Ukranian Crisis

[crest]

http://www.rnbo.gov.ua/files/2014/29-08.jpg

the latest map i could find from ukrainian army pov. take it with a grain of salt as it notably dosnt include a single surrounded detachment

http://en.ria.ru/business/20140819/...to-Drop-15-Over-War-Torn-East--Ukrainian.html

also more bad news if this continues until winter

 

[SolarWind]

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

What I have to add is that if UA did shoot down the Malaysia Airliner, it would not have been the first time they shot down a civilian plane full of passengers..

Mod. Any comments like this need to be supported with references and facts.

 

[dprijadi]

update from col.cassad via yandex translate :

Colonel Cassad -

it seem the militia's air defense is still making the skies above conflict zone deniable to UKraine's air power..

colonelcassad
August 29, 22:34
Today, the militia said that he shot down 4 su-25, which tried to attack the position of the army of the new Russia, which is now actively offensive against halved grouping junta in the Donbass. Our sources confirmed that while downed 2 assault, 2 other info yet. Can certainly and inflate, but not surprised. that knocked all 4.


Of course, militias tend to exaggerate the number of downed aircraft, but even in those cases where the fact of destruction of the goals have been photo-documented, clearly suggests that the junta has long lost complete control of the air in the Donbass.

feanor, what is your take on this news about an israeli who died in donbass while serving with batallion Donbass ? rumor ? disinfo ? fact ?

A former adviser to Netanyahu killed in the Donbass: a few questions for Israel
Regnum.ru, Aug 25 2014

Two weeks ago during the battle for the Pervomaisk, the charred corpse of a member of the Ukrainian volunteer battalion “Donbass” was found, which had an Israeli passport #10933029 in the name of Michael Falkov, born in 1977. Security forces in Kiev suspect that the death of the Israeli came not as a result of gunshot or shrapnel wounds, but as a result of torture.The Ukrainian government imposed a ban on the disclosure of information about the incident

Falkov was a staff advisor to Netanyahu. Previously Falkov was a strategic advisor to Avigdor Liberman, Minister of foreign Affairs. Falkow had friendly relations with another member of the government, the Minister of economy Naftali Bennett, who was Falkov’s supervisor while he was working for Netanyahu.

http://translate.yandex.net/tr-url/ru-en.en/www.regnum.ru/news/1839768.html

 

[crest]

The Southern Front Catastrophe


Well defiantly biased in the extreme and not making much mention of russian support its a interesting read and sheds some light on the failures of the Ukrainian military. i dont know enough to say just how accurate it is (as i said its quite biased) but i dont disagree with its assessment of the Ukrainian armies strategy or failure in tactics

 

[Feanor]

http://www.rnbo.gov.ua/files/2014/29-08.jpg

the latest map i could find from ukrainian army pov. take it with a grain of salt as it notably dosnt include a single surrounded detachment

Ukraine Grain Harvest to Drop 15% Over War-Torn East

also more bad news if this continues until winter

That map is garbage. Rebels have posted photos of themselves, and the DNR flag, on top of Saur-Mogila, but the map still has it in government hands. Rebels are in Ilovaysk controlling large parts (probably most or all) of the city, and are near Amvrosievka.

The Southern Front Catastrophe


Well defiantly biased in the extreme and not making much mention of russian support its a interesting read and sheds some light on the failures of the Ukrainian military. i dont know enough to say just how accurate it is (as i said its quite biased) but i dont disagree with its assessment of the Ukrainian armies strategy or failure in tactics

It's the rebel narrative of how this victory happened. They assign a rebel maneuver as the force of the southern offensive. Ukrainian sources claim that the Russian military pulled it off. It's possible, even likely, that both were involved and it's really a question of which one was key.

Feanor , where would the militia army stopped their advance , based on your current estimate of situation ? do you think they will go for odessa and stop there ? or will they go to kiev ?

I strongly suspect that they will push south, creating a land corridor to Crimea. Then maybe sweep northward towards Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov. They may take Zaporozhye and Dnepropetrovsk immediately, though it's a complex urban area.

and did the goverment force lost their air support / denied over the battlefield ?

They haven't been able to make effective use of air support since they started losing helos like flies.

and do you see similarity in tactics used , with small highly trained "volunteers" leading the militia, like how the US Special Force did in adghanistan during the initial war ?

Not familiar enough to comment. Nor is the nature of the Russian involvement sufficiently understood at this point to make a comparison possible.

 

[Goknub]

The question now is what does the UA do in response?

Do they head south to relieve Mariupol? This has the potential to cut off the rebel advance in the same way their own southern forces were. The rebels drive south hit the UA where it was weakest and they may not have as much strength as it seems.

This however would mean giving up the goal of surrounding at least Donetsk for the immediate future and if Russian assistance is close to what is being stated could stretch the UA to breaking point.

Do they continue to focus on Luhansk and hope the units in the south can hold off the rebel advance?

Do they refocus on extricating the surrounded units in order to preserve their forces for future operations?

Poroshenko seems to have realised this is not going to be by Christmas with the talk of large scale mobilisation but this will take time and won't be much good if there's no armour left in their inventories.

 

[crest]

That map is garbage. Rebels have posted photos of themselves, and the DNR flag, on top of Saur-Mogila, but the map still has it in government hands. Rebels are in Ilovaysk controlling large parts (probably most or all) of the city, and are near Amvrosievka.



It's the rebel narrative of how this victory happened. They assign a rebel maneuver as the force of the southern offensive. Ukrainian sources claim that the Russian military pulled it off. It's possible, even likely, that both were involved and it's really a question of which one was key.



I strongly suspect that they will push south, creating a land corridor to Crimea. Then maybe sweep northward towards Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov. They may take Zaporozhye and Dnepropetrovsk immediately, though it's a complex urban area.



They haven't been able to make effective use of air support since they started losing helos like flies.



Not familiar enough to comment. Nor is the nature of the Russian involvement sufficiently understood at this point to make a comparison possible.

agree the map is garbage just posted it as it was there latest (at least that i could find)

also agree and made no claims it wast a biased report, posted it as i think its excellent as a cohesive report on the U.A strategic and tactile mistakes. And a fairly good record of how and why those mistakes were made at least on the ukrianin armys side, details are lacking as to how the rebels get there reinforcements, supplies and tactile information
How far the rebels push i dont know i agree with you that linking up with crimea has to be big on there (and the russians) objectives. With that said they have to be careful to not make the same mistakes as the U.A has in overextending and getting cut off there ability to recover men (not so much equipment) is limited. Not to mention if said force has large numbers of russians in it and what there status is could be politicly explosive

Im willing to bet Ukraine still has enough armour and equipment to field a strong force but they definitely have to be more judicial in who there handing it out to at this point. And thats making a premature judgement on weather they get any outside help, something that is looking quite possible

my big question is at what point does keiv decide its time to negotiate, they cant possibly think they can drag this on until winter do they? the economic and humanitarian price they would have to pay for that is simply enormous not to mention there bargaining position is not getting better either

 

[dprijadi]

assuming the militia forces continue to be successful in battlefield, i wonder what is their most western line that they wont pass for fear of crossing NATO red line. Would they dare to conquer eastern half of ukraine and left the west to NATO ?

is this going to be like west and east germany all over again ?

 

[Klaus]

I seriously doubt the rebels could hold more than the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Realistic estimates for their troop strength range from 10.000 to 12.000, what is still less than what the UA can muster. And in oblasts like Dniepropetrovsk public support for the rebels' actions has been much weaker as in Donetsk, as the local oligarchs funded pro-government demonstrations and propaganda.
To conquer a larger territory Russia would have to intervene with large numbers of troops, what would be answered by the western countries with harsh sanctions. Hopefully it won't get to that and all sides finally start negotiations soon, as the Ukrainian and Russian economy both suffer from the current situation.

 

[gazzzwp]

I seriously doubt the rebels could hold more than the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Realistic estimates for their troop strength range from 10.000 to 12.000, what is still less than what the UA can muster. And in oblasts like Dniepropetrovsk public support for the rebels' actions has been much weaker as in Donetsk, as the local oligarchs funded pro-government demonstrations and propaganda.
To conquer a larger territory Russia would have to intervene with large numbers of troops, what would be answered by the western countries with harsh sanctions. Hopefully it won't get to that and all sides finally start negotiations soon, as the Ukrainian and Russian economy both suffer from the current situation.

People keep talking about negotiations. Why should the government of Ukraine negotiate? Why should a nation be forced to surrender the most lucrative part of it's territory? Just to please an imperialistic aggressor on it's border?

I honestly don't think they should negotiate on principle. If it does happen it will be a sad indictment of the EU and NATO that it stood idly by and watched yet more of Europe be consumed by the Putin greed machine.

Yes I do feel a degree of emotion on this issue. Who will be next? If the EU and NATO show continued weakness on this then it does not bode well for the future. It's time to be strong and show some solidarity; Europe went through this in the last century with the USSR. On a bigger scale albeit.

I'm sorry but sanctions will not be enough.

NATO needs to signal it's intentions by sending in a task force. US led, supported by a carrier group in the Black Sea, fighter and bomber forces in Poland and Turkey. They alert Putin to the idea that they are not fighting Russia but they are fighting the Rebel force. How can Russia object if it has no official troops there?

The nuclear warning works both ways and I have always believed that is a red herring and just a NATO excuse for doing nothing. Putin knows that the West is more than able to retaliate and won't consider that level of risk.

The political and bureaucratic procrastination is truly excruciating; for Americans, Europeans, and Ukrainians alike.

Please feel free to correct me, or other wise.

 

[Nick underscore]

Finland and Sweden will sign a NATO support MoU to 'help the country to prepare for training exercises with NATO troops and ease the provision or receipt of military support in the event of a crisis or conflict.' Finland had been intending to sign since 2002.

Seems the Finns are particularly irked with the current and frequent Russian airspace incursions.

Finland also undertaking large scale military exercises on the Russian border with 8k (including reserves) taking part. Finland plans large-scale military exercise on Russian border | Yle Uutiset | yle.fi

 

[Klaus]

People keep talking about negotiations. Why should the government of Ukraine negotiate? Why should a nation be forced to surrender the most lucrative part of it's territory? Just to please an imperialistic aggressor on it's border?

I honestly don't think they should negotiate on principle. If it does happen it will be a sad indictment of the EU and NATO that it stood idly by and watched yet more of Europe be consumed by the Putin greed machine.

Yes I do feel a degree of emotion on this issue. Who will be next? If the EU and NATO show continued weakness on this then it does not bode well for the future. It's time to be strong and show some solidarity; Europe went through this in the last century with the USSR. On a bigger scale albeit.

I'm sorry but sanctions will not be enough.

NATO needs to signal it's intentions by sending in a task force. US led, supported by a carrier group in the Black Sea, fighter and bomber forces in Poland and Turkey. They alert Putin to the idea that they are not fighting Russia but they are fighting the Rebel force. How can Russia object if it has no official troops there?

The nuclear warning works both ways and I have always believed that is a red herring and just a NATO excuse for doing nothing. Putin knows that the West is more than able to retaliate and won't consider that level of risk.

The political and bureaucratic procrastination is truly excruciating; for Americans, Europeans, and Ukrainians alike.

Please feel free to correct me, or other wise.

IMHO Ukraine should negotiate because if it doesn't, then the loss of its two easternmost provinces can't be prevented any more. Nobody can guarantee that Putin would agree to stop intervening in the conflict with military means, but it's at least worth trying. And NATO will certainly do nothing as Ukraine in their eyes is simply not worth fighting for. They didn't even start supplying Ukraine with military equipment in order to defeat the separatists, so why would they send forces.
Of course this is only my opinion and events are taking an unfortunate path. One year ago nobody would have imagined that something like this was possible.

 

[gazzzwp]

IMHO Ukraine should negotiate because if it doesn't, then the loss of its two easternmost provinces can't be prevented any more. Nobody can guarantee that Putin would agree to stop intervening in the conflict with military means, but it's at least worth trying. And NATO will certainly do nothing as Ukraine in their eyes is simply not worth fighting for. They didn't even start supplying Ukraine with military equipment in order to defeat the separatists, so why would they send forces.
Of course this is only my opinion and events are taking an unfortunate path. One year ago nobody would have imagined that something like this was possible.

Looks like they are preparing to negotiate:

BBC News - Poroshenko: Ukraine 'close to point of no return'

Maybe Poroshenko sees the truth of the situation: his country is not worth NATO's efforts to defend.

I just hope that is the reason rather than fear of Russia.

 

[SolarWind]

People keep talking about negotiations. Why should the government of Ukraine negotiate? Why should a nation be forced to surrender the most lucrative part of it's territory? Just to please an imperialistic aggressor on it's border?

I honestly don't think they should negotiate on principle. If it does happen it will be a sad indictment of the EU and NATO that it stood idly by and watched yet more of Europe be consumed by the Putin greed machine.

Yes I do feel a degree of emotion on this issue. Who will be next? If the EU and NATO show continued weakness on this then it does not bode well for the future. It's time to be strong and show some solidarity; Europe went through this in the last century with the USSR. On a bigger scale albeit.

I'm sorry but sanctions will not be enough.

NATO needs to signal it's intentions by sending in a task force. US led, supported by a carrier group in the Black Sea, fighter and bomber forces in Poland and Turkey. They alert Putin to the idea that they are not fighting Russia but they are fighting the Rebel force. How can Russia object if it has no official troops there?

The nuclear warning works both ways and I have always believed that is a red herring and just a NATO excuse for doing nothing. Putin knows that the West is more than able to retaliate and won't consider that level of risk.

The political and bureaucratic procrastination is truly excruciating; for Americans, Europeans, and Ukrainians alike.

Please feel free to correct me, or other wise.

Negotiate or not, if Russia wants its territory, there is little Ukraine itself can do about it. Further, putting a US carrier into the Black Sea would not be a good idea. Turkey would not allow it for starters, second if Turkey does allow it, it would be a stupid way to start WW3. Russia has right under the Monroe convention to destroy a Carrier group if it enters the Black Sea, and Russia can only carry that out fully and successfully with the use of a nuclear weapon. Even without the use of a nuclear weapon, an unacceptable damage might be done to a carrier group with conventional weapons, although I should not speculate on that.
In short, the only way a CBG enters the Black Sea is to start WW3, if it's not already in progress and nuclear weapons are being used. Playing this card while expecting Russia to blink would be a very reckless game wagering pretty much everything we have as a species.

 

[narvi]

Negotiate or not, if Russia wants its territory, there is little Ukraine itself can do about it. Further, putting a US carrier into the Black Sea would not be a good idea. Turkey would not allow it for starters, second if Turkey does allow it, it would be a stupid way to start WW3. Russia has right under the Monroe convention to destroy a Carrier group if it enters the Black Sea, and Russia can only carry that out fully and successfully with the use of a nuclear weapon. Even without the use of a nuclear weapon, an unacceptable damage might be done to a carrier group with conventional weapons, although I should not speculate on that.
In short, the only way a CBG enters the Black Sea is to start WW3, if it's not already in progress and nuclear weapons are being used. Playing this card while expecting Russia to blink would be a very reckless game wagering pretty much everything we have as a species.

Montreux Convention. While violating the convention does not give you any right to destroy the vessels in question, it is quite right that Turkey would break it only in direst circumstances.

 

[SolarWind]

Montreux Convention. While violating the convention does not give you any right to destroy the vessels in question, it is quite right that Turkey would break it only in direst circumstances.

Thanks for the correction. Here is an interesting article on this topic.
How The 1936 Montreux Convention Would Help Russia In A Ukraine War

 

[crest]

People keep talking about negotiations. Why should the government of Ukraine negotiate? Why should a nation be forced to surrender the most lucrative part of it's territory? Just to please an imperialistic aggressor on it's border?

I honestly don't think they should negotiate on principle. If it does happen it will be a sad indictment of the EU and NATO that it stood idly by and watched yet more of Europe be consumed by the Putin greed machine.

Yes I do feel a degree of emotion on this issue. Who will be next? If the EU and NATO show continued weakness on this then it does not bode well for the future. It's time to be strong and show some solidarity; Europe went through this in the last century with the USSR. On a bigger scale albeit.

I'm sorry but sanctions will not be enough.

NATO needs to signal it's intentions by sending in a task force. US led, supported by a carrier group in the Black Sea, fighter and bomber forces in Poland and Turkey. They alert Putin to the idea that they are not fighting Russia but they are fighting the Rebel force. How can Russia object if it has no official troops there?

The nuclear warning works both ways and I have always believed that is a red herring and just a NATO excuse for doing nothing. Putin knows that the West is more than able to retaliate and won't consider that level of risk.

The political and bureaucratic procrastination is truly excruciating; for Americans, Europeans, and Ukrainians alike.

Please feel free to correct me, or other wise.

Well besides the ideological reasons that a government should be inclusive and listen to the needs of a large minority in there population, especially one that has shown it is willing to fight before its willing to be ignored and disenfranchised

There is the fact this is the real world and its not governed by high ideals its governed by people so when Ukraine decided that rather then negotiate with the east portion of its country it would simply lay down the law and use its military power to crush any resistance rather then negotiate. It was taking the risk that it would actually be able to accomplish that goal.
well it is true the reble forces have the backing and support of russia this is not by any stretch of the imagination a wholly russian resistance and frankly a responsible government should have taken the concerns of a major world power sharing a border with them into account before they decided to wage a military conflict with those ailed to it.

simply put Ukraine has to negotiate at some point because they do not govern, speak for and cannot silence the eastern portion of there country. The question is how much is the western portion willing to pay in blood treasure before they sit down and negotiate?
As things look right now (and things can change in a hurry as we have seen) the sooner they do the better as they are loosing the war they started. Not to mention its much harder to deal with a confident force that has defeated you on the battle field and a large group of citizens who have almost reason to give into its demands. Or faith that if they lay down there arms the government will hold to its side of the deal

 

[crest]

Montreux Convention. While violating the convention does not give you any right to destroy the vessels in question, it is quite right that Turkey would break it only in direst circumstances.

Turkey as a member of nato would be under strong pressure to allow access. If that wasnt enough even i can think of a backdoor way to put ships in the area if need be

i could see a situation were a nato navel task force is "officially" under control of a turkish admiral legally making them at least for the time being "warships under the control of the turkish navy"

 

[Twain]

Turkey as a member of nato would be under strong pressure to allow access. If that wasnt enough even i can think of a backdoor way to put ships in the area if need be

i could see a situation were a nato navel task force is "officially" under control of a turkish admiral legally making them at least for the time being "warships under the control of the turkish navy"

If it ever came to the point of NATO or US airstrikes, there are much easier and better ways to accomplish this. eg. Polish airbases. It's much more likely that poland would be accomodating to attacks on Russian troops than Turkey would be willing to pass a flotilla through the Bosporus. Not that either is very likely to allow that at this point in time. Secondly a Carrier in the Black sea would be putting it into a shooting gallery. Leave it in the med and launch from there if you are going to attempt that. If Turkey were willing to allow a carrier through, odds are they'd allow overflights.

BTW what is the max draft for the Bosporus? I looked in several places and couldn't find it.

 

[Twain]

You are correct as far as hopes of the pro-western Maidan youth go. One note on reality however.

It is ridiculous to think that EU membership, or EU in general, can, somehow magically, solve problems with corruption and general system inefficiency of the eastern European countries.

Take a look at Romania and Bulgaria, both of which are members of EU for years. Corruption is still sky high, so much so, that Bulgaria is denied access to major EU funds. And it is not just corruption, that is the problem. There you have two EU member states, with completely failing democratic process.

Former Romanian vice Prime Minister is facing charges of attempting electoral fraud, and in Bulgaria, printing facility associated with government attempted to print no less than 350.000 illegal ballots. Both countries are a mess, and EU membership changed nothing in that respect.

Precisely for that reason, EU, struggling with its internal problems, does not want any more failed member states. As far as Balkans goes (with the exception of Croatia, that had major support from Germany), and the rest of non-EU eastern Europe, policy of EU is - keep them away from membership, but continuously press their political elites to keep declaring their commitment to future EU membership, although EU doesn't want them...

Same thing goes for Ukraine. Just before this whole mess started, there was a good article on how Ukrainian chances of becoming EU member are ziltch...

Ukraine, like Turkey, won

So, I understand hopes of Maidan protesters, however, those are totally devoid of reality. The only success of anti-oligarch, anti-corruption Maidan, was subsequent election of arch-oligarch for president.

Oh I understand that EU membership isn't a magic bullet against corruption. Dealing with endemic corruption requires the political will to do so and even if Ukraine were admitted, it's at ebst a 50/50 chance that they would succeed.

What Eu membership would do is give them additional help in dealing with it and addictional incentives. Ukraine's first big problem is in dealing with the oligarchs and their influence and that won't be easy. They are defintely smart men and a number of them switched sides once the fighting started rather than find themselves under Ukrainian government scrutiny for aiding the russian irregular troops. IMO, anti-corruption measures may not really have a chance until the maidan protesters are of an age where they are old enough to be running the government and that is a decade or two off.

The thing is, it can be done.Other countries that were in the warsaw pact have succeeded, poland being a notable example. It just takes a tremendous effort and on a national basis, the poltical will to do so.