Ukranian Crisis

Status
Not open for further replies.

Twain

Active Member
What? How would the tiny and rapidly crashing Ukrainian economy have had anything to do with the Eurasian Union or Customs Union? To be sure, Ukraine would have benefited from joining (they've been losing ground on those markets since the Customs Union came online in 2011). But to say that the Eurasian Union would have been dead, if Ukraine hadn't joined is plain silly.
The eurasian customs union may not be dead but it's certainly on life support. Kazakhstan and Belarus add virtually nothing to the union with a combined GDP of only $270 billion. Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan combined have a gdp roughy equal to the UK and represent only about 15% of the GDP of the EU. Add in Ukraine and you are on par with Germany. Without Ukraine, who else can join that has any significance economically? It may live on but it's significance economically is almost irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.



As for NATO membership, I'm not so sure. Remember you can't have unresolved territorial disputes to join NATO. And Ukraine has a dispute with Russia over Crimea. There's also the fact that Ukraine is an unstable and problematic country, that could drag NATO into all kings of problems. Finally Ukraine will have a hard time reaching the conditions to join NATO.
This ties into one of the biggest misconceptions Russia had about Maidan and Ukranians in general. They wanted EU membership because of the EU requirements about corruption and governance not because it was anti-Russian and they were not in favor of joining NATO. The level of support early this year for joining NATO was only about 10%. The maidan protests didn't start out as being anti-russian but they ended up moreso that way due to russia's actions not due to some inherent anti-russian sentiment. This is where Putin really blew it, he totally misread the situation and the willingness of Ukranians to fight. They had a corrupt, mismanaged and poorly trained army but Putin managed to unite them because of his poor handling of the situation.

Depends on the circumstances. NATO had no problem bombing Libya into sawdust, and look at where that went. Was that a defense of Europe from bullying?
I won't defend the actions in Libya, but comparing Libya to Russia is not really a valid comparison, at least as of the start of this mess. Now I have no doubt that a number of countries would look forward to regime change in Moscow.
 

Relboon

New Member
Really? Come on. That's just nonsense.

A change of government in Ukraine means relatively little for Russia. Russia has already caused more damage to its international standing, economy, and relations with Europe, by it's current actions. The Russian government had a plethora of options which did not include dying...
crest already voiced some of the things I wanted to say :) But lets go by the options you provided.

1. Leave them alone\ 2.Take a tough economic stance against Ukraine - Well crest answered that, and please remember the unbelievable Russophobic subtext of the Maidan, should I post some of nazi style videos from Maidan ? How people where beaten up for wearing the georgian stripe in Kiev (before the war in donbass) ? For example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eB-Z-0mxmg this one (as I understand it you know russian language at least on some level) ? I can post many more videos of this, including the ones from Odessa May 2nd. The ethnically Russian people were in a very real danger and if Russia did nothing, in the end Putin would have seen a maidan in red square, because as the saying goes "Russians don't abandon their own people" (Yes it is not always true, but there is a fact of Russian spirit in people, take me for example I should not have cared because I was born in Latvia and now live in Netherlands, but I do care about the situation and I don`t know why, I just do).

3. Buy out the Ukrainian elites. - It is not that easy and with SBU working in the best traditions of NKVD of 1937 (taking people at night without any kind of legal reasons), those who would have sold them selves to the RF would have found them selves probably kidnapped\killed and without their business for sure. You probably don`t believe that such a thing would happen ? Well here is a small example Ð§ÐµÑ€Ð½Ð°Ñ ÐœÐ¾Ð»Ð½Ð¸Ñ - ОдеÑÑитка Инга Ðвдеева and here is another one Ðовые руны - Порошенко, пидараÑ, прекрати бомбить ДонбаÑÑ!. Oh and please remind me what happened with Ukrainian communist party ? Oh right, that`s what Êîììóíèñòè÷åñêàÿ ïàðòèÿ Óêðàèíû - ÊÏÓ è åùå øåñòü ïàðòèé, êîòîðûå îòæèëè ñâîå - Ãîñóäàðñòâî - Forbes Óêðàèíà. VERY democratic. Oh and the plain fact of maidan itself, that is unconstitutional what happened there and if something like that happened in US or ANY EU country the National guard forces would suppress such event with as much brutality as needed, or am I wrong ?

4. Buy out some EU governments - Um, what ? I don`t think that buying out people or governments is as easy as going into supermarket and buying a pack of gum, I would guess that EU and US would be VERY against such a things and will go any length to stop such thing from happening, and in any case, how can one country bid against EU and US together ? And just giving money is never enough, you have to have a point of pressure on said country as well, otherwise they will just take your money and give nothing in return. Basically there is a lot of other things that makes this option about as far from reality as anything can be.

5. Invade and annex Eastern Ukraine - Yes that would be a lot easier, but the world does not work like that and I think you know it. As crest said that would be playing "all in", the west would have no other choice but to react, even taking Crimea the way it is played out was very risky and made possible because it had nothing to do with Ukraine in the first place, it is a Russian land and pretty much every body knows it, the Ukrainian never liked it any way and neglected the region as much as was possible. Back to the invade and annex Eastern Ukraine, who would want another great war ? Even if you take all of EU\US\NATO\ANZAC and whatever other allies western block have, the Russian and their allies may not be as strong military (I have no idea about the real capabilities of the sides, and I would guess that no one can actually with 100% surety say who can do what if sides go all in), but I believe there is still a strong enough force to make both sides bleed badly, it is like two fighters with about the same skill boxing, one may be stronger but in the end win or not, both is beaten to sh*t and nobody wants that, not west and not east, may be only Asians :)

Not back to the idea of why not just let it go, there is a very good theory, I believe it.
First a couple of facts, when USSR stopped to exist the RF was VERY weak (and it took all the debt of USSR btw, the money was used everywhere, in Ukraine was built a huge military production complex, everywhere was built schools, factories, housing for people. Did baltic states that are so Russophobic payed any of that debt ? No they didn`t, no one did except RF.), with the coming of Putin the country got strong again (Some oligarchs was against it, for example the very famous Hodarkovsky, because the country started to use it`s resources to build something, to rebuild the army that was almost destroyed in the previous years, instead of just being used as a way to get rich fast for some people). Please not I don`t say anything about Putin being a good or bad guy, I just say that it is a fact that RF got from the knees and became a strong military and political power again, just look at the progress of the army.

Now to the theory.
If the western script with maidan played out like the people expected it to be (RF just standing silently and doing nothing), you get a highly Russophobic state on the border with RF.

Step 1 (that one was done btw, but the result was not exactly what expected, they got real war for that step) - Ethnically Russian people should be mistreated as much as possible, some brutality is preferable (hello Odessa May 2nd).

Step 2 (by the plan the Russia is doing nothing to protect Russians on Ukraine territory. Some Russians left to RF from Ukraine, some are angry at RF for doing nothing so they became "Ukrainians") start the talks from inside Russia that Putin is enemy of Russian people because he abandoned the people in Ukraine (that is why the brutality against Russians was required, to show it to the people in RF, that is why all the brutal things made in Ukraine against Russians was so nicely documented, it was required to stir up the people in RF, and it worked).

Step 3 Maidan in Red Square, the citizens of RF them selves remove Putin, and that is what west wants.


The west did not create maidan, it happened on its own accord as most such things do.

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/geo-strategic-issues/ukranian-crisis-12973-98/#ixzz3BiUSZfgV
Such things almost never created by themselves, at least not on such scale, there is always external power who gives the idea and the resources, the how long Maidan was active, a month ? 2 months ? Do you realize how much money it costed ? You have to feed the people or do you really believe that such a huge crowd was fed by nice old ladies ? There was a portable toilets all over Maidan, those were put there by the companies not because they are so nice, but because they just were paid to do their job. The people were brought to Kiev in big groups by buses in organized matter, do you really believe that random people is so organized ? And they paid their own money for the transfer ? Yeah right. Oh the militia on Maidan was paid not a bad money by UA standards, many went there to earn some easy money, who was so generous I wonder ? And actually US never even hided the fact they supported Maidan, and those 5 million they invested in "Supporting the democracy" is was officially known to every one, how much was invested covertly ? We will never know, but I believe at least the same amount of money, probably more.

By the way I actually like Russia (i.e wolfhound nick name) but am pissed at what appears to be one mans ego dragging the whole country backwards just as it was really starting to shine on the global stage.

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/geo-strategic-issues/ukranian-crisis-12973-98/#ixzz3BiWhsbZd
Russian people mostly support the effort of Putin in Ukraine, so how is it a one mans ego ? He is not the all powerful, is there is no support then there is no action.

Russia may "win" eastern Ukraine in the short term but will suffer damage to its economy and reputation that will last for decades. Who in their right mind would trust or rely on Russia after this?

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/geo-strategic-issues/ukranian-crisis-12973-98/#ixzz3BiX7jmQD
I like how a lot of people on this forum thinks that western block in the whole world :eek:nfloorl: Yes it is a considerable part of the world, but no where near being all of the world. There is a south american countries that is gaining power and a lot of them really don`t like US (for a good reasons btw, the amount of blood spilled there because of US is huge), there is Asia that is VERY strong now and also not all of that region is with western block (India is very sympathetic of RF ), there is Africa that has it`s own problems so it does not care much about what Russia or any one else does. So when you say something like
The thing that gets me is since Sept 11 2001 Russia has been one of the good guys, a responsible friendly nation willing to work with the rest of the world, a good global citizen.

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/geo-strategic-issues/ukranian-crisis-12973-97/#ixzz3BibQDt9y
what you actually mean is only the western block and it`s allies, please remember the difference.

Well this was a very long write up, but I do hope that this will help you to understand the "other side" POV, the question is "Are you interested in it ? Or you just want to keep blaming RD for every single problem in the world.". If you are interested I can spend my time by finding and posting videos here, information and point of view mine and people that I read, and debate something, if not then just say so and I will stop posting here and will just read. This is my best attempt at not "obnoxious and rude" posting style, if this is not good enough then I give up.
 

Relboon

New Member
The maidan protests didn't start out as being anti-russian but they ended up moreso that way due to russia's actions not due to some inherent anti-russian sentiment.

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/geo-strategic-issues/ukranian-crisis-12973-99/#ixzz3Bii1agbB
1. Denying the unbelievable strong Russophobic movement in UA is just silly, they even wrote their own history that is different to the rest of the world.

2. Any chance that you would be so kind to elaborate exactly what actions turned Maidan into anti-russian event ?

As for NATO membership, I'm not so sure. Remember you can't have unresolved territorial disputes to join NATO. And Ukraine has a dispute with Russia over Crimea. There's also the fact that Ukraine is an unstable and problematic country, that could drag NATO into all kings of problems. Finally Ukraine will have a hard time reaching the conditions to join NATO.

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/geo-strategic-issues/ukranian-crisis-12973-99/#ixzz3BijJp9V1
Does the country have to be a member of NATO to have a NATO base on it`s territory ?

P.S I`m sorry for the poor level of grammar in my posts, but there is much to do and free time is so short.
 

Twain

Active Member
1. Denying the unbelievable strong Russophobic movement in UA is just silly, they even wrote their own history that is different to the rest of the world.

2. Any chance that you would be so kind to elaborate exactly what actions turned Maidan into anti-russian event ?
Seriously, go back to the start of the thread and read it, especially the polls I posted this spring, they detail everything I just wrote.
 

Blackshoe

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I don't think that's Russian military. There was a handover of T-72B tanks to the rebels, with at least one (probably more) T-72B mod. 1989. That's what you see on the photo in question. There is no doubt T-72Bs with K-5 are in the conflict zone. Just no clear answer to whether they are Russian military or rebel. I'd lean towards the latter, for a number of reasons.
Serious question: what's the difference between the tank being an RF Tank...and being a DPR/LPR tank that was handed over from Russian stocks (since the analysis from IISS is that it's a variant that could only have come from Russian stockpiles)?

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, that's a distinction without difference-it doesn't matter if it's an RF tank or a DPR/LPR tank that was given to them by Russia, what matters is that it is in Ukraine fighting the Ukrainian Army, and it's a massive escalation in the provision of materiel-this is no longer about giving away small arms and MANPADS, but an extremely audacious and open move to arm the rebels.

Now, I understand that it makes a big difference internally (vis a vis my comment about coffins coming home)...but if Russia is trying to pretend to the rest of the world it's not arming the rebels, it's doing a terrible job of it. And if it doesn't care that it's known it is, why bother with the charade?
 

crest

New Member
Serious question: what's the difference between the tank being an RF Tank...and being a DPR/LPR tank that was handed over from Russian stocks (since the analysis from IISS is that it's a variant that could only have come from Russian stockpiles)?

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, that's a distinction without difference-it doesn't matter if it's an RF tank or a DPR/LPR tank that was given to them by Russia, what matters is that it is in Ukraine fighting the Ukrainian Army, and it's a massive escalation in the provision of materiel-this is no longer about giving away small arms and MANPADS, but an extremely audacious and open move to arm the rebels.

Now, I understand that it makes a big difference internally (vis a vis my comment about coffins coming home)...but if Russia is trying to pretend to the rest of the world it's not arming the rebels, it's doing a terrible job of it. And if it doesn't care that it's known it is, why bother with the charade?
Simplest reason is because the charade is working noone is under any illusions about what is actually going on i mean if the new york times can "break the story" im sure the defence department was already aware of things.
As far as russia is concerned if the west is willing to dance there is no need to stop the music.
 
It's not a question of agreement. I'm merely listing alternatives to the current course of action.
I actually forgot one, which was most obvious one of all. The wait and see.
Maybe I should have been more precise in my response. All your options seem realistic/ viable, except five IMV.

The 'Wait and see' is option one, 'leave them alone' isn't it? i.e. Do nothing
 

Relboon

New Member
Seriously, go back to the start of the thread and read it, especially the polls I posted this spring, they detail everything I just wrote.

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=284919#ixzz3BivI0VG8
Before I started posting here I read this topic from page one, but I don`t remember such information, may be I missed it. May be you would be so kind to provide it again please, the topic is very big, there is a huge amount of discussion and information that was posted, it would take me a long time to read it again and there is no guarantee that I won`t miss it again.

Serious question: what's the difference between the tank being an RF Tank...and being a DPR/LPR tank that was handed over from Russian stocks (since the analysis from IISS is that it's a variant that could only have come from Russian stockpiles)?


Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=284919#ixzz3BiwCaFUO
The difference is the people inside and the flag, tank is just a piece of metal, there is undeniably tanks in rebel hands that was captured from UA army, does that mean that UA army kills its own people with this tank ? No of course not. Just like NATO sponsored equipment in Iraq does not mean that it is NATO who is fighting ISIL at the moment, it is still Iraq\Iran armed forces who do the fighting.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, that's a distinction without difference-it doesn't matter if it's an RF tank or a DPR/LPR tank that was given to them by Russia, what matters is that it is in Ukraine fighting the Ukrainian Army

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=284919#ixzz3Bix4MmDO
I do not agree, I think there is a HUGE difference for the rest of the world. Just imagine that instead of DNR\LNR forces there was actual RF army fighting, there would be no speculations at all, every body would just say "Hey, RF is invading", but the way it is done now, there is still no one (including Ukraine itself) who officially said "Ukraine is invaded by RF army" (I`m not speaking about Crimea, that is another subject), and in the Ukraine itself there is no martial law at the moment, they call it "Anti-terrorist Operation".

but an extremely audacious and open move to arm the rebels.

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=284919#ixzz3BiyU14MA
I read information that in fact the supply of equipment from RF is decreased, may be because some of the equipment never go the rebel forces and was sold back to black market in Russia by some naughty people.

but if Russia is trying to pretend to the rest of the world it's not arming the rebels, it's doing a terrible job of it.

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=284919#ixzz3BizAWQnD
Actually it was doing unbelievably good job of it, only very recently the video evidence with BTR 82 and T72B shown up, before that everything was very deniable (evem with OSCE monitoring the border), so the only logical explanation is the political situation allowed to throw out the caution. My best guess is that RF has a solid proof that it was Kiev who is responsible for the shooting down of the Boeing, and that is being used as a leverage, I cannot think of any other reason why would west be silent with such proofs on YouTube being available.

Here is a video about the "Mothers of Soldiers" that is so popular now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkjyPZRtnsU&list=UUVPYbobPRzz0SjinWekjUBw
1st woman is a convicted felon, Ludmila Bogatenkova (fraud, stealing money from soldiers and relatives, 21-06-2001 and 23-07-2003)
2nd woman whose words is used by press is Ella Polyakova a member of organization "Soldiers mothers of St. Peterburg" it was sponsored by NED in 2011 http://www.ned.org/publications/annual-reports/2011-annual-report/eurasia/russia
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The eurasian customs union may not be dead but it's certainly on life support. Kazakhstan and Belarus add virtually nothing to the union with a combined GDP of only $270 billion. Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan combined have a gdp roughy equal to the UK and represent only about 15% of the GDP of the EU. Add in Ukraine and you are on par with Germany. Without Ukraine, who else can join that has any significance economically? It may live on but it's significance economically is almost irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.
Ukraine has a GDP of 180 billion... Russia is ~2 trillion. So a 2.3 trillion GDP of Customs Union will be greatly bolstered by the addition of a shrinking 180 billion economy?

By the way, your math is awful. German GDP is ~3.5 trillion. With Ukraine, the Eurasian Union GDP will be less then 2.5 trillion. Nowhere near Germany.

I understand the argument about long term economic growth of the Eurasian Union, and the huge potential Ukraine has, if it's well managed (or at least less incompetently). But in the immediate and near future it has very little significance.

This ties into one of the biggest misconceptions Russia had about Maidan and Ukranians in general. They wanted EU membership because of the EU requirements about corruption and governance not because it was anti-Russian and they were not in favor of joining NATO. The level of support early this year for joining NATO was only about 10%. The maidan protests didn't start out as being anti-russian but they ended up moreso that way due to russia's actions not due to some inherent anti-russian sentiment. This is where Putin really blew it, he totally misread the situation and the willingness of Ukranians to fight. They had a corrupt, mismanaged and poorly trained army but Putin managed to unite them because of his poor handling of the situation.p
Yanukovich era officers mention that he was trying to get Ukraine into NATO. As was his predecessor Yuschenko. I'm pretty sure Poroshenko is after the same. The population aside, the Ukrainian elite wants NATO as a way to guarantee they can keep robbing their population blind without having to deal with Russia.

I won't defend the actions in Libya, but comparing Libya to Russia is not really a valid comparison, at least as of the start of this mess. Now I have no doubt that a number of countries would look forward to regime change in Moscow.
It's a simple case of arguing that NATO is not aggressive. NATO is aggressive when NATO members feel the need to be so.

Serious question: what's the difference between the tank being an RF Tank...and being a DPR/LPR tank that was handed over from Russian stocks (since the analysis from IISS is that it's a variant that could only have come from Russian stockpiles)?
Their analysis is spot on. Ukraine may have had some T-72B mod 1989, but if they did, they're long gone. They would have been the first sold. As of right now, all rebel T-72s come from Russia. No government T-72s were sighted in the conflict zone, and the Artemovsk facility is in government hands. If rebels retake Artemovsk, no doubt they will make an effort to reactivate the gear in storage there, but until then Russia is the only source of T-72s.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, that's a distinction without difference-it doesn't matter if it's an RF tank or a DPR/LPR tank that was given to them by Russia, what matters is that it is in Ukraine fighting the Ukrainian Army, and it's a massive escalation in the provision of materiel-this is no longer about giving away small arms and MANPADS, but an extremely audacious and open move to arm the rebels.
I take the time to make the distinction because it's important in a number of ways.

1) Open and notorious invasion vs. a pretence.
2) Discipline of troops, effectiveness, level of support.
3) Actions of a Russian military invasion would be quite different from the actions of the rebels.

Now, I understand that it makes a big difference internally (vis a vis my comment about coffins coming home)...but if Russia is trying to pretend to the rest of the world it's not arming the rebels, it's doing a terrible job of it. And if it doesn't care that it's known it is, why bother with the charade?
A few considerations. At the recent summit in Minsk Putin declined to discuss the war calling it an internal manner. Very effective sabotage of the diplomatic efforts. It gives the west a way to pretend that Russia isn't a party to the conflict. They're probably not going to use that option, but in Russia's view it was important to provide the west with an out. And of course domestic consumption.
 
My best guess is that RF has a solid proof that it was Kiev who is responsible for the shooting down of the Boeing, and that is being used as a leverage, I cannot think of any other reason why would west be silent with such proofs on YouTube being available.
You're actually making a statement like this and want to be taken seriously..
And this is the same extended theory that Ukrainian govt shot the Malaysia Airliner down because they were targeting Putin's aircraft returning to Russia? Which of course, is totally plausible..

Your best guess is pure fantasy
 

BlueRose

New Member
You're actually serious with a statement like this and want to be taken seriously..
And this is the same extended theory that Ukrainian govt shot the Malaysia Airliner down because they were targeting Putin's aircraft returning to Russia? Which of course, is totally plausible..

Your best guess is pure fantasy
I agree that Conspiracies shouldn't really be brought up here... But Relboon has a great point. As the Russian U.N. ambassador pointed out... Kiev has been hiding some things. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/...gators-access-to-mh17-audio-files/505346.html

So no one here should say it was the Rebels who shot down the plane.. No definitive proof is present at all.
 

Twain

Active Member
Ukraine has a GDP of 180 billion... Russia is ~2 trillion. So a 2.3 trillion GDP of Customs Union will be greatly bolstered by the addition of a shrinking 180 billion economy?

By the way, your math is awful. German GDP is ~3.5 trillion. With Ukraine, the Eurasian Union GDP will be less then 2.5 trillion. Nowhere near Germany.

I understand the argument about long term economic growth of the Eurasian Union, and the huge potential Ukraine has, if it's well managed (or at least less incompetently). But in the immediate and near future it has very little significance.

I was wrong about the Ukraine GDP, I was thinking it was $500B instead of $200B but the rest is accurate.

IMF Numbers
Russia GDP $2.118 T
Kazakhstan $220B
Belarus $71 B

Total $2.409T


UK GDP$2.535T

As to Ukraine's economy shrinking, it wasn't until russia invaded them. Their GDP went up about $60B since 2008, (roughly 30%) and $140 billion since 2000. It was stagnant in 2012 and 2013 but it wasn't shrinking.

But like I said, who else is a possible member to join the customs union that can add anything to their total economic output? All the ikistans combined probably don't total $170B. The customs union may not be dead but it's definitely on life support. I suspect that has changed over the last few months though.

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:UKR:BLR:IRQ&hl=en&dl=en

Yanukovich era officers mention that he was trying to get Ukraine into NATO. As was his predecessor Yuschenko. I'm pretty sure Poroshenko is after the same. The population aside, the Ukrainian elite wants NATO as a way to guarantee they can keep robbing their population blind without having to deal with Russia.

Which is exactly why the Maidan protesters want in the EU, to stop the corruption. The support among Ukranians in general for joining NATO was very poor, Poroshenko even commented recently that they weren't joining NATO because there wasn't enough support.

It's a simple case of arguing that NATO is not aggressive. NATO is aggressive when NATO members feel the need to be so.
I'd qualify that with the need, ability and what they preceive to the be chances of a favorable outcome without incurring unreasonable costs, (politically or economically) which is why Russia vs Libya is a very bad comparison.
 

Twain

Active Member
I agree that Conspiracies shouldn't really be brought up here... But Relboon has a great point. As the Russian U.N. ambassador pointed out... Kiev has been hiding some things. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/...gators-access-to-mh17-audio-files/505346.html

So no one here should say it was the Rebels who shot down the plane.. No definitive proof is present at all.
you also need to read the thread from the start, this was beaten to death earlier in the thread.
 

Blackshoe

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
A few considerations. At the recent summit in Minsk Putin declined to discuss the war calling it an internal manner. Very effective sabotage of the diplomatic efforts. It gives the west a way to pretend that Russia isn't a party to the conflict. They're probably not going to use that option, but in Russia's view it was important to provide the west with an out. And of course domestic consumption.
I don't think any thing Putin's done in Minsk has mattered nearly as much as how much the German economy is tied into Russia and their consequent unwillingness to do much of anything about the situation. Nothing sabotages diplomatic efforts like bringing large numbers of highly-meh parties into it to make it diplomacy by committee.

Giving the West a way to pretend that Russia isn't a party to the conflict would only work if people think it's plausible and if Russia is trying to de-escalate the situation-neither of which is the situation. Even the Finns and Swedes are getting angry about this.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Their analysis is spot on. Ukraine may have had some T-72B mod 1989, but if they did, they're long gone. They would have been the first sold. As of right now, all rebel T-72s come from Russia. No government T-72s were sighted in the conflict zone, and the Artemovsk facility is in government hands. If rebels retake Artemovsk, no doubt they will make an effort to reactivate the gear in storage there, but until then Russia is the only source of T-72s.
The versions photographed aren't monkey T-72's. They're also fitted with Kontakt. They could only have come from Russian forces stock

either the russians are poor at managing their logistics and are leaking hardware (and troops "on leave") like a sieve, or they're stolen by cross border raids. If they're not russian, or stolen from russian stocks via cross border raids by the DNR then the russians have rogue commanders gifting gear without authority

and we know the odds on all of these options are zero
 

Twain

Active Member
More evidence is surfacing that regular russian army troops have been i Ukraine for longer than the latest offensive.

More than 100 Russian soldiers were killed in eastern Ukraine in a single battle this month while helping pro-Russian separatists fight Ukrainian troops, two members of the Russian presidential human rights council said on Thursday, citing accounts from eyewitnesses and relatives of the dead.

Ella Polyakova and Sergei Krivenko, both members of the council - an advisory body with no legal powers and an uneasy relationship with the Kremlin - said around 300 people were wounded in the same incident on Aug. 13 near the town of Snizhnye, when a column of trucks they were driving, full of ammunition, was hit by a sustained volley of Grad missiles.


Exclusive - Over 100 Russian soldiers killed in single Ukraine battle - Russian rights activists | Reuters

and Recently

To its limits now are fighting our soldiers in Ilovaiskaya and despite the tight encirclement and the enemy fire from the continuing attacks, they manage not only to resist the Russian horde, but also to take prisoners! So, today in the hands of our soldiers in the Russian paratroopers were Ilovaiskaya Ruslan Akhmedov and Arseny Ilmitov who told that they had come to Rostov-on-Don on training.

zloy_odessit -

Spoke with a person in Novoazovsk: town is in Russian hands- that is in "regular Russian Army" hands. +a few DNR people.

https://twitter.com/noclador/status/504927406453719040
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I was wrong about the Ukraine GDP, I was thinking it was $500B instead of $200B but the rest is accurate.
500 b? I laughed out loud, literally, when I read that...

As to Ukraine's economy shrinking, it wasn't until russia invaded them. Their GDP went up about $60B since 2008, (roughly 30%) and $140 billion since 2000. It was stagnant in 2012 and 2013 but it wasn't shrinking.
It started shrinking with the Maidan crisis in February. But the foundation was laid last year when enterprises started shutting down. The shrinkage was obvious by early April, long before the war in the east. And of course they're seriously handicapped by the Customs Union.

But like I said, who else is a possible member to join the customs union that can add anything to their total economic output? All the ikistans combined probably don't total $170B. The customs union may not be dead but it's definitely on life support. I suspect that has changed over the last few months though.

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:UKR:BLR:IRQ&hl=en&dl=en
Being a small economy doesn't mean it's on life support. The point of the Eurasian Union isn't to spit out a super power that can challenge the EU tomorrow. It's to provide a mechanism for integrating the FSU states under Russian leadership. And it can do that quite nicely. The fact that the Russian economy is bigger then all the other members combined is actually conducive to this. All the other economies depend on Russia, and end up following Russia's lead.

Which is exactly why the Maidan protesters want in the EU, to stop the corruption. The support among Ukranians in general for joining NATO was very poor, Poroshenko even commented recently that they weren't joining NATO because there wasn't enough support.
Yes. That's obvious. As is, EU membership is a very long way off, so the elites can play pro-western games with the full confidence that nobody will put them to wall over corruption any time soon.

I'd qualify that with the need, ability and what they preceive to the be chances of a favorable outcome without incurring unreasonable costs, (politically or economically) which is why Russia vs Libya is a very bad comparison.
Once again, it's not a comparison. Sometimes I wonder if you actively ignore the arguments I'm making.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The versions photographed aren't monkey T-72's. They're also fitted with Kontakt. They could only have come from Russian forces stock

either the russians are poor at managing their logistics and are leaking hardware (and troops "on leave") like a sieve, or they're stolen by cross border raids. If they're not russian, or stolen from russian stocks via cross border raids by the DNR then the russians have rogue commanders gifting gear without authority

and we know the odds on all of these options are zero
You don't seem to understand what I meant, perhaps I was unclear. T-72Bs with K-5 are from Russian stock. All T-72s in the conflict zone are from Russian stock. There are T-72Bs in storage in Russia (even some T-90s are in storage). These are the T-72B mod 1989. It's a regular T-72B outfitted with K-5. They were produced 1989-1992 at UVZ for the Soviet/Russian Army.

I'll give a breakdown so this is more clear.

T-72B - a regular T-72B with K-1 tiles. They look like bricks all over the turret and front glacis.
T-72B mod 1989 - a regular T-72B but with K-5 tiles, looking like a clamshell on the turret. It retains the Luna-2M IR projector, and has characteristic gaps between the K-5 tiles on the turret.
T-72BA - a hodge podge of upgrades that include engine replacement, new comm gear, and K-5 era tiles. Externally identical/extremely similar to the T-72B mod 1989.
T-72B3 - a T-72B with Sosna-U sight, thermals, new comm gear, and K-5 ERA. You should see the Sosna-U sight box right behind the old gunner's sight. It does not carry the Luna-2 IR searchlight.

A note of interest, Ukrainian T-72s are not monkey models. Ukraine inherited Soviet T-72s which are line T-72A and B models.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top