How Long Could Ukraine Hold Out Against A New Russian Invasion?
How would Ukraine's military fare in the event of a major offensive by the Russian forces massing across the border?
www.rferl.org
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
www.rferl.org
I agree partition is usually no solution, but it can work for a few decades.
Donbass though is a very sensitive subject for the Russians, both inside and outside Ukraine. Ukraine had been stable and enjoying a privileged position with Russia until the USA started their campaign of destabilising the country in 2003/4, resulting in a minority of Orange revolutionaries taking over parliament by force.
The democratically elected president of Ukraine who had previously been president of the Donetsk oblast of Donbass, Viktor Yanukovich who was friendly to Russia, fled in fear of his life to Moscow where he lives to this day. Added to that was that the Donbass Russians were furious at a pro western minority taking over control of the whole country by force so they eventually started the long civil war with Ukraine, supported by Russian arms.
You can see that there are some entrenched Russian principles involved in who possesses Donbass now. It was Russia in the person of Lenin who made Ukraine into a country in 1917 and Nikita Krushchev who granted them full control over Donbass, so the Orange Revolution and what happened to their Donbass born president was seen as the worst kind of ingratitude.
No Ukrainians live in Donbass, it's in a broken down and terrible state so of no use to Ukraine so it's just symbolic to both sides. Russia possessing it won't result in conflict since it's always been effectively in their control anyway, but Ukraine possessing it certainly could provoke a fresh conflict, such is the Donetskians bitterness and hatred.
.
I don't think oblivion a risk but I do hate that he's been pushed increasingly into the Chinese side. The world is splitting into two again and it's hardly sensible to help the other side of the future.
.
Even closer than that for Ireland . The majority of civilian aircraft in Russia are leased from companies operating out of Ireland.The Ukraine situation gets to feel ever so close:
Russian vessels will be banned from British ports, transport secretary Grant Shapps said on Monday, in an effort to ensure the Kremlin isn’t funding its war effort in Ukraine with sales of oil and gas in the UK.
The pledge came as multiple Russian oil tankers were either docked at UK ports or on either way to drop off consignments, in south Wales, Scotland and Orkney.
A Russian oil tanker was moored at Milford Haven in south Wales on Monday, even as Shapps announced plans to bar any future arrivals.
Pluto, a crude oil tanker delivering supplies from Primorsk – which accounts for 30% of Russian oil exports – arrived in the UK on 26 February, where it remained on Monday morning.
Russian vessels to be banned from British ports, says Grant Shapps
Transport secretary’s pledge comes with multiple oil tankers either docked or on their way to UK portswww.theguardian.com
Except it would appear that it was not a" pro western minority" . Those living in these regions but west of what was the line of control pre Wednesday , even if Russian language speaking and ethnically Russian appear to have identified with the current Ukraine. Now I don't know whether this is true,or just propaganda,but it is certainly reported.
Yes they do now, but as posted, I was speaking of the Orange revolution forcible takeoever in 2004 nearly 20 years ago. Then that had the support of only a quarter of the country. There was roughly another quarter against (Russian) and half who didn't seem to know quite what was going on. It was anything but democratic.
.
by the same token, those Ukrainians who chose the West did so much better economically than those who chose Russia.
Those in the middle voted largely for Zelenskyy. He got 73.2% of the votes in 2019.
Zelenskyy himself came from a Russian speaking southeastern region of Ukraine.
And he is Jewish, Putin labels him a Nazi.
Totally agree with sentiments of post.
The argument Putin has been driven to take this stance has been pontificated about and spread through such as Guardian for years. It's wrong. They argue West should have closed NATO as Warsaw pact broke up. Remove the threat, remove the defence. But the fact is the threat was never removed, it was reduced to some extent by the loss of many countries previously held in the iron grip of Russia. For decades now the belligerence and threats have come from Russia and NATO simply providing almost a token gesture (referred to as trip wire levels of military) in places such as Estonia. The apologists for Putin exist and its one of reasons he has thrived. Throughout its entire existence NATO has been a defensive and reactive force. It has never invaded, threatened or been involved in belligerent acts. Putin uses its existence to justify his annexation, corridors and wars. Time we all saw both him and elements of Russia for what they really are. Haven't we had enough signs yet? Salisbury? Crimea Ukraine? Livchenko? Interfering with Western democracies? (It's argued Putin got Trump elected) He could have had a hand in our current predicament with Tory dominance and Brexit..
Flecc in some past ramble went into great detail about US administrations excluding Putin and pushing his borders and criticised it all,but every aspect done in name of defence. Defence now proven we and specifically Eastern Europe need.
To suggest Russia should have been allowed in either NATO or EU is staggeringly mis informed over their attitudes. This week 12 Russian delegates banned from UN... For espionage. No doubt made up charges.
As I said some time ago, Ukraine is a watershed moment. The World has woken up to Putin's true intent and nature. We have never needed NATO more.
Putin has now used Thermo Baric weapons against his Ukrainian cousins. That says everything.
Whatever the West did or didn't do in the past we were going to have to confront Putin at some stage. This is not our doing.
It's the World reacting to a belligerent self appointed dictator. For all our sakes, including Russians, his regime needs confronting. His power grab, his world view, his attitude that to the powerful go the rewards.
Last edited:
there is some natural justice via the internet.
Yep, it's an amazingly powerful tool. Suspect it is behind the restraint Putin is demonstrating at moment. He could have gone in far nastier. I worry situation he is starting to find himself in might make him lose any restraint he might feel.
It looks like the approach to blowing up cities - including accommodation - is getting even nastier.
From where we are, it looks as if a series of secret, hidden and well-protected emplacements could be picking off the enormously extended Russian convoys. And ways of destroying bridges, tunnels or other key points of the road network.
Once again Zlatan stop making up what I posted because you are so utterly clueless about the background to all this.
My criticism of the USA was about the way they rejected the entirely reasonable Mikhail Ivanovich Gorbachov as president by using covert CIA action to get rid of him, in favour of Boris Yeltsin. That was because they were too impatient for Gorbachov's planned conversion from Communism to Capitalism that Europe favoured and preferred Yeltsin's "plan" for a sudden switch.
We all saw the total chaos that resulted from the drunken Yeltsin's plan didnt we?
Yeltsin needed someone utterly ruthless to carry out his "plan", so he promoted Putin in three rapid steps, first to head of the FSB, second almost immediately after to Prime Minister and then to President when he resigned, too ill from his alcoholism to carry on.
You can see that if the USA had never interfered we'd have had a stable democratic Russia as a friend via Gorbachov's Perestroika and Glasnost plan. That involved the ordinary Russian people with the European countries helping, leading the change from Communism to capitalism, not the Russian leadership dictating it.
Mikhail Ivanovich as a promoter of the change to Western ideals even when the USSR was still in power would never under any circumstances have favoured using a brutal thug like Putin. Nor would the European leaders helping the Russian system changeover.
So all the of the ills that have resulted from Putins brutal reign have been due to the USA's interference, as ever thinking they know best how to run the world when they very obviously don't.
NOT TRUE
Encircling Russia with a wall of NATO countries despite even Putin making peaceful overtures decades ago was a belligerent act
The Balkans and Afghanistan regime change were invasions and belligerent acts.
The two Gulf Wars, one based entirely on lies, plus the 12 years of the brutal US no fly zone would all have been NATO actions but for the mainland Eurpean countries refusing to join in since they saw how wrong they were. These three were invasions and belligerent acts costing hundreds of thousands of lives, mostly of entirely innocent people.
.
Last edited:
I have seen some impact of the internet in the realm of health.
Where once each patient was an island who typically wouldn't know any others with the same issue (unless there was a hereditable factor when others of the same family might be similarly afflicted), we now have possibly 10 or 20% of all sufferers communicating with each other.
In both contexts, the previous systems, with all their assumptions and game-plays, cannot persist.
(Yes - there is much poor information and exploitation as well. It is not unalloyed joy and benefit.)
Yes, where are those Turkish bayraktar drones (and why isn't nato, en masse, lending all its drones to ukraine)?
if NATO aircraft, on loan to the Ukrainian air force, shoots up some Russian tanks then it would be reasonable to expect Russians to retaliate.
NATO has time on its side. It has to drag out until common sense prevails.
Indeed. But I think it may be easier to contain putin earlier (rather than later when his unchecked megalomania is fuelled further by the west's carefullnes). He never intended to play by any rules anyway.
it may not be possible for NATO to stop Putin now, leave alone any earlier.
It's already difficult for Europe to unite on defense, then there is the issue of millions of Ukrainian refugees.
However in the longer term, the Russian people may just see that Putin won't win and decide to replace him.
I honestly wish that were possible. Putin, as the world is realising, cares nothing for human life. He will cling on in ways that make assad look Liberal, slaughter as many Russians as needs to. I'm afraid the age old military strategy of overwhelming force may be the only way to get rid of him.
We cannot use planes or drones to shoot down Russian planes or helicopters since it would constitute NATO declaring war on Russia, WW3. That is why for the same reason we cannot institute a "no fly" zone since enforcing it would mean shooting down Russian aircraft.
.
Last edited:
Again, that means WW3 with nuclear weapons used.
.