Skip to comments.Ukraine fears Russia 'ready to attack'
Posted on 03/23/2014 9:33:11 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Kiev (AFP) - Ukraine's Western-backed leaders voiced fears on Sunday of an imminent Russian invasion of the eastern industrial heartland following the fall of their last airbase in Crimea to defiant Kremlin troops.
Saturday's takeover involving armoured personnel carriers and stun grenades provided the most spectacular show of force since the Kremlin sent troops into the heavily Russified peninsula three weeks ago before sealing its annexation Friday.
Alarm about a push outside Crimea by Moscow's overwhelming forces -- now conducting drills at Ukraine's eastern gate -- were fanned further Sunday by a call by its self-declared premier for Russians across the ex-Soviet country to rise up against Kiev's rule.
The interim leaders in Kiev fear that Russian President Vladimir Putin -- flushed with expansionist fervour -- is developing a sense of impunity after being hit by only limited EU and US sanctions for taking the Black Sea cape.
"The aim of Putin is not Crimea but all of Ukraine... His troops massed at the border are ready to attack at any moment," Ukraine's National Security and Defence Council chief Andriy Parubiy told a mass unity rally in Kiev.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Ukraine’s best bet is the mobilize and get ready to fight hard — and be very watchful for Spetznatz attacks internally.
Russia doesn’t need to attack anything. So far they’ve taken what they’ve wanted without the world doing anything (as expected) and more importantly, without the Ukraine itself having any response.
The best thing for the Ukes to do is arm EVERYONE except for the Russia-loving eastern side.
Since they’re on their own now, the Ukrainians need to lay low and wait for the occupation troops to be withdrawn — and then start the resistance, beginning with everyone known to have publically sided with the invasion. Thanks JimRob.
Even if Russia seems certain to win -- Ukraine can hurt them badly enough to make Putin think twice. But Ukraine has to be willing to actually fight -- and make certain the world knows it.
Sounds like Ukraine will never get to their May elections.
Obama has already decided to turn over the Ukraine to Russia if it comes to that. There may be a “bill” associated with that (a penalty here/a penalty there) ... but it will be minor and Russia will laugh it off.
In a conventional war sense the Ruskies do hold the winning cards. But in a guerilla war, where just about every Uke wants to kill them and have the means to do so, the Ruskies won’t last long.
As long as the Ukes remember what Stalin did to them years ago it won’t take much to motivate them to put a target on every Ruskie soldier and try and kill them.
Let it be their second Vietnam, but I don’t think it’ll sell well with the Russian populace once they see their boys dying in large numbers.
Ukraine has practically nothing to fight with. Their military has been gutted, they gave up their nuke warheads under the ridiculous belief they'd be protected by the West, their conventional stockpiles have been largely destroyed (thanks to Obama and Lugar), etc.
Further, in the ethnic Russian east they'd have part of the their own population working against them.
The Ukraine would have to cede land and try to bloody the Russians with guerilla/partisan type activity. They probably couldn't really fight until/unless Russia advanced far enough West into solid ethnic Ukranian territory.
Ukraine's best bet is probably to scream loudly about losing the Crimea, prepare to lose at least some further territory in the East of the country, and then use that as an excuse to guilt the West into allowing them into the EU and perhaps getting provisional NATO membership. In the end, some of these solid ethnic Russia areas probably need to go anyway in order for the Ukranian population to have a true majority of people who identify with the Ukraine rather than having so many sympathies with Russia.
This could be a blessing in disguise for the Ukraine if they play their poor hand well. This Russian aggression has probably pushed most actual ethnic Ukrainians into a full embrace of the West (even more than it already was). They lose territory, but by doing so they lose a large chunk of ethnic Russians who were making it difficult for Ukraine to have a distinct Ukranian identity and created election results that prevented them from fully moving away from Russia. And these actions may give Ukraine the leverage to get the West to more fully embrace them and allow them to integrate in the Western community of nations. Russia may gain a little territory here, but if the Ukraine completely moves away from them and tilts decidedly West - Russia still loses in the big picture.
Of course what the Ukes ARE doing is disarming everyone except for the Russia-loving eastern side.
Where are you reading that?
The "leaders" installed by the Obama/Soros/sodomite EU firebomb coup can go jump in a lake. What did these "leaders" think the neighboring powers would do when they violently overthrew the legitimate government? Sit back and sulk?
19 March 2014 Putin: I Have No Intention Of Invading Other Regions Of Ukraine
23 March 2014 Russia's defense chief has told Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel that Russia had no intention of crossing into Ukrainian territory.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Ukraine started a war to get us involved. I’ve turned into a real skeptic since watching Wag The Dog years ago.
If Exxon pulled out of Russia, it would be huge, but so far with Exxon it is business as usual. I would speculate Exxon has more sway with Putin than Obama right now. Of course, the enemedia is not reporting on this.
Russia also has troops in Moldova in the Transdniestria region.
Some people here actually favor Putin’s tyrannical takeovers. I guess it’s a strange new form of conservatism that cheers for a bullying autocrat.
Ukraine's military is completely hollow. They maybe have 10,000 actual front line capable troops - the rest are interior police and general rabble. Yanukovych was possibly even working in concert with Russia to make sure Ukraine had no meaningful defensive capabilities.
Ukraine could not even use the fraction of their armor that is actually serviceable in any kind of conventional formations since the Russian air forces would quickly gain air dominance and savage anything the Ukraine could assemble in the open.
Russia's military is also not nearly as capable as this chart makes it appear. Maybe 10% of Russia's military is 1st world capable, but they'd still quickly overcome anything the Ukrainians could throw at them.
The Ukraine would have to fight a guerrilla/partisan type conflict which surrendered land in exchange for harassing and bloodying Russian troops and pro-Russian militias. Much like the Russians themselves have done in the past against enemies advancing against them through the Ukraine.
The question, should Russia actually invade, is do the Ukrainians have the stomach to fight a prolonged guerrilla type campaign that saps the Russian will. Since Russia would probably only seize and attempt to hold the heavily ethnic Russian regions, it might be very difficult for the Ukraine to do much of anything other than try to get the West to admit them into the EU, etc.
Yup, it's pathetic. Those are mostly the paulbot conspiracy theorists who think RT (Zerohedge and Infowars links to them constantly) is a real media outlet and that all of this is about fiat currency, gold stocks, neo-cons, etc. Add in a few misguided conservatives that hate Obama so much they think the enemy of their enemy is automatically their friend, and the isolationism streak that comes with the rising libertarian influence over segments of the conservative movement, and you get a lot of disgraceful pro Putin sentiment that makes one cringe reading some of these threads.
The faux plebiscite worked well in Crimea; watch for more.
A free people have the right to overthrow their government if it is tyrannically hurting the people. We need that here in America!
and how is “soros” and crew going to mount a massive pop. Outrage, organized? The injustices and economic mess are real in Ukraine and it is the ousted leadership that is responsible for that.
“Ukraine can hurt them badly enough to make Putin think twice.”
How much of that Ukrainian hardware actually WORKS???
Why didn’t they evacuate the helicopters and jets from Crimea?
Remember, the corruption in all institutions in Ukraine has been on a level that would make even a Russian Oligarch blush.
It’s simple really. Two schools of thought:
1.) This to shall pass (i.e., Obama/Decline of Western Civ)
2.) It won’t.
How much longer will this Republic endure with the lawlessness described by Ted Cruz? Or the infection of the culture of Death?
If you have something to be optimistic about, please share. Do your hopes ride on 2014/2016? If only we had that one charismatic figure with “shining city on a hill” rhetoric everything will be just fine.
Perhaps it’s Mark Levin’s Article V remedy?
Do you retreat to the safety and comfort of a 2nd Amendment solution?
Or perhaps it’s all over? What’s the historical lifespan of a Republic? 250 years? We’re almost there. What’s the natural state of man? It’s not republicanism. What has it got us? 55 million babies dead, a culture that worships sodomy and death. If that’s your idea of freedom then you can have it.
Crimea : the surrender of the Ukrainian fleet
Moscow announced that the Russian flag now floated on all 189 military installations on the peninsula.
The head of the Ukrainian navy, Counter Admiral Gaidouk has left for Ukraine earlier this week. Ukrainian sailors were allowed to return to Ukraine or to join the Russian navy . Few days after the referendum in Crimea and its attachment to Russian Federation , the Ukrainian fleet in Sevastopol has ceased to exist .
This disappearance closes the parenthesis opened by the partition of the large naval base on the Black Sea between Ukraine and the Russian navy fleet in 1992 after the independence of Ukraine. Russia has not waited until the lease ran until 2042 to use one of the three best anchorages of its fleet. The largest port founded by Catherine II is again fully under the control of Moscow.
What does this have to do with the Ukraine/Russia situation?
Certainly you aren't trying to defend Putin who overseas a country with a staggering abortion rate - one of (if not the highest) abortion rate in the entire world. Putin's Russia is not even remotely close to a state that holds individual freedom dear - or even any criticism of the state.
As to your other points. I am not terribly optimistic. I think the founding fathers did many great things right, but hopefully some future attempt at setting up the foundations of government will learn from their/our mistakes. It's pretty clear, at least to me, that you have to be more precise in writing out any ability for a federal government to build a social welfare state. As long as the individual states have to compete, they can experiment as they like but will always be constrained by what the other states are doing. But this sort of thing should never be allowed on the Federal level and any future constitution should expressively rule that out. Also, I do have to wonder if our 2 party setup is really the best solution. It almost always leads to general elections that force voters to cast ballots for the lesser of two evils. I wonder if a system which was not winner take all and allowed for coalition government might be better.
The more I read about Kiev rule the more I understand that corrupt policitians allowed for this to foster, Russia is simply taking advantage of an opportunity created from within Ukraine’s borders. Not that it makes it right, but clearly the raiding of the public’s money has contributed to the current situation.
Russians have been waiting for an opening since 1954.
I suspect there was some resentment towards Khrushchev’s handing over of Crimea to Ukraine, that contributed to his eventual removal.
There ya go
Would Ukranians wage the kind of war the Vietnamese and Syrians wage? A guerrilla war means being willing to accept ten to a hundred losses for each loss for the occupier. Would a European nation these days be willing to accept those kind of losses? Also a good chunk of Eastern Ukraine would support the invasion since they are Russians, any guerrilla war would also be a civil war.
Russians will not fold easy, they have alot of fresh experience fighting guerrilla movements in the Caucus. Chechens are born and bred to kill and are pound for pound the most vicious killers in the world, so I think Russia is more than prepared for that kind of conflict.
I don’t like the idea of Europe turning into a battlefield again after almost a century of relative peace.
Not sure. Let’s see what happens.
What should Ukraine do?
1. Do not close the Border! Let all Ukrainian Soldiers back in—you need them!
2. Set up an international meeting in Keiv—include Russians too.
3. Do your May elections—you need a legit Government to sort things out.
4. Force all Russia speakers—Pro-Russian—Pro-Putin people to move to the provinces close to Creimea.
5. Give their homes to good Ukrainians who move out to the east back to the west—include Tartars too.
6. Ask west for—Food, gas, tanks, guns, planes,ships to defend their lands. Ask for EU/ NATO entry.
7. Let the west go back to Russia—BUT keep the east and rebuild-—with EU—USA money.
8. Invite Obama to come for a visit—also the other leaders of EU.
9. Set up a new treaty with Russia and Putin—as allies and good friends. Cut the best trade treaty you can.
10. Invite the Pope to come for a visit.
This is pathetic as heck. The representative of a nation of 50m people complaining about being invaded without actually offering any resistance to that invasion. It’s sounding more and more like Ukrainians - or at least the Ukrainian leadership - have no problem with being annexed to Russia. Imagine George Washington whining about being oppressed by the Crown to the French and demanding that the French back the Patriots with arms and money before a single shot was fired.
There's only 1.3m of them, so Ukrainians can be 3% as pugnacious, on average, and still kill thousands of Russians. Chechnya is an easier place for Russians to fight, because it's only 3% the land area of Ukraine. Iraq's 2/3 the size of Ukraine and mostly desert, where living things stick out, but its Sunni insurgents have had no problem inflicting on both coalition forces and the Iraqi government a continuous stream of casualties, despite being only being 20% of the population at best.
It's possible that neither the leadership nor the populace wants to fight. And that's certainly a respectable choice. The Patriots could have made their peace with the Crown, just as neither the Australians nor the Canadians chose to rebel against what were, after all, their extended kin. If they want anything more than moral support, though, they need to fight. They need to make this decision based only on what they have at hand, rather than be influenced by Western aid.
No, I’m not trying to defend Putin. He is what he is: a KGB thug. I don’t dispute that in the slightest. I certainly don’t dispute Russia’s horrible abortion record. What I am saying, however, is that I don’t think the answer to our problems lies with those who advocate “the third way”. There is no third way anymore. The Founding Fathers had a choice to make: monarchy or direct democracy. These chose the middle path; a republic (the third way).
When a society becomes contemptuous of fundamental moral values it becomes a society that cannot endure through the use of such philosophical/political science nuance. I live in California, I ain’t appealing to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The time is here for a street fight.
Rightly or wrongly, people see in Putin a champion for their ideals. Sure he’s a Russian nationalist, a wannabe Czar, a thug and a bully. He might not even believe what he says about the homosexual movement and the anecdotal evidence of his affinity for the Russian Orthodox Church. But so what?
Who else is telling the EU and the Obama administration with their assortment of evil policies to go to hell? We can’t even elect a representative who can represent our values without walking on eggshells around “those issues” for fear of being tarred and feathered in the MSM. We are already living in a tyranny of our own creation.
Rightly or wrongly Putin views the encroachment of the EU/NATO as a threat to Russian hegemony. I can understand that. I wouldn’t want those people in my backyard either.
The question that should be asked is why are people turning to a Russian strongman? What else can people put their faith in (I mean this in the secular sense; so don’t tell me Jesus, for He’s not pleased I’m sure)? A GOP that has abandoned them in an effort to play catch up with the Democrats for who can be the most socially liberal and accepted by the hipsters so they can avoid being on the, “wrong side of history?”
I think we should resign ourselves to the fact that the Constitution is not going to save us. It’s meaningless at this point. No election is going to save us. I think we should prepare for a wholly new form of government in the near future. And unless we want Mad Max/Thunder Dome (”Who runs bartertown?”)We had better get our orders in early. So we have choices to make:
1.) US/EU global socialism?
2.) Judeo-Christian strongman?
Like I said, I don’t believe there is a third way. Actually, maybe there is: burn it all to the ground and start over.
Ethnic Ukrainians are physically indistinguishable from ethnic Russians, and most are fluent in Russian. Just as Iraqi Sunni insurgents had no problem striking in Shiite areas, Ukrainians will have no problem attacking in majority ethnic Russian areas.
Would’ve surprise me if they did consider the breakaway portion of Moldova. In the process, it also would not surprise me if they decided to incorporate Itzak and Odessa, merging Crimea with that portion of Moldova; thereby securing the entire Black Sea coast of Ukraine.
1.) US/EU global socialism?
2.) Judeo-Christian strongman?
Like I said, I dont believe there is a third way. Actually, maybe there is: burn it all to the ground and start over
Neither of those two models are any better than what we have, in fact both are worse. Russians turn to a strongman because, first and foremost, it is all they've really ever known. Putin has wasted Russian resources, reduced individual freedom and otherwise done the Russian people no favors. He is no savior. He is playing with a weak hand, his adversaries at the moment (namely Obama) just happen to be buffoons. Putin wasn't even that popular and was dealing with internal dissent in what is a corrupt, decaying society. Putin is getting a bump in support the same way other shaky regimes do, but drumming up a conflict and stoking nationalist sentiment. No different than what the Argentine military tried, unsuccessfully over time, by invading the Falklands. The list is endless of corrupt dictatorships that have tried this.
There is a lot good about our constitution and system of governance, but what we have is still imperfect. I think you live and learn. You look at what worked, and when the time comes to create a new system you build on what was successful with the US constitution and make changes to avoid the pitfalls that showed themselves. As I pointed out, one of the first things I would do is specifically write out any role for the federal government in building a social welfare state. The flexibility would still be there for states to build safety nets and whatnot, but they'd have to do it on their own and remain competitive with the other states - this would make it much more difficult for us to arrive at the point we have. The idea that we have to choose between socialism and a Judeo-Christian strongman is way off base.
I am not optimistic in the short run, but nor I am ready to throw in the towel on the democratic republic concept. We may implode and have to start again, but the best idea is to learn from what went wrong and design a constitution that tries to prevent those things from happening again. And even at that, it may only be successful in delaying rot and decay for an additional 50 years or so. Instead of making it 250 years, perhaps next time we will make it 300. Nothing lasts forever, mankind is not perfectible (as so many socialists believe), and while our system has major flaws it still delivered great things to this country for a very long time. We'll just have to keep building on what works and curtailing those things that cause us problems.
Two big differences...
1. There's no "Thatcher" to oppose him.
2. The inhabitants of the Falklands were not Argies, and none of them welcomed them, as the Russian inhabitants in the Crimea welcomed the Russians.
Jim....the U.S. (regardless of what liberal lefties and isolationist Libertarians may say) needs to put a full brigade (IBCT) of the 82nd Airborne on the ground in Kiev immediately...followed in the next few weeks by a heavy brigade (HBCT) that has a reinforcing armor battalion. At the same time we need to flood the loyal Ukranian forces with arms and ammunition. Then we need to lobby our European allies to join us. Russia will then back down.
If we don’t - and we won’t under the current POTUS - the Ukraine is going to fall into Russian hands...at least the Eastern Ukraine. Then the country of Georgia will fully fall.
The Cold War NEVER ended. the USSR just changed names and waited until it could rebuild...which it has mostly done. Plus, Red China is an ongoing threat to Japan and Taiwan. Plus, they are enabling the nut case in North Korea to carry on.
This is NO time for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines to be downsizing as they are....and certainly no time to withdraw them out of forward areas in Europe and Asia.
“Ukraine can hurt them badly enough to make Putin think twice.”
Sadly, not with the outdated equipment they possess. During the Gulf War, Iraq looked really good on paper, but the equipment they had was obsolete and we destroyed it like a hot knife through butter. The Russians will do the same to the Ukranians....it is their old stuff and they know how weak it is.
Also, I do not believe the training and morale of the Ukranians troops is good.
“A free people have the right to overthrow their government if it is tyrannically hurting the people. We need that here in America!”
Nonsense...we do not need an armed revolution here in America, and it is dangerous and scary to speak of one. All we need is to silence the Libertarian fools that have infiltrated the GOP (i.e. Rand Paul) and get rid of the GOP establishment fools that keep giving us useless candidates like Romney. Then we can field a REAL conservative (of the Reagan variety) that can win the election in 2016. In the meantime we need to make sure that REAL conservatives get elected to the House and Senate in 2014. That is how the Founders saw “Revolution” after the COTUS was initiated. Oh, and just because someone is “fiscally” conservative, doesn’t make them a REAL conservative of the Reagan variety.
“Putins tyrannical takeovers.” Ummm, the people of Crimea voted over 97% in favor of joining the Russian Federation. Putin asked for & got approval from Russian parliament before moving troops into Crimea, as requested by Russian citizens there. We should be so lucky to have our beloved zerO ask foir the approval of ANYTHING before he acts. You need to get your facts straight before opening your mouth.
Yours is an optimistic viewpoint. It’s reassuring in a sense. I hope you are right and it works out that way and we shake off what didn’t work and reinforce what has. I think both you and I realize that wholesale change is required to do that. What form that takes I don’t know.
One thing I do know is that until that time comes a lot of people, including folks on our side are going to be looking for solutions wherever they might present themselves and probably some very weird ideas and alliances will emerge. So I wouldn’t judge “putinista’s” too harshly. These are people who’ve been lied to and marginzalized for a while now: “Oh next election...etc” or whatever political dynamic you ascribe that puts them at the back of the bus.
When you couple that with the political rhetoric of today: “I won, you lost”, “law of the land” and other pronouncements made with finality aimed in one direction then its easy to understand a person’s predilection for courses of action that’ll trump such rhetoric. People want a leader and they don’t have it right now. Ted Cruz is the closest they’ve got but even he’s marginalized.
There is a tendency to equate “putinista’s” with the useful idiots employed by the Soviets in the Cold War era but its a different dynamic. In a very real sense the system they believed in has abandoned them. They win at the ballot box, and its overturned by an oligarchical judiciary. With such lawlessness and judicial activism is it any wonder that there are those who align themselves with someone who says screw all that and just punches people in the face?
The Marquess of Queensberry rules observed on the floor of the Congress and in the courthouses are used to advance one agenda and it’s not ours. The sooner we abandon them the better off we’ll be. 51 (R)’s in the Senate? Maybe we block a SC judicial nominee? Another piece of legislation? To what end? Tactical moves dressed up as strategic.
If we’re going to get to that place you’re talking about where we can effect the kind of change to extend the life of our Republic then we had better move off of the, “my talking head zinger was better than yours” mindset. There is nobody left to convince. We tell our story, they tell theirs. Everybody else in the middle is either stupid or a potential foe.