggest opposition to Putin is the Soviet-nostalgia coalition which consists of the CPRF and the Left Front. And they do trump the law and order card, claiming that the Communist government could end corruption.The US and EU know full what they are dealing with and fear that they have a potential lunatic on their hands. As you suggest the recent flights over EU and US airspace proves this. As does the massive spending on their military including their strategic nuclear arsenal. That weaponry is there to protect not the people but the corrupt leadership. Exposure to the values of the west such as true democracy, real laws and regulation is what that leadership fears the most.
Of course. He's a politician.4) Putin will try anything to score points on the world stage particularly if it means hurting the people who have administered sanctions. An example over the last two days is his visit to Hungary to secure a gas deal. He will try and drive a wedge in the alliance. I'm not saying that the alliance is solid; just that Putin will exploit any daylight in it to score points.
Hindsight is wonderful, but at the time it wasn't obvious. And to be honest, had things gone differently, there certainly could have been a danger of it. As is freedom of speech, political freedom, etc. have all been severely curtailed. Ukraine recently jailed a journalist for writing an article that condemns the draft and calls for a professional military, for example. Not to mention the arrests and round-ups of anti-Western political activists.And Russia had no right to respond. The citizens in the east and crimea where never in danger of getting brutally and violently opressed by the new Ukrainian government.
Conflating the two is certainly convenient. But the events in Crimea and in the east are quite different.Grapping sovereign territory of your neighbour and initiating and fueling armed civil war in your neighbours country is wrong, pure and simple.
It's not a question of capitulation. It's a question of realizing the reality, and making the best use of what they had to secure the most for their people. Ukraine isn't going to join the EU this year. Or the next year. Or any time in the next decade (short of a miracle). It would cost Ukraine nothing to promise as much out loud, and could have gotten Ukraine everything.And that's where the talk about Ukrainian politicians having a moral duty of stepping down and juts capitulating in the face of russian agression is also wrong.
Nope. There certainly wouldn't have. But Russia has been honing the military as an instrument of foreign policy for quite some time. And given the willingness of many western powers to use force in the third world, it's not surprising that Russia follows suit. What pisses off the West is that they did it in Europe, which the EU wants to keep from ever happening because it's close to home. If a French war in Africa or a British involvement in the Middle East goes bad, it's ok. You can pack up, go home, and it doesn't affect your population too much. If wars start being fought close to home, suddenly the first world has to deal with misery and bloodshed close to home instead of on TV. That's the real reason the EU is so furious.Russia brought war and landgrapping back to europe. It destroyed the calm and safe post cold war peace of europe. And ironical it made their stupid comments about a new cold war become real due to it's own recent actions.
When I see our european leaders rushing back and forth in order to end this whole mess in peace and without further loss of life just to get lied to again and again my bloodpressure rises considerably.
Does anybody here really thinks that there would be even a fraction of the mess in Ukraine if Russia wouldn't have intervened with anything more than soft power?
It's not Ukraine. It's the government. Ukraine is busy dodging the draft.I wouldn't blame Ukraine if they just stop fighting and hope for the best in order to reduce the bloodshetting but I will defenitely not blame them for keeping on to resist a foreign agression.
You sum the situation up very well. This could well be the start of something much more serious and could end up engulfing huge parts of Europe. Now is the time for the EU to be ready militarily in a defensive posture. The only difference between this situation and Poland in 1939 is that the Germans were up front and open about their invasion. Putin cannot even be honest about his invasion.And Russia had no right to respond. The citizens in the east and crimea where never in danger of getting brutally and violently opressed by the new Ukrainian government.
..........................