- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@kevcvs57 saidThe rebels currently control only about, looking at the map, 40% of the two oblasts Putin wants to turn into a vassal state. The rest is still Ukraine-controlled. The aim is to get the full area under Putinist control.
Yes it is a bit perplexing, they must know that they were already de facto independent Moscow administered areas and given that they are on Ukraines extreme eastern border I’d think they’d be glad to be rid of them Trojan horses, which is what Putin hoped they would be.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@kevcvs57 saidNope. This is his normal modus operandi. Again: he has form.
We also have to consider Putin’s state of mind, he’s given some weird stream of consciousness lectures over this thing and apparently he’s been quite isolated during the covid thing.
Someone in his position can get isolated and quirky at the best of times.
It's still unclear to me whether Russia has committed to sending its "peacekeeping" troops beyond those areas already held by separatists.
It's also unclear to me what the Ukranian forces will do if the Russians encroach into government held areas.
The answers to those questions seem critical as mere Russian occupation of areas already held by separatists would be mostly of symbolic value.
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidLike in Afghanistan?
Worst case scenario (assuming no nuclear Armageddon) is Russia getting bogged down in a frozen conflict. This is potentially bad for the Russians but is also the kind of thing they account for as part of their strategy.
A full scale occupation of the Ukraine by Russia would almost certainly be more difficult than that fiasco; present day Ukraine has three times the population Afghanistan did in 1980.
@no1marauder saidThe Taliban lived in the mountains and struck in the valleys, I cannot see any serious opposition to Russian arms if the major cities fall. Ukraines survival depends on how many civilians Putin is prepared to kill and maim.
Like in Afghanistan?
A full scale occupation of the Ukraine by Russia would almost certainly be more difficult than that fiasco; present day Ukraine has three times the population Afghanistan did in 1980.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidA frozen conflict is a post USSR concept or phenomenon in which Russia basically exercises a de facto military veto on anything happening in the post-Soviet space. Afghanistan was a different kind of war.
Like in Afghanistan?
A full scale occupation of the Ukraine by Russia would almost certainly be more difficult than that fiasco; present day Ukraine has three times the population Afghanistan did in 1980.
Note - the following is a student paper but it's a Ph.D grad student in the relevant field who wrote it:
https://www.ibei.org/ibei_studentpaper28_71440.pdf
Russian Meddling In Its Near
Abroad. The Use of Frozen Conflicts
as a Foreign Policy Tool
Andrew Sprague
The fall of the Soviet Union witnessed the birth of a new kind of conflict in some of its former
republics. Classified as frozen conflicts, these situations destabilize the region and prevent nation-state
consolidation. The aim of this study is to determine why Russia encourages and supports secessionist
rebels in some states but not in others.
Since the conflict is "frozen" Russia can let it sit for years or decades while they attend to other matters and escalate or de-escalate the conflict at will depending on the situation and how various negotiations are going with major world powers.
This of course will ruin the lives of at least one generation of Ukranian people.
Following the collapse of the USSR in 1991, a new type of conflict began to appear within its
successor states. Labeled ‘frozen conflicts,’ these situations remain unique to a few former Soviet
republics. The conflict regions consist of Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, and
Transnistria, although there is now a debate about including the ongoing Ukrainian crisis. Due to
Russia’s involvement and influence in each situation, Western scholars such as Pere Vilanova,
Vladimir Socor, and Theodor Tudoroiu have claimed this is an active tool in Russia’s foreign policy
arsenal. This raises an important question: Why does Russia encourage and maintain frozen conflicts
in some former Soviet states and not others?
@no1marauder saidColbert said the following (and it cracked me up… but read it out loud in a Russian accent) : We are sending a peace keeping force. We will keep this piece of Ukraine and we will keep that piece of Ukraine.
It's still unclear to me whether Russia has committed to sending its "peacekeeping" troops beyond those areas already held by separatists.
It's also unclear to me what the Ukranian forces will do if the Russians encroach into government held areas.
The answers to those questions seem critical as mere Russian occupation of areas already held by separatists would be mostly of symbolic value.
@kevcvs57 saidThe Iraqis managed to conduct a long, largely urban guerrilla war against the US with some success.
The Taliban lived in the mountains and struck in the valleys, I cannot see any serious opposition to Russian arms if the major cities fall. Ukraines survival depends on how many civilians Putin is prepared to kill and maim.
@no1marauder saidUkraine’s standing army isn’t that small, is it?
The Iraqis managed to conduct a long, largely urban guerrilla war against the US with some success.
Invading and holding on to the whole of Ukraine would drain considerable resources, especially with the West pumping weapons into the country (and arming every far-right nutjob on the way).
Well, we haven’t seen anything like this happen before…
@shavixmir said"Ukraine's prime minister said a decree recently signed by Zelenskiy - on priority measures to strengthen the state's defence capabilities, increase the attractiveness of military service and the gradual transition to a professional army - would eventually bring Ukraine's armed forces to 361,000 personnel."
Ukraine’s standing army isn’t that small, is it?
Invading and holding on to the whole of Ukraine would drain considerable resources, especially with the West pumping weapons into the country (and arming every far-right nutjob on the way).
Well, we haven’t seen anything like this happen before…
"Beyond the regular army, Ukraine has volunteer territorial defence units and around 900,000 reservists. Most adult males have at least basic military training, so Russia could find itself facing stubborn and protracted resistance if it tried to capture and hold onto territory."
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/how-ukraines-armed-forces-shape-up-against-russias-2022-02-01/
Seems like a handful for Russia, though Iraq's standing army looked formidable on paper but quickly melted away during the conventional phase of the US invasion. Still, that's an awful lot of potential resistance fighters if Russia tried to grab the whole country.
1 edit
If the reports in this article are true, it seems like Russian forces are entering the country from multiple sides and bombing and shelling cities, so a limited operation only in the Donbass doesn't look like it's in the cards. https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/23/europe/russia-ukraine-putin-military-operation-donbas-intl-hnk/index.html