They will put up a fight but whether that fight can make a difference against what the Russians will deploy is of course highly doubtful.In a "wartime" it is not even guaranteed Ukraine will put up a fight, despite the rhetoric. Unless the US and allies decide to physically aid Ukraine with more than just some equipment, of course.
A court in Rostov in southern Russia, located on the Ukrainian border, disclosed that a convicted senior manager of a local company was in charge of buying, stocking and selling food to Russian troops stationed in separatist-controlled eastern Ukraine.
“This food was intended to be sent to military units of the Russian Armed Forces stationed on the territory of the DNR (Donetsk People's Republic) and LNR (Luhansk People's Republic),” the court said in its verdict.
How a court case may have inadvertently revealed that Russia has troops in Ukraine | The IndependentAccording to the court documents, troops received more than 1,300 tons of food every two weeks including flour, canned food and fresh vegetables with each delivery costing 130 million rubles (£1.32m).
It was estimated that the bi-weekly supplies could feed around 26,000 Russian troops.
Isn't that the LNR - DNR Armed Forces? We have a thread on that. This may be new material evidence that they are Russian troops, or at least financed/supported by Russia, but in general this is old news. A subtle distinction is typically made when talking about Russian troops in Ukraine. The LNR - DNR Armed Forces are there all the time. Reinforcements could enter from Russia in times of flare ups.A Russian court inadvertently revealed that Russia has a significant number of soldiers in Easter Ukraine. Russia says this information was an "error".
How a court case may have inadvertently revealed that Russia has troops in Ukraine | The Independent
If Russia has 26,000 in Eastern Ukraine I would assume the US would know about it?
At this stage Moscow might as well demand that every year leaders from European states make a journey to Russia to show their fealty to Putin.Russia does seem to want a buffer zone, but its preferred method of getting that buffer zone seems to be to demand concrete guarantees that Ukraine cannot join NATO and that no NATO or any NATO country troops, bases, or missile batteries will be present in Ukraine.
I wonder the same thing, especially viewed in the context of public opinion in Russia. But some believe the Minks agreements, if followed by Ukraine, may give Russia a degree of control over Ukraine, that might let Russia make sure their requirements are met without requiring the West to act.I have to wonder, are these impossible to meet demands a way to justify an invasion of Ukraine, because the Kremlin knows they won't be agreed to?
If a deal is reached; both sides will have to make concessions. Throughout the Cold War and in more recent times the Soviets/Russians have displayed a willingness to make concessions when necessary.without making any concessions itself
I think the Russians believe that if certain compromises are made by both sides; a deal can be reached. IMO what Russia is asking for; with regards to NATO expansion rigt to its borders; is not outrageous or unacceptable. Sure Russia has to scale down on what it's doing in the Ukraine but NATO also has to realise that the Ukraine joining NATO or NATO placing certain types of weaponry is a ''red line'' Russia will never accept.I have to wonder, are these impossible to meet demands a way to justify an invasion of Ukraine, because the Kremlin knows they won't be agreed to?
If it was forced to invade my guess is it would aim for a buffer zone which would include a land corridor to the Crimea. An invasion to the banks of the Dnieper would be a much larger and more politically dicey undertaking ; plus Russia would have a large hostile population to contend with.A big question would be whether Russia's aim is to create an enlarged buffer zone by occupying just the more pro-russian east or a complete take over of Ukraine ala 1956 Hungary.
Whether Russia's demand is unacceptable or not, depends on who you ask. Many people in Ukraine may find this demand to be unacceptable, in particular in light of Russia's annexation of Crimea, as well as the invasion of Eastern Ukraine.IMO what Russia is asking for; with regards to NATO expansion rigt to its borders; is not outrageous or unacceptable. Sure Russia has to scale down on what it's doing in the Ukraine but NATO also has to realise that the Ukraine joining NATO or NATO placing certain types of weaponry is a ''red line'' Russia will never accept.
NATO’s “open door policy” is based on Article 10 of the Alliance’s founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty (1949). The Treaty states that NATO membership is open to any “European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area”. It states that any decision on enlargement must be made “by unanimous agreement”.
NATO respects the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements. Each sovereign country has the right to choose for itself whether it joins any treaty or alliance. This fundamental principle is enshrined in international agreements, including the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe. NATO membership is not imposed on countries. Article 13 of the Washington Treaty specifically gives Allies the right to leave should they wish to.
20160627_1607-factsheet-enlargement-eng.pdf (nato.int)To join the Alliance, nations are expected to respect the values of the North Atlantic Treaty, and to meet certain political, economic and military criteria, set out in the Alliance’s 1995 Study on Enlargement. These criteria include a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy; fair treatment of minority populations; a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully; an ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutions.
Russia wants concessions made by NATO now, in order to progress to the next stage of negotiations.If a deal is reached; both sides will have to make concessions.
This is a major problem and is something which has to be negotiated. Remains to be seen if Russia intends on lifting or being flexible on any preconditions.Russia wants concessions made by NATO now
We'll have to see if talks get serious; the fact remains that for talks to succeed there have to be concessions and compromises. If NATO wants trust and guarantees what guarantee does Russian have that in a few years time; NATO won't invite the Ukraine into NATO - works both ways. On the Russian side the concessions which might be asked from it is to not mass troops on the common border; not to provide the separatists with certain types of weapons, no attempts at overthrowing the government; etc. like I said; it's not as f the Soviets/Russians do not have a history of making concessions and compromises when needed.Besides, what concessions is Russia going to offer? It obviously isn't going to hand Crimea back
Well the Ukraine has long been an area of strategic importance for the Soviets/Russians. It's on their doorstep and is more strategically placed compared to the Baltics. There is a talk on YouTube by a Russian analyst who mentions that despite all the talk in the West about the Baltics being a 'flashpoint' Russian planners see a much higher likelihood of troubles over the Ukraine and Belarus.Right now Russia seems obsessed with Ukraine.
There's a big difference between Turkey's incursions into Syria and Ukraine’s problems with Russia. Turkey is operating uninvited in a foreign country? The Ukraine has had part of its territory illegally annexed by Russia (Crimea)and Russian military forces illegally operating and fomenting rebellion against the lawful government in Kiev, in eastern parts of the Ukraine. There's really no comparison.
This isn't a realistic offer. I suspect it was designed to fail. I think it's only purpose is to enable Russia to run a narrative to say we wanted peace and NATO rejected it prior to getting up to more 'funny buggers' in the Ukraine.Russia wants concessions made by NATO now, in order to progress to the next stage of negotiations.
Besides, what concessions is Russia going to offer? It obviously isn't going to hand Crimea back, and withdrawing support for the insurgents in East Ukraine would damage Putin's standing amongst the ultra-nationalists that make up much of his domestic support. The sort of "concession" Putin would offer would be not going to war, which has no value because he could change his mind a day later (and after NATO had mostly pulled out of the Baltics, one of his key demands).
Maybe but it could also be a Russian way of measuring the mood of the West/NATO by intentionally adopting a hardline stance which appears uncompromising; to see what reaction it will get. One thing's for sure; both sides will want to avoid ;looking weak, both sides will press for their demands and both would prefer for things not to worsen. The Russians are realists; they know fully well that some demands will never be met; just like how West/NATO realises that some Russian demands are unavoidable if consensus is to be reached.s to enable Russia to run a narrative to say we wanted peace and NATO rejected it prior to getting up to more 'funny buggers' in the Ukraine.
Perhaps, but it is unrealistic and can't possibly form a basis for negotiations. It is more of a threat.Maybe but it could also be a Russian way of measuring the mood of the West/NATO by intentionally adopting a hardline stance which appears uncompromising; to see what reaction it will get. One thing's for sure; both sides will want to avoid ;looking weak, both sides will press for their demands and both would prefer for things not to worsen. The Russians are realists; they know fully well that some demands will never be met; just like how West/NATO realises that some Russian demands are unavoidable if consensus is to be reached.
There are opening gambits, sure, but 'gives us back hegemony over eastern Europe and we won't invade the Ukraine' is not really any sort of starting point for discussions. It's got the flavour of Nazi territorial demands and I'm afraid that did not end well.I see it as a demand or a precondition; not a threat per see. It was probably made for a reason and doesn't necessarily mean the Russians will not budge. Common for countries/companies to make certain demands or place certain pre conditions before or at the start of negotiations to see how far they can push things and to gauge the mood of the other side.