Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.

Conmaicne Mara

If only people in positions of power in "The West" would seriously invest in technologies to replace oil and gas, the world couldn't be held to ransom by crackpots sitting on energy reserves.

CptMackey

According to CNN 15000 Russian troops in the Crimea. In 1914 all it took was one bullet to set off war. Putin will do the exact same.

I can only see war as an outcome of this posturing. Putin is basically Hitler reborn . Wait for an "attack" by the Ukrainian army to set it off.

bobcoffee

you guys realise its not just puttin?
that USA are trying their best (remember what USA will do to try and get missiles close to russia, Georgia).
EU have their own game plan and all in all its the Ukraine's who lose out no matter what choices are being made for them.

Ukraine is an important part to Russia who will do what ever to secure its regions around them.
Can't really blame them for it either.

No it does not mean Putting in a good guy at all but could we all except most countries foreign policy sucks and is very selfish.
Western Wold = asshat
Russia = asshat
Simples

sopretty

I don't like this at all.

getzls

Has it been mentioned?

The UK and USA have a Treaty saying they will defend the Ukraine's borders.

It's the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1991.

sopretty

getzls wrote: »

Has it been mentioned?

The UK and USA have a Treaty saying they will defend the Ukraine's borders.

It's the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1991.

It has been mentioned getzls. I'm not sure whether on this thread or not, but it has been mentioned during discussions.

getzls

sopretty wrote: »

It has been mentioned getzls. I'm not sure whether on this thread or not, but it has been mentioned during discussions.

Cheers.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

sopretty

Phoenix wrote: »

Was it not signed in 1994?

Yes, I believe it was.

Manic Moran

getzls wrote: »

Has it been mentioned?

The UK and USA have a Treaty saying they will defend the Ukraine's borders.

It's the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1991.

It was 1994, but it apparently says nothing about any defense pact. Signatories promise to respect the border, not enforce it if someone else fails to respect it. Russia has violated this, but I don't believe there is anything in the agreement about punishments.

sopretty

I believe the treaty refers to 'military assurances' as opposed to 'military guarantees'. Which seems to be where the discrepancies lie...

riffmongous

Will the Russians actually risk a war though? I'd imagine the Ukrainian armed forces are a big step up from what they are used to dealing with, at least in size

stevenmartin99

Yes the Ukrainian army would be step up from what they faced in Georgia for example, but the real issue is , who is the Ukrainian army loyal to?. I imagine it is as divided as the country seems to be right now, and a divided army is a useless army.

Europe or America won't get involved militarily, so it's starting to look clear Ukraine will divide with out much resistance , altogether it will probably be just the 3 most eastern Oblasts and Crimea which may eventually turn out to be a good thing for Ukraine.

riffmongous

How much does the Ukraine stand to lose economically if these areas did try to rejoin Russia?

stevenmartin99

riffmongous wrote: »

How much does the Ukraine stand to lose economically if these areas did try to rejoin Russia?

I think losing some of these eastern industrial regions would benefit Ukraine, not only because they are actually a cost to Ukraine in their current state , but also because nobody wants to reform a country with unwilling regions. Eastern Ukraine still believe the Russian way is best and i think they will learn a tough lesson if they rejoin Russia.


Crimea is a different story, it's probably a loss economically but again is there must point in wasting effort trying to drag them kicking and screaming to a future they don't seem to want?

The more this story evolves, the more a split looks inevitable.

spank_inferno

Looking at a regional map of Ukraine.

Should a split occur, Odessa would be critical to a new 'West Ukraine'..... Assuming that Crimea would revert back to a Russian client state.

PirateShampoo

BBC reporting that Ukraine has called up all its reservists and their army is in full mobilisation.

born2bwild

riffmongous wrote: »

How much does the Ukraine stand to lose economically if these areas did try to rejoin Russia?

Most of the main population centres are east of the Dnepr: Donetsk, Zaporozhye, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Lugansk and Odessa are Russian speaking (as is Kiev itself, mostly).

However, just because you speak Russian doesn't mean you want to be 'liberated' by Russia - most of these people - and that goes for those in Simferopol, Sevastopol and Yalta, too - are happy to remain in Ukraine.

Economically, the big eastern cities have financial services, heavy industry, manufacturing, (cars, planes, boats and trains), coal mining, staggeringly massive agricultural production, tourism down on the black sea (Odessa, Crimea, Sea of Azov).

In comparison, the country west of the Dnepr is less populated and has far fewer resources than the east but it still has a lot of agricultural and industrial wealth.

Ukraine is an enormous country with so much going for it that it boggles your mind to see how badly it has been run since independence.

If all of the Russian-speaking Oblasts were seized by Russia what would be left would be a mostly rural, Ukrainian speaking mini-state similar to Slovakia. Within 5 years it'd be in the Eu and the standard of living for ordinary people would outstrip that in the east by a factor of 2.

Oh and, don't forget, there'd be massive casualties. Military/Civilian/paramilitary deaths in the conflict, persecution of Russian speakers in the west, persecution of Ukrainian speakers in the east.

If this turns out to be an invasion the Balkan war in the 90s is going to look like fisticuffs.

Adamocovic

It's important now that no one from either side makes a small mistake which will make the situation spiral out of control, all it takes is one trigger happy soldier to fire a shot. I read today that Ukraine are accusing Russia of declaring war on them now, very interesting to how the whole thing pans out but I would guess it will be all bark and then the situation will be resolved.

Sand

In terms of potential for mistakes the BBC is reporting that Russian forces apparently demanded a Ukrainian barracks to hand over their weapons (presumably to assist in stabilising the situation), which has been refused. The Ukrainian troops in barracks are preparing to defend themselves from an assault.

Its seems Putin is calculating all the time that no one will do anything to stop aggressive moves but he is in danger of miscalculating very badly. Russian gas supplies are important, but this is March, not October and a cutoff of gas to western Europe is a bluff: it would be more damaging to Russia than Europe in the medium and long term. Europe can find other suppliers or substitutes in a few weeks/months. Russia wont find other buyers as quickly.

And the true value of Russian military might can be detected in the creaking, rusting state of the Russian fleet in Crimea. This isn't the old Soviet Red Army. Its been run down and left to rust for almost 25 years.

Manach

Then again, Russians might start a war poorly equipped and lead (as per the 1939 Winter War), but they'd have the expertise and industrial power to re-tool and match their adversaries.

Iwasfrozen

Manach wrote: »

Then again, Russians might start a war poorly equipped and lead (as per the 1939 Winter War), but they'd have the expertise and industrial power to re-tool and match their adversaries.

Do they? Again this isn't the Soviet Union we're talking about. NATO's industrial capability (should war break out) is far greater than Russia's.

Conmaicne Mara

Adamocovic wrote: »

It's important now that no one from either side makes a small mistake which will make the situation spiral out of control, all it takes is one trigger happy soldier to fire a shot. I read today that Ukraine are accusing Russia of declaring war on them now, very interesting to how the whole thing pans out but I would guess it will be all bark and then the situation will be resolved.

In fairness to the Ukrainian military, their territory has been, shall we say infringed upon. Some bases have been surrounded and they have had the discipline not to start randomly firing at "whomever". In a situation like this I would think that is to their credit. The best way to win a war is to avoid it in the first place, without particularly appeasing the other side if you know what I mean.

The one question I have is, IS the Ukrainian military totally under the control or loyal to the Kiev government. No doubt there are many ethnic Russians in the Ukraine military.

Sand wrote: »

And the true value of Russian military might can be detected in the creaking, rusting state of the Russian fleet in Crimea. This isn't the old Soviet Red Army. Its been run down and left to rust for almost 25 years.

It isn't Yeltsins army, it's Putins army. I would think there are substantial differences between how an alcoholic runs his army and that of a former KGB Colonel. Underestimate them at your peril.

weisses

This is Georgia 2.0

The worst the Ukrainians can do is to provoke the Russians so they have an excuse

As Mikheil Saakashvili found out

barney 20v

The next 24 hours are crucial in all this, USA threatening economic sanctions over military actions

Sand

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

It isn't Yeltsins army, it's Putins army. I would think there are substantial differences between how an alcoholic runs his army and that of a former KGB Colonel. Underestimate them at your peril.

The Russians have begun to spend on their military in recent years again and attempt several military reforms, but they're coming from a very low base after decades of military decline and NATO, even discounting the US, easily outspends them and has done so for years. Having the ability to beat the Georgians in what was essentially a small border clash with no more than 10-15,000 a side is one thing. The ability to wage war on a larger scale is something I find dubious on the NATO side which have compromised on size, not quality. Let alone the Russians who have compromised on both.

At this point I think its Putin who is in danger of underestimating his opponents. He's just wandered over the border of another state on trumped up excuses, with reckless disregard and a seeming belief that either he wont be challenged or that if he is that he will win easily. That has proven the downfall of other aggressively nationalist leaders in Europe.

This is Georgia 2.0

The worst the Ukrainians can do is to provoke the Russians so they have an excuse

As Mikheil Saakashvili found out

Its the reverse actually - Its Russia that has turned to aggressive military action this time. As for provocation - the Russians are the ones carrying out the provocation. At some point a sovereign state has to defend its territory from foreign military incursions or it ceases to be a sovereign state.

I agree though - the Ukranians have been wise to allow the Russians to continue playing the role of the aggressor. Putin ultimately is going to face a tough choice - withdraw with his tail between his legs, or push into an aggressive annexation of the Crimea which will lead to massive sanctions against Russia, or even worse a war he will lose.

karma_

Sand wrote: »

The Russians have begun to spend on their military in recent years again and attempt several military reforms, but they're coming from a very low base after decades of military decline and NATO, even discounting the US, easily outspends them

It's not about how much a military spends but the value they get for that. The greatest lesson Russia learned about that was in WW2 they figured out very fast that they didn't have to match their opponents technically but just get close enough to do a reasonable job and their vast industrial base could be utilised fully. Same applies today.

jackboy

If a war started China would back up Russia. For this reason I believe the west will not help Ukraine.

Sand

karma_ wrote: »

It's not about how much a military spends but the value they get for that. The greatest lesson Russia learned about that was in WW2 they figured out very fast that they didn't have to match their opponents technically but just get close enough to do a reasonable job and their vast industrial base could be utilised fully. Same applies today.

Sure, but that assumes that all spending in the west is wasteful and pointless, whereas all the Russian spending is efficiently and wisely invested. That sort of imbalance is possible, but it seems highly unlikely that a government as corrupt and ineffective in all other arenas (Look at the Olympics - apparently the most expensive games every held by a significant margin, and yet facilities for visitors were a bit of an experience) is the most effective when it comes to military investmnet.

And most of the targets of that wasteful/pointless label in NATO military spending have been exactly the sort of weapon systems that are designed to overwhelm organised, modern enemies like the Russians - spending was/is considered wasteful because it was inconceivable NATO would ever actually fight organised, modern enemies like the Russians.

Iwasfrozen

jackboy wrote: »

If a war started China would back up Russia. For this reason I believe the west will not help Ukraine.

China would back up Russia? Why? The two are bitter historical enemies. The feelings of the Sino Soviet split still run deep.

Even if they did China would struggle to even get troops to Ukraine.