Do you disagree with the provided estimate from the author of 80k troops for occupation of the breakaway regions (excl Crimea)?
Good question. I really don't know. We'd have to take a map out, calculate how many ECP/VCP we'd need to set up, and where, how many QRF units, what kind of support assets it would take, etc. It would be quite a bit of work. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan involved iirc ~40 000 troops, for a bigger and more complex area. Their eventual presence, during the peak of the fighting was iirc 110 000. So for those two very small province, with fairly simple and open terrain, they could probably do with less then 80 000. It would depend on the attitudes and activities of the locals, and would depend on what point they moved in on those provinces at. In March-April, they could've probably taken all of Eastern Ukraine with minimal fighting, and the locals mostly passive, if not supportive. In July-August, the situation was quite different. Fighting would be heavy, the population far less accommodating, and the collateral damage significant. All of this would factor in.
Anyways, they were able to pull 100 000 troops in
just East MD on a surprise combat readiness check. I don't think there is anything impossible about maintaining a grouping of 80 000 in conveniently close-by Ukraine. All the supplies could be brought in by truck and rail, the length of the border is quite large, and the rail and road infrastructure is appropriate.
Economically, with forecasts I'm seeing, especially end of Q1 & Q2 (2015) regarding the Russian economy, I would go further than just 'expensive'..
Some recent precursive moves by the Central Bank, seem to be taking a worsening situation into account I.e. semi-floatation action of the ruble, by withdrawing the prop. and the continuing oil price below $80 p/b (which at this point could continue for the short-medium term), have highlighted to some respected economists, just how much funding the breakaway regions could cost in real terms and the last thing the RF economy needs now, is to prop-up these regions of 4-5 million people along with a worsening infrastructure picture - just the basics.
You're conflating the cost of the occupation and the cost of annexation.
I understand that a recent move by the Kiev Govt, whereby access to the Ukrainian banking system was cut-off unexpectedly to the regions and has particularly 'irked' many senior officials in Russia?
Not sure, to be honest, I've missed that. Do you have info I could read up?
It would seem to me, the Kiev govt are wiping their hands of the seperatist areas, not just cutting/ destroying the infrastructure..
Agree, the author has missed some points worth consideration.
Well to be honest, Ukraine can't afford to properly govern or maintain infrastructure in regions that aren't trying to secede. Wiping their hands of, and destroying a few things here and there, regions that are basically seceding is to be expected. And lets face it, the rebels certainly didn't help with their attack on railways and bridges all across eastern Ukraine. While we can solidly blame Ukraine for destroying power lines, powerplants, water lines, etc. the rebels contributed heavily to the destruction of the transportation infrastructure in an attempt to slow the governments troops advance, and disrupt their logistics. Bezlers raid on an oil refinery, and government shellings lighting the Lisichansk refinery on fire, all come together for an unpleasant end result.