Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by kit »

srikandan wrote:The central contention seems to be that NATO thinks it should be allowed to expand all the way to Russia's borders, and Russia disagrees and is willing to use force if NATO does not back down. The party that needs talking down here is not Russia, which is responding to a threat at its border. In this situation, there is no bridge in the dialogue short of one party backing down -- Russia won't as it sees this as an existential threat on its border. So what is this "bridge" in the dialogue that can be filled in by third parties, unless the third party convinces one of them to back off? Don't see it.

The new whirled order is yet to settle down, so seems too early to tell how things will split up.
True

As usual the american "deep state" taking action and the state dept trying to contain the fall out.. and the world looking on at the interplay

France and Germany has too much stake and empathise with the Russians, UK being uk..lots of hot air being vented in all directions.

Getting Russia out of Swift would be as hard for Europe., US Russian trade is only in hundreds of millions but not so for Europe
srikandan
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 20 Nov 2020 02:51

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by srikandan »

EU has given up on "Green Energy" on which they spent billions, and Russian Gas supply is needed by EU states for the winter, which explains why Germany has no intention of being overtly involved in the push for conflict, nor are any of the other EU states -- this is all USA all the way it looks like, at least at this time.

https://indianexpress.com/article/world ... s-7741933/
Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1409
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by Rishirishi »

Y. Kanan wrote:
Dilbu wrote:India is in a perfect position to mediate considering our present relationship with all the parties involved in this crisis. We can continue to do nothing and watch China who is next best placed take advantage of the situation. Or if India can find a solution to this mess that would be like grabbing a seat at the table which has rightly belonged to us for some time now. We can and are maintaining a balanced relationship with US and Russia and in a near future where a declining super power is going to be challenged by other heavy weights, this advantage is worth its weight in gold, if you know to make use of it.
Agreed. India is now in a perfect position to act as a bridge between Russia and the US. The three great powers (US, India and Russia) all have much more in common and more converging interests than differences. We make natural allies. The world order should be US\India\Russia + allies vs China + allies (Pak, NK, Turkey, etc).

Firstly what is in it for India? Better to stay alof and milk both sides.
Secondly, any mediating power has some weight on both sides. Frankly India does have much.
srikandan
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 20 Nov 2020 02:51

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by srikandan »

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ts-ukraine

For once, something useful in this rag.
The United States and other NATO countries have condemned Russia’s moves but simultaneously suggested that they will not defend Ukraine, which is not a NATO member, and have limited their threats of retaliation to sanctions.
So NATO will fight until the last Ukrainian soldier is standing then?

US is providing anti-tank missiles and SAMs but silent about any troops moved into Ukraine. Some blogs have details of what weapons are being provided to Ukraine.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... capable-of

So the ukrainians beat through Russia's tanks using the US weapons, then what? This is sounding like the episode of Musharraf detailing his brillian plan to capture Kashmir, and it all went fine until Pak PM asked the ass in human form, "great, and then what happens the next day?"
srikandan
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 20 Nov 2020 02:51

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by srikandan »

If we do a game-theoretic table of actions/outcomes:

For Russia, available actions are:
1) do nothing
2) invade ukraine
3) negotiate to make US back down

The available actions for US are:
1) impose sanctions that cut off oil supply to EU
2) Wake up Captain America to save the day
3) negotiate to make russia back down

So the cost/risk matrix will look something like this:

Russia| 1 | 2 | 3
US
---------------------
1 | A | B | C |
2 | D | E | F |
3 | H | I | J |

A - consequences of Russia out of SWIFT (countries will start to operate on a bilateral basis with Russia). US looks the villain for warmongering.
B - turmoil -- consequences of Russia out of SWIFT (countries will start to operate on a bilateral basis with Russia)
C - US sanctions russia after negotiating to back down. US looks unreliable and untrustworthy.
D/E/F - US wins. Captain America is a winner, as we have all seen on TV. Bye bye Putin. Europe takes over Russia in the long run and converts to Islam wholesale.
H - US wins. Ukraine gets into NATO, grows economically with US help, and then grabs crimea back from Russia
I - Russia loses face. US wins. NATO gets to Russia's border, Ukraine grows economically with EU/US help, and then grabs crimea back from Russia
J - what ukraine crisis?


The real question is how much stomach do governments across the world have for a brave new world with N different SWIFT-like financial systems. Drug lords would have a grand time in such a world if it ever came into existence.

Feel free to rubbish all of the above.
Najunamar
BRFite
Posts: 433
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 16:40
Location: USA

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by Najunamar »

In the listing of US options, would it be possible for Biden to launch a false flag operation? Instead of Putin doing the same which US and UK have been warning for some time now. How would that change the situation if US is actually looking to have a fight not to win it for Ukraine but to throw the towel after increasing the pain for both Ukraine and Russia?
Roop
BRFite
Posts: 670
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by Roop »

Rudradev wrote:... Also, it's not as if we have nothing to lose in a US-Russia conflict. We are enmeshed with both of them now, like it or not.

So why not at least try our best to contribute a resolution to the situation rather than waiting passively to see what happens?
This!! This is exactly what I wanted to say.

We have huge potential diplomatic / political losses to fear if this crazy hyped-up bickering between Russia and the US continues into war or almost-war. It is massively worth our effort to spend our political capital in this effort, in order to try and bring this thing back under control.

If this actually happens (India asked to mediate) Biden is going to have to wake up from his stupor and tell the hawks on his side (the neocons, the Brits, the Poles, the Ukes) to back the f--- off and let India do its work. There are going to be a lot of knives out for our diplomats, through jealousy and such like. China is going to be one of the pricipal knife-wielders.

I have no worries at all that Russia will try and sabotage our work -- in fact I'm sure they would welcome our involvement.
srikandan
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 20 Nov 2020 02:51

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by srikandan »

najunamar: In the listing of US options, would it be possible for Biden to launch a false flag operation? Instead of Putin doing the same which US and UK have been warning for some time now
Why do fanciful false flags? isn't it enough for the US to announce that Ukraine is now officially part of NATO to force Russia to respond. Ukraine seems to be listed as a "NATO-aspiring" state, but EU states have stated Ukraine is not getting into NATO anytime soon, so does seem like just that act of getting Ukraine into NATO would be enough to get Russia to make a move.

But if we add "false flag" and "allow Ukraine To NATO" to the above table -- there are no new outcomes, AFAICT.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by ramana »

Says Four countries agreed to reduce rhetoric. US not involved.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by kit »

srikandan wrote:https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ts-ukraine

For once, something useful in this rag.
The United States and other NATO countries have condemned Russia’s moves but simultaneously suggested that they will not defend Ukraine, which is not a NATO member, and have limited their threats of retaliation to sanctions.
So NATO will fight until the last Ukrainian soldier is standing then?"
No western country will put boots in Ukraine. Period. They will stand out of harms way and let Ukraine do the job of trying to bleed the Russians.

And hope that would help undermine the Putin regime.

There is a mallu saying about getting the little monkey to test the boiling rice.

Poor Ukraine...do they realise how they are being gamed.

Also lessons for every "country" achieving "independence " by balkanisation.

United you thrive ,divided you die.
srikandan
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 20 Nov 2020 02:51

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by srikandan »

https://indianexpress.com/article/world ... e-7744717/
Kyiv rejects Russia’s version that the separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine is a civil war that has nothing to do with Moscow, saying Russia is supporting the separatists with covert forces on the ground.
So Russian tanks at the border are just to ensure no spillover of the Ukrainian civil war into Crimea/Russian territory, and they have no intention of actually going to war.


This Ukraine conflict is a case study of why it is a lot cheaper for country leaderships to be seen as irrational and scorched-earth and eye-for-an-eye, as a means of avoiding conflict, as Putin is seen in western eyes. Observers are liable to not take actions as they will have to fear unintended consequences and maximal response.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by kit »

Image
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by Cain Marko »

srikandan wrote:This Ukraine conflict is a case study of why it is a lot cheaper for country leaderships to be seen as irrational and scorched-earth and eye-for-an-eye, as a means of avoiding conflict, as Putin is seen in western eyes. Observers are liable to not take actions as they will have to fear unintended consequences and maximal response.
The russkis and Chinese are masters of this loose cannon brinkmanship. The Pakis took irrational unpredictability to an altogether new and almost comical level (I swear we'll blow ourselves up). Works like a charm.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by rsingh »

Strange, Just a few months ago NATO was deserting Afganistan .Left modern equipments and now they are at it again. One remember how Danish police left in dark............ now they are itching to give fight to Putin/ :((
srikandan
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 20 Nov 2020 02:51

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by srikandan »

Mostly for comic value -- Looks like Ukraine and EU are asking for a lowering of rhetoric, as is Russia. Weird behaviour to push a line that will hurt EU and Ukraine interests, allegedly US allies.


https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... phone-call
The Ukrainian side appears to have leaked that Biden informed Zelensky that it's "virtually certain" that Ukraine's capital could be "sacked" and that Russian forces are looking to occupy it.

Here's more from CNN:

Zelensky has been particularly concerned about the US’ rhetoric that war could be "imminent" — a word White House press secretary Jen Psaki used earlier this week to describe the US’ assessment of Russia’s plans — and the recent disclosures of intelligence to US media, the source said, which "is causing panic and economic disaster for Ukraine."

Zelensky is expected to convey to Biden that he believes the US and its allies have to be more careful with their messaging surrounding the conflict, the source added.

It seems the two leaders were openly at odds over the true level of the threat, with the White House now being accused of grossly inflating the threat. Indeed this has been the messaging of the Ukrainians all week, especially after the US took the dramatic step of telling some of its embassy staff in Kiev to leave the country over the Russian troop build-up near Ukraine.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by kit »

in other words, dont give the Russians new ideas :mrgreen:
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by vijaykarthik »

Invasion of Ukraine by Russia seems difficult, IMO. Quite a few reasons for it (copy pasting rationale from a different place)

A. If this invasion happens, this will be amongst the top 5 wars in the world where it was publicly announced and the entire world was waiting for it while the Russians moved. Even arm chair generals wont like this as their best scenario (or their last best, btw, come to think of it)
b. Mud season (Rasputitsa) - Tanks as sitting ducks plus doing a public announce like it's the next version of Android or Windows is usually not how I have seen militaries operate. Plus a lot of reports mention weather experts being confused about the current clement weather and roads not being frozen, like they normal do, this year because of a milder winter.
c. Russia wants a deal done on this and they will need diplomatic help. A "nary a care" attitude and take parts of Ukraine and split it [from my neutral perspective, taking the current disputed regions and Crimea is good enough to actually take Ukraine out of never NATO as NATO has a policy to not have countries which have a disputed border. (www .nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm )] wont cut it.
Sometimes it surprises me that it doesn't count anymore (my take has always been Ukraine / Georgia are never candidates for NATO membership regardless of who speaks in favour of them and which rooftop its from. Membership accession doesn't allow for it unless someone proposed to waive it off). If I were Putin, with this settled, why would I take another bite of a land when it gives me 0 extra benefit?
d. Russia has enough problems as it stands and getting another slice of land w/o strategic benefit wont make a lot of sense (or to flip it, if it had a benefit that will have been realised when Crimea / the other territory grab happened. I dont see a credible rationale for why it needs to be done every 4-5 years as a strategy). Plus this territory gained will lead to more problems / sanctions and bodybags plus a drain of the coffers for Russia which cant afford it. The it becomes a major case of why and why now, IMHO?
e. IMO, Putin has made his point and its easier to wait for the media circus to happen than to move and lose an advantage (gives everyone ample opportunity to raise the alarm - UK PM has domestic problems, great talk Ukraine and hopefully people could forget immediate domestic situation. Perhaps US and other countries get an opportunity at this too)
f. Iran n-deal. It does look like Russia also would prefer a deal and any deal could be contingent on no mess-ups in other areas. (Not sure, but I've seen cases when people talk about a larger tacit approach when trying to negotiate for immediate needs)
g. Sanctions could be far reaching. West wants to make a meal of this opportunity and it wont be normal sanctions and this could hit hard (it does look like a fair bit of these have been discussed during bilateral meetings)
h. Invasions - even the most planned all have some repercussions that weren't not well thought of / considered not feasible. This invasion will also have the escalatory ladder and things might not be the same again. This isnt Georgia or Crimea style. And my guess is that this has been relayed to Russia.
i. It greatly helps, from Russian perspective, to keep this pot boiling and use it as a trump card to achieve objectives. Invasion will achieve the opposite and make the pot cold and that could push Russia into a position of weakness.


And in this perspective, its very difficult for India to mediate as India can neither speak for US or fix it for Russia. One thing that can help this stop is stopping enlargement of NATO. But US / Europe doesn't seem to bother about it much.
Inder Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 135
Joined: 18 May 2006 14:35

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by Inder Sharma »

Nice analysis vijayKarthik,

But some essential variables from Russian perspective too need to be accounted for?
• Black sea coast (Sevastopol) is probably the only warm water port Russia has in its heart land.
• Ergo, conceding space in this arena makes Russia vulnerable to naval pressure.
• Alternatively, it may have to assume higher transportation cost via St Petersburg (in winters) or Vladivostok.
• From political perspective, why must Russia allow a ‘white Pakistan’ - aided and abetted by usual suspects - to crop-up in its heartland? Putin is no mahatma after all.
From that lens, how inclined would Russia be to compromise on something which has been its geo-political fetish since 1700s.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by kit »

The more this rhetoric drags on the more unlikely a war would happen.

But some incursion will happen into Ukraine. , this will be interesting.

After some hot air every one will settle
vijayk
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8785
Joined: 22 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by vijayk »

<POOF>

Admin note: thread is about Ukraine, not latest US political meme that is irrelevant to this thread. Informal warning
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by vijaykarthik »

Inder Sharma wrote:Nice analysis vijayKarthik,

But some essential variables from Russian perspective too need to be accounted for?
• Black sea coast (Sevastopol) is probably the only warm water port Russia has in its heart land.
• Ergo, conceding space in this arena makes Russia vulnerable to naval pressure.
• Alternatively, it may have to assume higher transportation cost via St Petersburg (in winters) or Vladivostok.
• From political perspective, why must Russia allow a ‘white Pakistan’ - aided and abetted by usual suspects - to crop-up in its heartland? Putin is no mahatma after all.
From that lens, how inclined would Russia be to compromise on something which has been its geo-political fetish since 1700s.

Novorossiysk is the primary warm water port of Black Sea. I had the same confusion that w/o Sevastopol, there have trouble but an ethnic Russia helped me remember geography.

Ukraine, come to think of it, isnt a country per se. Its widely believed to mean "borderland" and its a made up entity and has a smorgasbord of different cultures... which makes it easy to stir the pot as there is no common culture linkage. Which is also why Kyiv / Lyiv is as different from Kharkhiv / Mariupol.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4635
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by hnair »

vijaykarthik, good overview from a western POV of what Russia might be thinking and fears.

What would be Russian POV of what West might be thinking? Some thoughts:

Sanctions are increasingly counterproductive in a world where an aggressive and demanding China need to be isolated geo-politically and the europeans seem to be dilly-dallying unlike last time, when they decisively lined behind US during Crimea. The idea of pushing Russia into a close axis with a China that can ably slip in entire gamut of civic manufacturing Over a large border while getting vast energy supplies in return is no good. Remember this is a country that slipped in the so-dreadful nukes to pakis and noko and laughed at sanctions. So a few relabeled western grade manufactured goods is nothing for China. Also both have vetos for fig leafs.

Also the Soviet armor has been since its beginning in the 1920s trained for snow melt and mud. The ubiquitous log strapped to the tank’s bustle has been a symbol of Soviet/Russia all weather capability and combat engineering legacy.

The main point is there is no current need for NATO to expand at great costs, except for the job security of a few neo-con analysts and chicken-hawks in DC. London is not going to stop being mecca of russian oligarchs nor are the Briton-Franks wanting to hunt for fur to keep out the cold. S400 sanctions threats etc are but mere business strategies to cut out the seepage of European tech into Russian gear by competent countries with integration skills like India and thus enabling them to sell competitively with US MIC as affordable weapon systems.

Seasoned veterans like Lavarov, till now has known the intersection points of the largely parallel tracks between DC and Moscow objectives, even when there seem none in the past. Let us hope Blinken knows too.
srikandan
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 20 Nov 2020 02:51

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by srikandan »

https://www.lucorg.com/news.php/news/6765

Background for why Russia made a move in 2014. Dated from before the orange colour revolution:
Published Tuesday, September 10 2013

Eurasia Daily Monitor

September 6, 2013

Maksym Bugriy

The Russian Navy has decided to deploy three ships stationed at the base in Sevastopol on Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula to its reestablished Mediterranean flotilla. In particular, on September 4, Moscow deployed the destroyer Smetliviy (http://www.interfax.ru/world/news.asp?id=326972). Some Sevastopol-based ships actually sailed for the Mediterranean via Novorossiysk, Russia, including the radio-electronic intelligence ship Priazovye and the large landing ship Nikolay Filchenkov, which left Sevastopol “urgently” to pick up “special cargo” (http://www.newsru.com/world/06sep2013/filjchenkov.html). Meanwhile, RIA Novosti (September 6) reported the ship would refuel in Novorossiysk to avoid a 30-percent customs duty levied by Ukraine. A source in the Russian Navy speaking to RIA Novosti on September 3, denied that the current expansion of the flotilla was Syria-linked. Though, earlier on August 29, it was reported that the guided missile cruiser Moskva would be deployed to the eastern Mediterranean upon completing its mission in the Atlantic (Interfax, August 29). Such operations by Russia’s Black Sea Fleet (BSF) indirectly affect Ukraine, which leases the Sevastopol naval base to Russia. At the same time, Russia continues to develop a new naval base at Novorossiysk, which was considered an alternative to Sevastopol and the BSF’s future home base after 2017 until the Kharkiv Pact of April 2010 prolonged the Russian Navy’s stay in Sevastopol until 2042.

Even though publicly the Russian and Ukrainian governments demonstrate mutual satisfaction with both countries’ navies sharing the Sevastopol base, the Russian BSF’s lease is increasingly marred with disagreements reported in the local media. On August 30, BSF Headquarters received a letter from Ukrainian border authorities demanding that two Russian auxiliary vessels officially request a prolonged stay in Ukraine or leave Sevastopol by the end of the day (http://www.nr2.ru/sevas/457814.html). On September 4, Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported that the Russian navy may demand a refund of tax and customs payments to Ukraine for supplies to the Black Sea Fleet that accumulated for 15 years and amount to some $15 billion. On July 17, bilateral relations were seriously aggravated by a Russian border guard boat colliding with a Ukrainian fishing vessel in a disputed area of the Sea of Azov near the Russian shore, which Russia claims to be its economic zone. In the absence of a properly delimited maritime border, Russia is persecuting a survivor of the collision, in which four Ukrainian citizens died (Interfax Ukraine, August 3, 8).

Ukraine and Russia are also in a dispute over the consent to modernize the aging BSF. Viktor Yanukovych’s administration intends to prevent Russia from acquiring new classes of warships to be stationed at Sevastopol, which would escalated the militarization of the Black Sea region, and he conditions the modernization on Ukrainian defense companies’ participation. No agreement has been reached, while Russian officials make controversial statements that imply that the BSF’s modernization will nevertheless occur. On May 12, the Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, told RIA Novosti that the delivery of new surface ships and submarines to the Black Sea Fleet would begin as early as 2014. During the next few years, the BSF would receive six diesel electric submarines and six new frigates. It is unclear where the new vessels would be based, but given the lack of Ukraine’s consent to modernize the fleet in Sevastopol, they are likely to be based in Novorossiysk (http://m.ria.ru/interview/20130512/936811614.html). On May 18, Interfax quoted a representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense confirming that because of the lack of Kyiv’s consent, all new ships and aircraft, including a “Mistral”-class helicopter carriers built in France and named “Sevastopol” would be based in Novorossiysk (http://www.newsru.com/russia/18may2013/misstral.html).

Novorossiysk has some advantages for the Russian Black Sea Fleet that could make it its major home base even if Russia wishes to retain a presence in Sevastopol. Novorossiysk’s primary advantage is its location on Russian soil, which provides Russia with some leverage against Ukraine’s Western leanings, but also reduces Russia’s logistics and supply costs. The Novorossiysk naval base abuts Russia’s biggest commercial seaport, which facilitates the protection of Russian economic interests. Its construction began from a virtually virgin shore site, thus allowing the design and development of modern infrastructure. Moreover, at Novorossiysk, Russian ships, such as the flagship Moskva, would be allowed to carry guided missiles armed with nuclear warheads—which is forbidden at Sevastopol—illustrating the Novorossiysk base’s strategic advantage. Combined, these advantages may outweigh Sevastopol’s military value whose foremost natural advantage is its all-weather accessibility.

But building the Novorossiysk naval base is a complex engineering and management task for Russia, which set up a federal program to build the base’s infrastructure. The construction includes special hi-tech barriers to protect Novorossiysk port’s Tsemess Bay from frequent storms and “bora” winds that force ships to leave the harbor to avoid accidents in poor weather conditions. An article published in Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye on September 14, 2007, further indicated that 15 piers need to be built to accommodate 30 ships in case of re-deployment from Sevastopol and mentioned the estimated base construction cost of $40 billion (http://nvo.ng.ru/wars/2007-09-14/1_novorossiysk.html).
Ukraine sought to renege on the terms of the Kharkiv agreement and Russia responded by removing Sevastopol from Ukraine in 2014. Kharkiv agreement was premised on Ukraine remaining in Russia's orbit, given the restrictions on what kind of weapons Russia could operate from Sevastopol, even with "pro-russia" Yanukovich as the head. Orange revolution de facto voided the Kharkiv Agreement, so Russia had to stop it from falling to NATO.
The Kharkiv agreement, signed on 21 April 2010 in Kharkiv, Ukraine, by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and Russian President Dimitry Medvedev and ratified by the parliaments of the two countries on 27 April 2010, aroused much controversy in Ukraine. The treaty was effectively a continuation of the lease provisions that were part of the 1997 Black Sea Fleet Partition Treaty between the two states. Shortly after the March 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation,[7] Russia unilaterally terminated the treaty on 31 March 2014.['/b]


Ukraine becoming a NATO state and being in control of Sevastopol would be a security concern for Russia. For such a large land mass,Russia has only 3 warm-water ports to the west (that do not shut down during winter): Murmansk (near St.Petersburg/Finland), Sevastopol, Novorossyk.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by Cyrano »

Europe has no stomach for a conflict. Germany has shut all N-power plants, coal is a no go for green lobbies, so gas piped from Russia is the life line. France is less dependent on gas since they have avoided Germany's folly but Total S.A. and other EU petro companies are heavily invested in Russian oil fields. So FR & DE cant piss off Russia. Especially in the middle of winter :mrgreen:

EU countries have consciously weakened themselves to the point where no one country can attack another. By combining forces now, they can perhaps defend but have no real offensive capability left. Unkil likes to keep it that way, and wants Russia to do the same, but those darned ruskies won't listen.

All EU militaries except France are mostly home based defensive forces, they probably have no orbat or doctrine or training to go into Ukraine and engage in a fight there. I expect their logistics to fall apart after 3 days of intense conflict if they do.

They all know very well, there are no more colonies to feed the war machine or help rebuild cheaply after. So war will be funded out of retirement funds, gold reserves, social security & welfare budgets. Cant afford to send the young who work and foot the socialist bills to go to war and die, leaving millions of retirees to fend for themselves. So EU countries are spoil sports when they can, moralisers when they can't.

Net net, EU will firstly try to avoid any conflict, failing which they will ensure that, as srikandan put it aptly,
NATO will fight until the last Ukrainian soldier is standing
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by kit »

Cyrano wrote:Europe has no stomach for a conflict.
NATO will fight until the last Ukrainian soldier is standing
NATO will do verbal battles till the last Ukrainian soldier standing., someone should dare them to put a single soldier in harm's way in Ukraine !!

UK has said it will send soldiers immediately to "help" the ukranians only think they conveniently did not say was that the "deployment" is in Estonia and some other baltic republics
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10033
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by Mort Walker »

The US government and its poodle the United Quenndom are stoking the flames for war. The Ukrainians are idiots and can end this by signing a treaty with Russia stating they won't join NATO or become a MuNNA state, but seek to keep their sovereignty, with the goal of economic improvement.

I hope peace prevails. The implications for India are that many flights from Europe and North America are over Russian airspace. In a conflict that would end. Travel would become difficult for the Indian diaspora in the northern hemisphere.
S_Madhukar
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 27 Mar 2019 18:15

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by S_Madhukar »

The whole circus is fun to watch. Chins loving Joe raps Vlad ensuring he gets into a tighter embrace with Xi who in turn can squeeze Joe’s b***s at will … what a S&M relationship!
Xi and Soros funded liberal media looks at a son-of-mother-of-all-commies Vlad Russia as a troublemaker :((
And green uber mensch Krauts are going red managing gas supplies while porky telling Bruts are supposedly sending ammo when they can’t find any at home to begin with…
Where is the left ,where is the right, who are the greens now and where is Xiden’s UN and who has the veto ?!
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12062
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by Vayutuvan »

Cyrano wrote:Europe has no stomach for a conflict. Germany has shut all N-power plants, coal is a no go for green lobbies, so gas piped from Russia is the life line.
I have one doubt. Heard on Journal Editorial Review (or the one before) on Fox News that the pipeline from Russia to Germany is economically not viable but Putin is weaponizing the pipeline. Since Germany had given up Nuclear energy, I don't understand how this can't be economically viable. Naturally, Germany would have to pay enough to make it economically viable.

There is a lot of FUD from all sides.

"In every war the first casualty is the truth"
srikandan
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 20 Nov 2020 02:51

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by srikandan »

NordStream 2 connects Germany directly to Russian oil bypassing Ukraine -- it is the cheapest source of natural gas for Germany, and very much economically viable. Until Gemany has a "green energy" story for the medium to long-term, it needs Russian LNG. Unless US can assure alternative supplies if Nordstream 2 is gone, it is not in Germany's interest to support conflict in Ukraine, and it does not seem to be. There are claims of the US arranging alternate supplies from Qatar and Syria/turkey, but that is not in place today. From the Ukrainian side, conflict with Russia is not worth it unless membership in NATO is guaranteed -- EU thinks Ukrainian membership at this time is too much trouble, because it has skin in the game (Nordstream 2), while the US does not. Regardless, it puts a damper on Ukraine escalating the war with pro-russia rebels, if they can be left high-and-dry without NATO membership once the dust clears -- there is some recent interview with Ukrainian president Zelensky where he makes this point about wanting a guarantee of NATO membership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stre ... stream.png

Nordstream 2 is mostly underwater so that the intense politics on land does not affect Russia->Germany LNG supply
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1987
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by Atmavik »

What might happen if Russia does attack Ukraine?






i think it will be mostly shadow boxing. the biggest gainer would be the Chineese
Y. Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 926
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by Y. Kanan »

Atmavik wrote:What might happen if Russia does attack Ukraine?






i think it will be mostly shadow boxing. the biggest gainer would be the Chineese
Russia would never be this stupid, surely. I can see taking a chunk of land to give themselves a land link to Crimea, but it would be a hell of a lot easier to just expand their existing bridgeways instead. As to the issue of Ukraine having cut off Crimea's fresh water supply, desalinization plants are a lot more affordable than invasions and being cut off from the entire world economy.

It looks like the time has come for Russia to just admit "defeat", so to speak, and stand down. This remind me a lot of our own military buildup after the 2002 parliament attack.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by Aditya_V »

Russia never said anything about invasion, so it can do anything with its soldiers within its borders, even if it moves them it is not standing down.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by eklavya »

Mort Walker wrote:The Ukrainians are idiots and can end this by signing a treaty with Russia stating they won't join NATO or become a MuNNA state, but seek to keep their sovereignty, with the goal of economic improvement.
Not sure this is in the interest of the Ukrainians. If Putin invades (or keeps threatening invasion with his military posture), Ukraine will be guaranteed huge financial, diplomatic and military support (short of boots on the ground) for decades to come, while dealing with Russia will become highly risky for all concerned (risk of sanctions at any moment).
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by Pratyush »

Ukraine bhas had an issue with native Ukrainians wanting to be with the west against Russia.



These people joined the Germans against USSR.

Even post the euromaidan revolution the same forces have become dominant.

Putin is trying to totally exhaust and discredit such people. In the eyes of the western Ukrainian natives.

Let's see how this turns out.
srikandan
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 20 Nov 2020 02:51

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by srikandan »

eklavya: If Putin invades (or keeps threatening invasion with his military posture), Ukraine will be guaranteed huge financial, diplomatic and military support (short of boots on the ground) for decades to come, while dealing with Russia will become highly risky for all concerned (risk of sanctions at any moment).
A scan of the media around the world would demonstrate that only the USA is making noises of Russia invading Ukraine. EU, Russia, Ukraine are all playing it down. The tanks are in Russian territory, and can stay there as long as they want -- the civil war near the UK-Russia border is in Ukraine, not Russia, so Ukraine has enough troubles to deal with without a russian invasion at this time.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by eklavya »

^^^^
If the Russian troops are in peacetime locations and pose no threat to Ukraine, I guess Mort-ji’s suggestion on how the Ukrainians “can end this” may not be applicable. After all, if nothing is happening, and nothing will happen, there is nothing to do, for all concerned.
srikandan
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 20 Nov 2020 02:51

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by srikandan »

Which is why all the war-drum-beating by the US is being dismissed by the parties with skin in the game (EU/Russia/Ukraine) -- they all deny any intention of war at the border. Except for US/UK media, the above point about no plans for war in the near term has been repeated in EU/Ukraine/Russian media. Russia has no cost to keeping some of its military deployed near the border - those tanks have been there since september 2021.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by eklavya »

srikandan wrote:Except for US/UK media, the above point about no plans for war in the near term has been repeated in EU/Ukraine/Russian media.
Is this how you read this statement (dated 26 Jan 2022) by the French foreign ministry?

https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/count ... a-26-01-22
Q : What is France’s take on Russian troop movements? Are these movements illegal according to the bilateral Russia-NATO agreements that are currently in effect? Has France observed any Russian military or naval violations of customs practices and agreements on overflights and intrusive navigation?

A : Over the past several months, France has noted an unusual, substantial, concerning concentration of Russian troops along the Ukrainian border. President Macron, the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs and the Minister for the Armed Forces have shared their deep concern regarding these deployments with their Russian counterparts on several occasions these past few months. France, in full alignment with its allies and partners, has consistently maintained a very clear position on the massive consequences and heavy costs in the event of an attack on Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

As President Macron stated in Berlin yesterday, Russia is in the process of becoming a force of instability. All channels are being used in order to reengage Russia in a process of de-escalation.
And why is the German foreign minister talking about border violations and sanctions?

https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/news ... sz/2507826
We are in complete agreement that any new violation of Ukraine’s borders would have severe consequences. We have therefore identified a long list of actions that we could take, particularly as we have to anticipate different scenarios, from acts of sabotage to the shutdown of critical infrastructure. In 2014 we were caught off-guard by the tactic of low-level escalation and hybrid attacks. Today, we are prepared.
srikandan
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 20 Nov 2020 02:51

Re: Eastern Europe/Ukraine [Feb 6th 2015]

Post by srikandan »

Is this how you read this statement (dated 26 Jan 2022) by the French foreign ministry?
both the items you have quoted do not say "Russian attack on Ukraine is an immediate danger", which is the US/UK media line --these links have all been posted on this thread earlier. The German and French positions are "Russia attacking Ukraine would be bad for relations with Russia", as stated in the articles you quote. Specifically,

Massive consequences and heavy costs in the event of an attack on Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
any new violation of Ukraine’s borders would have severe consequences. We have therefore identified a long list of actions that we could take
All of what you have posted is promised retaliation if russia attacks Ukraine, the precondition for the rest of the threats from France and Germany.

Russia would have to attack Ukraine first. As of now, the only real complaint is about "worrying" deployments within Russia's borders, and Russia is well within its rights to deploy its troops wherever they want on Russian territory, clearly.
Post Reply