Breaking: Kiev launches Military Action in Eastern Ukraine

Now it will be interesting to see what Russia does. If it does nothing but, complain then the entire Russian action in Crimea looks opportunist and Russia looks weak. The other option is limited military operation in Eastern Ukraine. The problem with that is, while it would be able to drive off Ukraines forces it would then face a much bigger problem. So far nobody has done anything in Crimea to stir things up because they are waiting on the peace process. An additional move by Russia would change that.

Ukraine would begin, if they have not already, sneaking Special Forces and weapons to Ukrainian resistance cells in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Turkey and the Arab states would most likely be given the green light to arm the Tartars and call for foriegn figters against the Russian s Crimea as well. This would create an insurgency that while not being able to win back the territory it would become costly in both money and manpower for the Russians. At the same time they would face even more santions, more isolation and more economic hardship.

So what does Russia do? I do not see a good option for them unless the West desides to thow them a life line with an offer to get Ukraine to back off and get Russia to the table to make a solid deal. Would the West do this? Most likely. The US and EUs interest in Ukraine has been minor. While they had chalked up losing Ukraine back to the Russians and were not willing to do much about it when things changed in Ukraine they were more than willing to take advantage of it so long as it required little to no effort on their part. And that is about where they stand now. Willing to take in Ukraine without having to go to far to get it. So I could see a deal being made. Unless somebody wants to take down the Russian goverment by playing hard ball. Although that would not be good for anybody including the West. Russia is fragile enough to completely fall apart if that were to happen and that would be a mess.

Now I know some people think this was all a western plot but, that is silly. If it was we would not be here. Ukraine would have been placed under NATO protection and token NATO force would have arrived in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea from the day the goverment fell. They would be called peace keepers but, they really would have been there to check mate any Russian miliary options. And that would have been that.

GrantedBail:

It is on.

Indeed it is, and if the puppet regime in Ukraine is not careful, along with Washington, they just may lure the Russian bear out of its cave.

Putin may simply think to hell with this, and mobilise the troops on the border and send them in to the Ukraine to squash the so-called anti-terror operations. One thing you can count on is that Putin has been playing the diplomatic game, once he knows for sure that there is no longer any benefit to being diplomatic, he will take the gloves off and have his troops march right into Kiev, and that would be a dream for Washington, because it would allow them to vilify Putin and Russia, but they would also lose the Ukraine.

I have always maintained in past posts on other threads that the Ukraine crisis and discord was fomented by the West to undermine Russia as a rising economic and financial superpower. That and that alone is the goal of Washington. Washington couldn't careless about the Ukraine or the Ukrainian people, they are just the expendable puppets of Washington's ambition to slow Russia down, and mire it in political and violent turmoil on its doorstep, forcing it to take expedient military action, and bringing vilification upon itself and making it easier for the West to demonise it.

I believe the Ukrainian anti-terror operations are backed by CIA consultancy, and certainly wider American support and probably promises. One other thing I also believe is that America is not about to get itself embroiled into a real military conflict with Russia. America may have the might, but certainly not the will. Everyone knows that if Russia kicks off with America, America will experience at first hand, on American mainland soil, the death and destruction its might could not save itself from. So America is playing its usual game, shouting from the fringe and throwing the odd surreptitious rock into the mix and looking all innocent. You poke the Russian bear at your peril, because Putin certainly has the will and the might to hit back!

MrSpad:

Now I know some people think this was all a western plot...

That's because it always has been. Ukraine has never been the target, Russia was!

Ukraine would have been placed under NATO protection and token NATO force would have arrived in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea from the day the government fell.

Oh, you bloody think so! How do you think Nato was going to place the Ukraine under its protection, and with whose army? Even America dare not kick off with Russia! Don't get me wrong, if Russia kicked off, America would fight, absolutely, it would have no choice, but so far, America has tip-toed around the room, but Putin knows exactly what's going on, which is why he hasn't mobilised the troops he has on Ukraine's Eastern border, but he put them there for a reason. Putin is ex-KGB, do not underestimate him, or Russia's capability. Nato couldn't even protect itself.

Ukrainian troops have seized an airfield in the city of Kramatorsk as part of a security operation against anti-government activists in the eastern part of the country. Activists reported that four people were killed and two wounded in the assault.

rt.com...

Well, that was easy enough. So much for the activists being Russian special forces or Russian troops! They were indeed, just ordinary pro-Russian protestors.

I hope the Russians are smart enough to just wait this out. History has proven time and time again you don't win hearts and minds with tanks and bombs. In time these regions will get self determination, the peaceful path is just a significantly longer one to take to reach that goal. It's a pity the Soviet leaders didn't take more care drawing the lines of these nations but that is often the case with empires.

It just occurred to me that Putin's best option currently is to do nothing, certainly not what the West is demonising him for. If he remains out of the turmoil, he can put to rest the West's insinuations, and he can prove that Russia is both politically, economically, and financially stable, and develop confidence for investors. In fact doing nothing now, particularly when Russia have no legitimate reason to do so, would quash Western influence, and force the puppet regime in Ukraine to be very careful with the death count, as that would set the people even more against it.

reply to post by MrSpad


A very good post and I was with you until the end

"Now I know some people think this was all a western plot but, that is silly."

No it is silly to deny it or was Ron Paul and others talking stupid when they spoke about the $4bn being spent in the Ukraine and do my ears lie when I hear all these threats from the USA.

"Ukraine would have been placed under NATO protection and token NATO force would have arrived in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea from the day the goverment fell."

A what makes you think for a second that Russia would have allowed that ?

The check mate is that if you add the pro russian vote with the anti nazi vote in the Ukraine then the US Puppets (both left and right at each others throats) might only enjoy a few weeks in power and Russia wants a vote to go ahead and the EU will start to look stupid if they try to delay a vote.

96% in the Crimea was a very, very high result but you can bet at least 40% of the Ukraine will side with them and that might be all thats needed to win an election and the USA will just have to take the blowback for another attempted overthrow of an elected government.

Let the people vote, stop sending weapons because both sides can play that game and it has not worked in Syria and it won't work next to the russian border

reply to post by elysiumfire


I'm sure they will just mark it down to another "intelligence" failure if it turns out to be angry and confused Ukrainians rather than the elite Russian shock troopers we have been led to believe they are. Let hope less lives are loss than other "intelligence" failures and the military doesn't get too trigger happy if they discover their enemy is no more than a disorganized militia.

LightningStrikesHere
Heh,.interesting how this all starts to unfold right after the CIA chief decides to visit Ukraine...

I wonder if he Offered U.S aid ....?


Just saying....

edit on 007121230407412th by LightningStrikesHere because: (no reason given)

Russia's new KGB the FSB has visited Ukraine a number off times in the last year whats your point?

Also the CIA have meet in Russia with the FSB a number of times too did the US organise a coup in Russia?

Clearly the CIA are advising the interim Ukrainian government but i dont think we can assume much more than that

"U.S. and Russian intelligence officials have met over the years. To imply that U.S. officials meeting with their counterparts is anything other than in the same spirit is absurd."

reply to post by elysiumfire


I admire your posts. You are one of the few who sees this situation for what it is and how it is likely to turn out. Simply put, Washington is just not clever enough and will no doubt yet again land up looking like the absolute fools they are.

john452:

I'm sure they will just mark it down to another "intelligence" failure if it turns out to be angry and confused Ukrainians rather than the elite Russian shock troopers we have been led to believe they are. Let hope less lives are loss than other "intelligence" failures and the military doesn't get too trigger happy if they discover their enemy is no more than a disorganized militia.

Absolutely John!

I hope the Russians are smart enough to just wait this out. History has proven time and time again you don't win hearts and minds with tanks and bombs. In time these regions will get self determination, the peaceful path is just a significantly longer one to take to reach that goal. It's a pity the Soviet leaders didn't take more care drawing the lines of these nations but that is often the case with empires.

A wonderful post of well-reasoned appeal. Starred for you.

scotland48:

I admire your posts.

Many thanks. Truly appreciated. To deny ignorance, one has to debate with a modicum of well-discerned reason, the logic will follow. I'm certainly not always right with my opinions, but am always ready to adapt when necessary. The trick is to never be a partisan, never take sides, and accept the bad with good in equal measure. Never have an agenda, except to deny ignorance and obfuscation.

Once again, thanks.

elysiumfire
MrSpad:

Now I know some people think this was all a western plot...

That's because it always has been. Ukraine has never been the target, Russia was!

Ukraine would have been placed under NATO protection and token NATO force would have arrived in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea from the day the government fell.

Oh, you bloody think so! How do you think Nato was going to place the Ukraine under its protection, and with whose army? Even America dare not kick off with Russia! Don't get me wrong, if Russia kicked off, America would fight, absolutely, it would have no choice, but so far, America has tip-toed around the room, but Putin knows exactly what's going on, which is why he hasn't mobilised the troops he has on Ukraine's Eastern border, but he put them there for a reason. Putin is ex-KGB, do not underestimate him, or Russia's capability. Nato couldn't even protect itself.

edit on 15/4/14 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)

You must think this is still the days of the Soviet Union. It is not. Russia is vastly out numbered and out gunned by NATO.
Russia's active forces number about 760,000. NATOs a little over 4,000,000.
Russian Reseves a little over 2,000,000. NATO's Reserves a little over 5,000,000.
Russia has over 2000 Main Battle Tanks, NATO has over 7000.
Russia has over 1000 combat aircraft, NATO has over 6000.
Any Navy wise? The Russian Navy is a fraction of the size of the US Navy alone.


Now of course not all those forces can be brought to face each other but, in scenerio NATO has a massive military advantage over Russia. And that does not count the Western technological and command and control edge. However NATO also massive economic and diplomatic weapons as well that are just as effective as miitary force. In military confict Russia would have to fall on the defensive immediatly as it would lose control of the air very quickly. And without that any advance just becomes a target rich enviroment. Russia knows all this so they will walk the line but, avoid a military conflict with NATO.

Russia would have no choice BUT to go nuclear as NATO conventionally would WIPE THE MAP with them.

MrSpad:

You must think this is still the days of the Soviet Union.

Are you trying to convince me that I do, or are you hoping that I do? You'd be wrong on both counts. Still, you make an interesting post.

Russia's active forces number about 760,000. NATOs a little over 4,000,000.
Russian Reseves a little over 2,000,000. NATO's Reserves a little over 5,000,000.
Russia has over 2000 Main Battle Tanks, NATO has over 7000.
Russia has over 1000 combat aircraft, NATO has over 6000.
Any Navy wise? The Russian Navy is a fraction of the size of the US Navy alone.

Remember Britain? It was that tiny little island who back in 1940/41 was outnumbered 4 to 1 by German aircraft, and yet the RAF with much appreciated aid from allied and one American pilots, defeated the Luftwaffe over Southern and North East England. Never underestimate an opponent simply because you believe yourself to have an overwhelming advantage...that was Goring's mistake with the RAF.

Also, the figures you cite for Nato are - I assume - combined contributions from various countries. If Nato was stupid enough to take Russia on, do you really think it would be taking on Russia only? Russia does have allies, as well as nukes, a hell of a lot of nukes. Admittedly, any conflict with Russia would begin conventionally, probably tit-for-tat exchanges, but when and if it came to coming up against big losses, it would only be a matter of time before one side has a bright spark suggesting using tactical nukes...which of course, would lead to an all out exchange. If you're going to lose and are going down, you will use your nukes if you have them...they were made for such contingency.

Quite simply put, the world cannot afford certain countries going to war with each other.

VirusGuard
reply to post by MrSpad

 

A very good post and I was with you until the end

"Now I know some people think this was all a western plot but, that is silly."

No it is silly to deny it or was Ron Paul and others talking stupid when they spoke about the $4bn being spent in the Ukraine and do my ears lie when I hear all these threats from the USA.

"Ukraine would have been placed under NATO protection and token NATO force would have arrived in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea from the day the goverment fell."

A what makes you think for a second that Russia would have allowed that ?

The check mate is that if you add the pro russian vote with the anti nazi vote in the Ukraine then the US Puppets (both left and right at each others throats) might only enjoy a few weeks in power and Russia wants a vote to go ahead and the EU will start to look stupid if they try to delay a vote.

96% in the Crimea was a very, very high result but you can bet at least 40% of the Ukraine will side with them and that might be all thats needed to win an election and the USA will just have to take the blowback for another attempted overthrow of an elected government.

Let the people vote, stop sending weapons because both sides can play that game and it has not worked in Syria and it won't work next to the russian border

INDEED

Silly us why how could we have ever expected Russia to NOT intervene and let its slave go PEACEFULLY

This is nothing new Mr VirusGuard

Everybody knows full well that ever since the break up of the brutal soviet empire ALL of the eastern block country's seeked protection from Russian aggression Ukraine is but one of the last, and because of Russian threats mainly because of Crimea NATO has been reluctant to allow Ukraine to join the EU & NATO and Ukraine stopped pursuing

Ukraine has given up its bid to join NATO but will continue to pursue greater collaboration on security matters with the alliance, Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Wednesday.

The nation of 45 million people, which gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1990, applied for membership in NATO five years ago. It has participated in NATO-led military exercises and in operations such as the intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the naval anti-piracy patrols off the Somali coast.

Ukraine also has contributed a medical team to the NATO-led international force in Afghanistan.

But the effort to join the alliance has sparked strong opposition from neighboring Russia, Ukraine’s main trading partner, which has ramped up the pressure on Kiev in recent months. Moscow has long opposed NATO’s plans to expand eastward to include other nations of the former Soviet Union.

Russia trying to dictate to NATO about its open door policy and the free choice of others is in its self questionable

NATO’s Open Door policy has been, and will always be, based on the free choice of European democracies. When Ukraine decided to pursue a “non-bloc policy,” NATO fully respected that choice. Russia’s long-time assertion that NATO tried to force Ukraine into its ranks was, and remains, completely false.

Hello, i've only read the first 3 things on here and would like to just say that i am very worried about the people of the west as it do not understand why the Kiev government is trying to kill the people of the EAST??? i would care to call it genocide if it does happen because at the moment from everyone i know in donetsk NOT news say that there are tanks on its entrance and the peaceful people are trying to stop them entering to fore on the people there! The tanks are also going towards Lugansk on the border of russia. WHY ARE THERE TANKS??? Yes okay people have been against many things and have been revolting n places however why advance on them with tanks????? Why can there not be a peaceful solution confirmed? The prime minister had said a referendum may be held during the presidential elections that would be a possible solution?
Well secondly i would like to say that i saw the news about slavyansk and can someone just PLEASE explain to me how is it possible that the entire town are terrorists???? They said the people standing there are separatists and terrorists well i had no clue that civilians seriously scared for their lives are terrorists? The people of the east have been frightened and shocked to such an extend that there every person is hoping that it will not only be sorted soon but also that the current government will not advance (which they are now) to exterminate them in such a way that the whole world will consider alright really. Or is that impossible? I do not know and i do say sorry for this kind of rant, but did you guys hear what timoshenko said on a phone call and i say translating ‘nuclear weapons’ should be used to kill Russians' and by russians in this translation from a newspaper it does not make it clear that by russians she means those in the east.


The people are scared for their lives they are trying to do everything they can to support a peaceful life for the moment (as if thats even possible)

BUT WHY?
Tanks are they really necessary??? Seriously guys if this is the way you wish to resolve the split between the east and west well what can i say?

Here's another idea i do not understand?
why is it that they advance on the East not West when the people there actually want peace and calm as much as the East does but while the turmoil at the maiden was going on (which i don't know if you know where they drugged people) the east was calm and accepting but as soon as it calmed down all the attention turned to the East and why may i ask because it's near the border of russia. The west is a lovely place with lovely people who are as human as we all are they are equal to the east oh come on they even had a day of speaking russian and that well really is something!

I'm soooooo sorry for the rant and i know there will be people having controversial ideas probably however i haven't had much chance to speak out oh and i'm appreciative of all answers and comments

reply to post by john452


Well ahaha the only thing that comes to mind a russian thing that has been going round social networks:

" for every cunning move anyone makes towards Russia, Russians will answer in utter unpredictable folly (or stupidness) "

reply to post by Justmea


I try not to underestimate human stupidity in general. That said, I have never had to be a leader of a nation and had stay calm when people around you are screaming for action and it's very likely I would make the exact same mistakes that have been made in history if put in those situations. Lets hope the Russians have done their yoga as they recently advised America to do.

elysiumfire
MrSpad:

You must think this is still the days of the Soviet Union.

Are you trying to convince me that I do, or are you hoping that I do? You'd be wrong on both counts. Still, you make an interesting post.

Russia's active forces number about 760,000. NATOs a little over 4,000,000.
Russian Reseves a little over 2,000,000. NATO's Reserves a little over 5,000,000.
Russia has over 2000 Main Battle Tanks, NATO has over 7000.
Russia has over 1000 combat aircraft, NATO has over 6000.
Any Navy wise? The Russian Navy is a fraction of the size of the US Navy alone.

Remember Britain? It was that tiny little island who back in 1940/41 was outnumbered 4 to 1 by German aircraft, and yet the RAF with much appreciated aid from allied and one American pilots, defeated the Luftwaffe over Southern and North East England. Never underestimate an opponent simply because you believe yourself to have an overwhelming advantage...that was Goring's mistake with the RAF.

Also, the figures you cite for Nato are - I assume - combined contributions from various countries. If Nato was stupid enough to take Russia on, do you really think it would be taking on Russia only? Russia does have allies, as well as nukes, a hell of a lot of nukes. Admittedly, any conflict with Russia would begin conventionally, probably tit-for-tat exchanges, but when and if it came to coming up against big losses, it would only be a matter of time before one side has a bright spark suggesting using tactical nukes...which of course, would lead to an all out exchange. If you're going to lose and are going down, you will use your nukes if you have them...they were made for such contingency.

Quite simply put, the world cannot afford certain countries going to war with each other.

edit on 15/4/14 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)

I don't think you quite understand

Spad was being generous

The 4/1 odds the Germans had over the Brits would be dwarf in this case with NATO and Russia

25 Aircraft carriers & VS 1 Russian carrier

Amphibious assault ships the US has 11 alone which could also carry aircraft instead of helos

Total NATO aircraft 40,000+ i lost count
Total Russian aircraft 4,400

So the odds are far greater than 4/1 here

This means that as mr spad said, Germany are immediately on the back foot playing a defensive role against huge odds

This means the entire western world goes into whats called a military war effort mode, where factory's turn into military spamming factory's, Russia has no ways to stop the tank spamming aircraft spamming war efforts, while NATO is crippling Russia ability to maintain there defensive stance

During WWII

if it wasn't for the allies relentless infrastructure and war effort obliteration of Nazi Germany, Germany would have steamrolled all the way to Moscow

Germany also had the superior Technology which was in the end out trumped by sheer numbers

None of these important war winning factors does Russia have

Its just silly to try to argue IMO