Russia - General Discussion.

[Musashi_kenshin]

It is very hard to imagine that West will abandon her to RF. It will not happen.

It's important to remember that it's in NATO's best interests that Ukraine remains an independent country with (more or less) its current borders.

There's no guarantee that after dismembering Ukraine or achieving his vague "goals" regarding Ukraine that Putin would stop there. It's quite possible he would turn to the Baltic states.

Why? Because he will have developed the perfect means to break them away from NATO and the EU.

Step 1 - Send Russian intelligence officers over the border.
Step 2 - Slip weapons over the border with "volunteers" and "mercenaries".
Step 3 - Cause civil unrest, whether by using the ethnic Russian population or people masquerading as them.
Step 4 - Condemn the respective governments for "oppressing Russian minorities" when they attempt to crush the rebellions.
Step 5 - Start by sending in the "little green men", pretending that the rebellions have significant support.
Step 6 - Finish the job with regular troops in a quick victory.
Step 7 - Watch as NATO and the EU do not intervene militarily because they were presented with something that looked like a civil war, which they didn't want to get involved in - and by the time it's clear Russia has sent in large numbers of troops it's too late.

Of course it may not play out like that, and it could star a war. But the problem is that Putin may well believe his tactics would work again.

As others have explained, Ukraine had a cast-iron guarantee from the US and Russia about its territorial integrity. If Russia can bully the US to back off over a diplomatic treaty like that, why can't it bully the US to back off against protecting the Baltics, so the reasoning in the Kremlin will go.

After all, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are as much "far away places of which we know little" as Ukraine is to most Americans.

 

[Beholder]

Does it? I wasn't aware.

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

In article 2:
. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in selfdefense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

China and France have signed separate documents with roughly same content.

So while they not obliged to defend Ukraine, they obliged to at least rise concerns in case it's territorial integrity infringed.

 

[Ananda]

Ukraine is country of 40+ million people. It has written gurantee of UK, France, US of it's territorial integrity.
It is very hard to imagine that West will abandon her to RF. It will not happen.

Tell that to Checzh in 38. UK and French even guarantee Czech integrity with Military intervention if need too. Did that happen ? In the end French and UK agree to carve Czech for Hitler demand. Will that happens to Ukraine now? Could be yes, could be no.

However don't assume all the West have similar line with the end cost to defend Ukraine, especially their public. Public perception is fleeting thing, can change drastically if they see the cost to high.

Biden so far already put clearly that there will be no NATO troops facing Russian if they choose to invade. All the West can do know is up the Economics cost game, and hope it'll be enough.

There's no guarantee that after dismembering Ukraine or achieving his vague "goals" regarding Ukraine that Putin would stop there.

It could be, it could be not. That's why now is the diplomacy of the costs.

Russia could be satisfied with carving East and South Ukraine. After all that's the area that become part of present Ukraine only due to Lenin decision. By controlling Ukraine coast line, Russia practically control 60% of Black Sea coasts. Perhaps it's enough buffer for Russia.

The thing is we are arguing base on each assumption on how far either West and Russia willing to go. All still basically guessing how far both NATO and Russia willing to take the cost. Nobody now quite sure how far the break line will be.

 

[Atunga]

Ukraine doesn't need to.
Ukraine is country of 40+ million people. It has written gurantee of UK, France, US of it's territorial integrity.
It is very hard to imagine that West will abandon her to RF. It will not happen.
Other then direct military intervention, all other means will be used to stop RF military action.
If that will fail direct military intervention still will be seriosly considered.
This is how West operate. Very predictable.
It is entirely possible that West will accept Ukraine into NATO with Dombass and Crimea as exceptions for article 5 application.
It will be disaster for RF. Exacly thing they tried to prevent.IMO

Your talking about the Budapest memorandum on security assurances.. it was signed by US, UK AND Russia, France and China gave some kind of assurances on different documents.

Those assurances was not just for Ukraine, it will also for Belarus and Kazakhstan, they all had Nuclear weapons that they could not use because all the codes were controlled by Russia.. that been said, Russia don't want to attack Ukraine, all they want is Ukraine can't be part of Nato, they have declared it a red line both in private and in public. [Mod edit: Russia’s little green men had attacked and seized parts of Ukrainian territory. When their preferred militias lost, entire Russian battlegroups crossed the border to defeat or encircle Ukrainian units]

 

[Beholder]

Why? Because he will have developed the perfect means to break them away from NATO and the EU.

Step 1 - Send Russian intelligence officers over the border.
Step 2 - Slip weapons over the border with "volunteers" and "mercenaries".
Step 3 - Cause civil unrest, whether by using the ethnic Russian population or people masquerading as them.
Step 4 - Condemn the respective governments for "oppressing Russian minorities" when they attempt to crush the rebellions.
Step 5 - Start by sending in the "little green men", pretending that the rebellions have significant support.
Step 6 - Finish the job with regular troops in a quick victory.
Step 7 - Watch as NATO and the EU do not intervene militarily because they were presented with something that looked like a civil war, which they didn't want to get involved in - and by the time it's clear Russia has sent in large numbers of troops it's too late.

Of course it may not play out like that, and it could star a war. But the problem is that Putin may well believe his tactics would work again.

This is fantasy. There is nothing new in false flag operation(not acknowledge own troops), but it really does not work.
It only allow one to avoid international agreements. Hovewer it does not avoid need to defeat enemy.
Can RF hide its involment form NATO? It can not. So what is point? It will be as with americans in Syria, in battle of Khasham, they asked RF if RF troops were present, got the 'No' answer and "little green men" were annihilated, because they are not russian troops right?

Such tactic can only work with country that is weaker. Country that unwilling to expose RF officially.
It will not work with any NATO country

 

[Beholder]

The thing is we are arguing base on each assumption on how far either West and Russia willing to go. All still basically guessing how far both NATO and Russia willing to take the cost. Nobody now quite sure how far the break line will be.

My argument is based on western values more, then some risk calculation, or value attached to Ukraine.
On the other hand it is based on RF weakness.
This is not Soviet Union. Modern RF army is not force that can shake NATO.
I think it is not case of RF attacking to get land, or benefits.
I think RF understand that current trend is greatly unfavorable to RF and RF feels treatened, so they act that way.
I don't see any risk whatsoever to NATO. Just NATO fast response force is 60+k troops, while RF with all it's forces can maybe get ~250-300k with Belarus together.
RF will stgruggle with Ukraine alone, without NATO troops involved.
So NATO can very much act on it's values instead.
Another thing is current new alliance between UK,Poland and Ukraine.
All in all military actions are too costly for Russia with very little cost for NATO.

 

[Beholder]

Your talking about the Budapest memorandum on security assurances.. it was signed by US, UK AND Russia, France and China gave some kind of assurances on different documents. those assurances was not just for Ukraine, it will also for Belarus and Kazakhstan, they all had Nuclear weapons that they could not use because all the codes were controlled by Russia.. that been said, Russia don't want to attack Ukraine, all they want is Ukraine can't be part of Nato, they have declared it a red line both in private and in public

Yes. That is why RF lost great deal legitimacy after annexing Crimea.
I mean think about what was before, they did great 8 instead of great 7 just to accomodate RF.
Now no one wants to listen to them. Because they don't think agreements with RF worth a lot.
Russia can declare red lines all they want. How RF is going to enforce it?
Massing troops on Ukraine border and hope that NATO will blink didn't work, what next?

 

[Rob c]

that been said, Russia don't want to attack Ukraine, all they want is Ukraine can't be part of Nato, they have declared it a red line both in private and in public

My personal view is that if Russia does not want certain countries to join NATO, then they should not be giving THOSE COUNTRIES reason to want to join NATO. Their current actions will be making a lot of countries that boarder Russia somewhat nervous (who is next?) and may push those courtiers to consider membership of NATO. However I think that by now the horse may have bolted and in the coming years I would not be surprised if NATO gets further applications.

 

[Feanor]

Their experience in Syria is against insurgents, not a peer threat. The learning curve from merely watching one side getting bombed without some counter-action is very limited.

It's all relative. VVS planning was stuck in the 80's until this war. And while you're correct in so far as this is less valuable then a war against another state, I suspect the VVS would do very poorly against a peer adversary in 2014. And the potential for a clash with Turkey had much to do with increasing procurement and adaptation of RVV-SDs to the fleet.

 

[Beholder]

RF didn't lose a single drop of legitimacy after Crimea, you call it annexing, they carried out a referendum they think.

It does not matter. RF promised to respect territorial integrity of Ukraine. RF is last country that can annex any part of it.
I can see how West see it.

 

[Beholder]

This is the major problem RF has with the West, the West is allowed to do certain things and Russia is not. Russia is not having any of it, do what you preach so that so that no one feels cheated

Yes. What You said is true. RF does not understand West, West does not really understand RF.
But principles they operate on are different. Even if true understanding achieved, West will not agree to RF desire of security guaranty from NATO to not create treat from Ukraina to what RF consider it's own territory(Crimea).
What assurances West can give, RF will not see as enough. What RF want, West cannot give, because it goes against core principles.
And mutual distrust will prevent any substantial agreement.
So I think RF will deescalate at some point. Then we will see.

 

[Feanor]

RF didn't lose a single drop of legitimacy after Crimea, you call it annexing, they carried out a referendum they think.. G8 or G7 is just a social club of no relevance, they didn't get kicked out of the United nations security council. What happened at the security council yesterday shows that people are willing to listen to RF.. Russia never makes noise on what their next moves are, they just execute, that's why we are all guessing and all clueless as to what their next moves might be

You are mistaken. Russia lost a great deal of legitimacy in the eyes of the collective west, though it was not only due to the annexation of Crimea but also the war in the East.

Everyone around them is already a NATO member, which countries are left? Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia.. Russia never gave anyone reason to join NATO.. Russia has a lot of constraints and they know it, they won't act if it's not a matter of National security

One can reasonably make (and I would make it) the argument that Russian present behavior wasn't the cause of countries clamoring to join NATO (look at the timeline, the biggest spurts of NATO membership came long before Russia was strong enough to pose any kind of threat). One certainly can't claim that Russia never gave anyone reason to join. This is plain false.

 

[Atunga]

Yes. What You said is true. RF does not understand West, West does not really understand RF.
But principles they operate on are different. Even if true understanding achieved, West will not agree to RF desire of security guaranty from NATO to not create treat from Ukraina to what RF consider it's own territory(Crimea).
What assurances West can give, RF will not see as enough. What RF want, West cannot give, because it goes against core principles.
And mutual distrust will prevent any substantial agreement.
So I think RF will deescalate at some point. Then we will see.

Russia doesn't want a war with Ukraine, it's just too expensive, top official upon top official of the RF has come out to say we don't want war so what de-escalation are you talking about? The west have to think of de-escalating them selves.. watch the full security council session and tell me what you think the world thinks about Ukraine.

 

[Beholder]

Russia doesn't want a war with Ukraine, it's just too expensive, top official upon top official of the RF has come out to say we don't want war so what de-escalation are you talking about? The west have to think of de-escalating them selves.. watch the full security council session and tell me what you think the world thinks about Ukraine.

I have seen it in full already.
As far as deescalation is moving army units to theyre respective places along RF border and other places they were before.
Currently RF have 9/11 of it's combat ready forces(9 armies from ~11) along border with Ukraine, or moving there.
I already said that I understand that RF see this action as defensive.
And I agree in a way that RF want to defend status quo and get security assurance from West.
Moreover any country can move army within it's border.
But as I said RF lost lot of legitimacy. And West does not accept current status quo in Ukraine as legitimate.

 

[Atunga]

You are mistaken. Russia lost a great deal of legitimacy in the eyes of the collective west, though it was not only due to the annexation of Crimea but also the war in the East.



One can reasonably make (and I would make it) the argument that Russian present behavior wasn't the cause of countries clamoring to join NATO (look at the timeline, the biggest spurts of NATO membership came long before Russia was strong enough to pose any kind of threat). One certainly can't claim that Russia never gave anyone reason to join. This is plain false.

So when the West does wrong or makes mistakes, they don't lose legitimacy? Or is the problem that Russia is wrong for trying to be treated as an equal partner? At what instance did Russian behaviour suddenly start pushing everyone to NATO? The Georgian war?

 

[Atunga]

I have seen it in full already.
As far as deescalation is moving army units to theyre respective places along RF border and other places they were before.
Currently RF have 9/11 of it's combat ready forces(9 armies from ~11) along border with Ukraine, or moving there.
I already said that I understand that RF see this action as defensive.
And I agree in a way that RF want to defend status quo and get security assurance from West.
Moreover any country can move army within it's border.
But as I said RF lost lot of legitimacy. And West does not accept current status quo in Ukraine as legitimate.

The legitimacy talk is a dicey one, the West as a whole lost lots of legitimacy on a whole lot of issues, something that we can't really discuss here because it will take us to another subject, should we hold them to account because of their mistakes or because they did wrong on that occasion then refuse to deal with them?

 

[Beholder]

The legitimacy talk is a dicey one, the West as a whole lost lots of legitimacy on a whole lot of issues, something that we can't really discuss here because it will take us to another subject, should we hold them to account because of their mistakes or because they did wrong on that occasion then refuse to deal with them?

You try to get my personal opinion, but this is political talk i am not interested to have.
I can only say what I think about western goverment position and try to see possible future military actions. I really don't want to say what I would do in western leaders place.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Everyone around them is already a NATO member, which countries are left? Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia.. Russia never gave anyone reason to join NATO.. Russia has a lot of constraints and they know it, they won't act if it's not a matter of National security

Keeping these countries under the tight rule of the Soviet Union and then Russia, with installed regimes and 0 freedom, is not enough reason to seek protection from someone else?

 

[Atunga]

You try to get my personal opinion, but this is political talk i am not interested to have.
I can only say what I think about western goverment position and try to see possible future military actions. I really don't want to say what I would do in western leaders place.

Fair enough, no one is in the position to call the other illegitimate, especially when everyone has been muddled in some sort of dirt

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

This is fantasy. There is nothing new in false flag operation(not acknowledge own troops), but it really does not work.

As far as Russia was concerned it worked with Ukraine, specifically in the Crimea and East. Russia refused to admit it had forces on the ground and Obama dithered because he didn't know how to respond to Russia refusing to admit to what it was doing.

Let me emphasise, this isn't about what the reasonable person on the street thinks, it's what Putin thinks. If he "wins" over Ukraine, he will absolutely think he can do the same in the Baltics. Not immediately, but sometime this decade.