Does the Ukraine have an Army?

So what is the 'viability' of the Ukraine army...can they defend themselves...and who is running their country now?
Who steps in to assist them against the Russian invasion now?

?

Russia has no right to Crimea.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Russia has a very large naval base in Crimea. I'd say that gives them a right to be there. Or do they not have the right to secure their military assets? Also, I don't see the Crimean people gathering in mass protest to the Russian presence. Crimea used to be a part of Russia. Most Crimeans IDENTIFY themselves as Russian.

I'd say that gives them more right to be there than let's say....the US invading and occupying Iraq for 10 years....or Afghanistan for 12.

The sheer hypocrisy turns my stomach. But hey, maybe the US should send in the troops to go and save Ukrainian democracy....but we all know that won't happen because the US is only capable of attacking countries that can pose it no real military threat. The Russian bear is simply biting off more than they can chew....and they know it.

reply to post by deadcalm

Russia has a very large naval base in Crimea. I'd say that gives them a right to be there. Or do they not have the right to secure their military assets? Also, I don't see the Crimean people gathering in mass protest to the Russian presence. Crimea used to be a part of Russia. Most Crimeans IDENTIFY themselves as Russian.

Crimea was given to Ukraine by a drunken Khrushchev. If Putin were competent, he could have secured Sevastopol by diplomacy. In time, Crimea might have seceded from Ukraine peacefully. The haste with which Putin is acting suggests that he is afraid that his time in power is limited.

The sheer hypocrisy turns my stomach. But hey, maybe the US should send in the troops to go and save Ukrainian democracy....but we all know that won't happen because the US is only capable of attacking countries that can pose it no real military threat. The Russian bear is simply biting off more than they can chew....and they know it.

Actually, it is Russia that has a miserable record in that regard. Russia has not conquered anything militarily since the time of Catherine the Great. Georgia remains an independent country, despite Russia's best efforts. They lost Afghanistan to superstitious peasants. They lost to Japan, for crying out loud! Russia has never won a single naval engagement in its entire history, unless you count the defeat of the Teutonic Knights on the frozen river Neva as a naval engagement. Ukraine has no need of outside help to defeat the Russian army. The Russian bear has once again bit off more than it can chew.

If Putin were competent, he could have secured Sevastopol by diplomacy.

reply to post by DJW001


Who uses diplomacy anymore? Given the security situation, or lack thereof, in the Ukraine right now, the Russians have a legitimate reason for being in Crimea.

The haste with which Putin is acting suggests that he is afraid that his time in power is limited.

Putin is not a stupid man...he's been around a long time...I doubt that it is fear that is driving him to do this. Are you suggesting the Russian people are going to call for him to step down over this? That's simply not going to happen.

Russia has not conquered anything militarily since the time of Catherine the Great.

Have you forgotten about their successful defence of their country against the German invasion in WW2? The success acheived in forcing the Germans out of Russia and pushing them right back to Germany?

Georgia remains an independent country, despite Russia's best efforts.

Western interference is the only reason. It's well known the CIA has been in Georgia stirring up trouble for years now.

They lost Afghanistan to superstitious peasants.

So has the US. The so called mightiest military on Earth couldn't wipe out a bunch of poorly armed, and poorly trained Taliban goat herders. The US will leave Afghanistan just like every other invader in Afghanistans history....in defeat.

In closing I would just like to say that the US has achieved no military victories since WW2. Hardly a record to boast about. Don't even bring up the 1st Gulf "War".....that was like shooting fish in a barrel. It wasn't a war...it was slaughter. The Iraqis were not even close to being a threat to the US. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.....all in the loss column for the US.

As for the Ukranian military....they have about as much chance of defeating the Russians as the Iraqis had of beating the US after the invasion of Kuwait.

reply to post by Xcouncil=wisdom


Most political analyst (currently anyway) agree that no one wants to step in and wage war on Russia if they would move in. Neither Nato, US alone or the EU. And as we all know Russia will block everything in the UN security council.

EU will probably send mediators to try and difuse the situation since they dont have any army and it's made of so many countries that any decision takes weeks to make.

the real question is who are the ukrainian military loyal to......if they allow themselves to be used by the coup leaders its suicide, i would expect they are as i write plotting against them.

DJW001


Actually, it is Russia that has a miserable record in that regard. Russia has not conquered anything militarily since the time of Catherine the Great.

Uh, Stalingrad? Berlin?

BABYBULL24
Russia wouldn't have a Navy if Putin didn't respond.
He had to - i mean he doesn't have to take the whole peninsula but what is he suppose to do?
He is renting the base...they have a lease.


It would be like the Cuban's taking over Gitmo...what would we do? Well Obama would probably hand it over but that's beside the point.

I think the issue that some people are having, is that when Russia takes illegal action to secure their military, everyone thinks it's OK and "only natural"

But when the US acts illegally (or legally) to secure their military, they are always the bad guy being a bully.

Either a country has the right to do anything in it's own interests, at the expense of other people, or they aren't. People can't just change their minds on whether or not that's OK depending on who the country is. Anything else is hypocritical.

reply to post by deadcalm


Russia has no legitimate reason to be anywhere but in it's Naval Base in Sevastopol. They had no reason to leave, nor fly in 30,000 extra men from the 76th Shock Troops Division (elite Russian Army) to take the whole peninsula or to have thousands of men and machines on readiness just over the border.

Had they just allowed the transition to take place, they'd still have their base. The reason they have got involved is because their puppet was overthrown, simple as. They want someone who dances to their tune, not someone who wants closer ties with Europe.

reply to post by deadcalm


A couple of more points -

You mention the CIA in Georgia, hardly surprising, but you neglect Russian involvement in stirring up the "ethnic Russian" population to the point of rebellion, then swooping in with ther Army when the Georgians try to wrest back control.

Russia is now the de facto ruler of South Ossetia and Abkazia (sp?), is the only country to recognise the new "Governments" there and refuses UN mediation to resolve the crisis and return the provinces to Georgia.

Secondly,you say "The US will leave Afghanistan just like every other invader in Afghanistan's history....in defeat." Not strictly true. The Taliban are a spent force now, although a pain in the arse it has to be said, but the Afghan security forces are up to the job. Also, Afghanistan isn't "unconquerable" - the British successfully subdued them in 19th century.

Russia has no legitimate reason to be anywhere but in it's Naval Base in Sevastopol.

reply to post by stumason


Given that more than half of the Crimean pininsula are ethnic Russians....and that more than half of them are Russian speakers, I'd say that Russia has a legitimate right to be there if for no other reason than to protect it's people. The Crimeans identify themselves as Russian and their loyalties lie with Russia. If this were not so....how come you are not seeing the Crimean people rising up in protest of the Russian presence?

One extremely important point here is who are the people that currently control Kiev? They are ultra nationalist fascists. They have threatened to revive the Ukraines nuclear weapons program....this the Russians cannot allow. Not to mention the massive instability that they have created in the Ukraine, instability that could easily spill over into Russia. I wonder what the US would do if a bunch of ultra nationalists deposed the democratically elected leader of Mexico and destabilized that country? What if those ultra nationalists were being covertly funded by Moscow, as is the case in the Ukraine with the CIA? Would they sit idly by and just watch it happen? Not likely.

Had they just allowed the transition to take place, they'd still have their base.

They have their base now...as well as the whole peninsula. But just what kind of "transition" are we talking about here? A transition to what? They overthrew a democratically elected leader. The west just loves democracy in theory....just not in practice.

They want someone who dances to their tune, not someone who wants closer ties with Europe.

The same can be said for Western interests. They want to hand the Ukraine to the vultures in the IMF so they can siphon off their wealth and slap the Ukrainians in perpetual debt slavery. Thats hardly beneficial to the people of Ukraine.

Also, Afghanistan isn't "unconquerable" - the British successfully subdued them in 19th century.

Still dreaming of the good ole days of the British Empire are we? You must be dreaming, because the English were never able to subdue Afghanistan....

The first Afghan War (1839-42) began when British commanders sent a huge army of British and Indian troops into Afghanistan to secure it against Russian incursions, replacing the ruling emir with a British protege. Facing Afghan opposition, by January 1842 the British were forced to withdraw from Kabul with a column of 16,500 soldiers and civilians, heading east to the garrison at Jalalabad, 110 miles away. Only a single survivor of that group ever made it to Jalalabad safely, though the British forces did recover some prisoners many months later.

Does that sound subdued to you? LOL. A single survivor....but being the English, they weren't gonna leave it at that...in for a penny in for a pound eh?

According to the late Louis Dupree, the premier historian of Afghanistan, four factors contributed to the British disaster: the occupation of Afghan territory by foreign troops, the placing of an unpopular emir on the throne, the harsh acts of the British -supported Afghans against their local enemies, and the reduction of the subsidies paid to the tribal chiefs by British political agents. The British would repeat these mistakes in the second Afghan War (1878-81), as would the Soviets a century later; the United States would be wise to consider them today.

You would think at this point these "subdued" people would be bowing to their British overlords...no? Wrong....fast forward to 1917...they had another go at them.....with the same predictable results.

The British fought yet a third war with Afghanistan in 1917, an encounter that neither burnished British martial history nor subdued the Afghan people.

Afghanistan, Graveyard of Empires


Thanks for your input mate!

deadcalm
Given that more than half of the Crimean pininsula are ethnic Russians....and that more than half of them are Russian speakers, I'd say that Russia has a legitimate right to be there if for no other reason than to protect it's people. The Crimeans identify themselves as Russian and their loyalties lie with Russia. If this were not so....how come you are not seeing the Crimean people rising up in protest of the Russian presence?

None of that is even relevant. It's the territory of the Ukraine - it matters not what language the people speak. And we are seeing pro-Kiev demo's alongside the pro-Moscow one's, you're just choosing to ignore them.

deadcalm
One extremely important point here is who are the people that currently control Kiev? They are ultra nationalist fascists. They have threatened to revive the Ukraines nuclear weapons program....

Some are these right-wingers, but to paint them all as such is a lie and you know it.

deadcalm
Not to mention the massive instability that they have created in the Ukraine, instability that could easily spill over into Russia.

Instead, we're just going to have a Civil War instead and instability anyway - with refugees flooding the EU too.

deadcalm
I wonder what the US would do if a bunch of ultra nationalists deposed the democratically elected leader of Mexico and destabilized that country? What if those ultra nationalists were being covertly funded by Moscow, as is the case in the Ukraine with the CIA? Would they sit idly by and just watch it happen? Not likely.

I would hardly call Yanukovych "democratically" elected. Not only did he fail to even get a majority (only 48% of the popular vote) but there were widespread accusations of vote rigging and fraud. Again, something you're choosing to ignore.

deadcalm
They have their base now...as well as the whole peninsula. But just what kind of "transition" are we talking about here? A transition to what?

Considering that in Kiev there is a transitional Government, I suspect the transition will be when they hold new elections... Duh...

deadcalm
They overthrew a democratically elected leader. The west just loves democracy in theory....just not in practice.

See above...

deadcalm
The same can be said for Western interests. They want to hand the Ukraine to the vultures in the IMF so they can siphon off their wealth and slap the Ukrainians in perpetual debt slavery. Thats hardly beneficial to the people of Ukraine.

Instead, you're happy to have them chained to Russia instead? Not much of a choice, really, assuming you're paranoid ramblings about the IMF are even true, that is. The Ukraine is in debt, big time, already. Rumours are that the former President has done a runner with over $70 Billion of Ukraine's cash, leaving them broke.

deadcalm
Still dreaming of the good ole days of the British Empire are we? You must be dreaming, because the English were never able to subdue Afghanistan....

First off, British - not English - British. Get it right. And no, not dreaming, just stating a fact.

Secondly, the 2nd Afghan War was a victory for the Empire, so yes we were able to subdue them. The first time we just didn't take enough men and were cocky, the second time we did it properly.

deadcalm

The first Afghan War (1839-42) began when British commanders sent a huge army of British and Indian troops into Afghanistan to secure it against Russian incursions, replacing the ruling emir with a British protege. Facing Afghan opposition, by January 1842 the British were forced to withdraw from Kabul with a column of 16,500 soldiers and civilians, heading east to the garrison at Jalalabad, 110 miles away. Only a single survivor of that group ever made it to Jalalabad safely, though the British forces did recover some prisoners many months later.

Does that sound subdued to you? LOL. A single survivor....but being the English, they weren't gonna leave it at that...in for a penny in for a pound eh?

I knew you'd get it wrong, which is why I deliberately didn't mention the 2nd Afghan War in my reply to you to see if you could anything but read up on the first Wiki page you found. Try again, sunshine.

Here ya go:

“It is absolutely not a combat ready force. It’s sharply underfunded, and they don’t have any real air or surface to air or capacity compared to what Russia can deploy — even though Russia is no paragon of military readiness either,” Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told FoxNews.com.

None of that is even relevant.

reply to post by stumason


I'm sure the majority of Crimeans...who are ETHNIC RUSSIANS would disagree. How is that not relevant? Just because an Englishman says so?....LOL...NEWS FLASH...England no longer gets to dictate what is or isn't relevant....the Empire is long dead.

It's the territory of the Ukraine

It WAS the territory of Ukraine. The Russians control it now. The Crimean people will be the ones to decide who they choose to throw their lot in with....not the West. Given the demographic make-up of the penisula....my bet is with Russia. Time will tell.

And we are seeing pro-Kiev demo's alongside the pro-Moscow one's, you're just choosing to ignore them.

Ahh yes....the pro Kiev crowd...the Westen backed ultra nationalist fascists we were talking about earlier. I ignored nothing.

Some are these right-wingers, but to paint them all as such is a lie and you know it.

The important ones are the ultra nationalist fascists that actually CONTROL Kiev at the moment. I did not however "paint" them all as such....I merely stated the fact that the ultra nationalist fascists are the ones in control....because they are.

Instead, we're just going to have a Civil War instead and instability anyway - with refugees flooding the EU too.

There is no need for a civil war if the Western powers would quit interefering in the internal politics of the Ukraine. If we have learned anything in the last 12 years of Western expansionism and illegal wars of aggression, is that they couldn't give a tinkers damn if the countries they invade end up embroiled in civil war....one only need to look at Iraq...or Libya for glaring examples. Total hypocrits....no?

I would hardly call Yanukovych "democratically" elected. Not only did he fail to even get a majority (only 48% of the popular vote) but there were widespread accusations of vote rigging and fraud. Again, something you're choosing to ignore.

I am ignoring nothing, the subject of popular vote was only just brought up however, since you mention it....in the 2004 American Presidential elections George W Bush received a paltry 50.7 % of the popular vote, which is a measly 2.7% above Yanukovich, which was also hotly contested...with accusations of rigging and voter fraud...yet this was deemed a "fair" election. Double standard much? It may be imperfect...but thats democracy for you. 3 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Considering that in Kiev there is a transitional Government,

Again....who are these people that are being appointed by the ultra nationalist fascists to head this transitional government. I'll tell you....they are Western backed oligarchs that will sell the Ukrainian people to the IMF. Where have we seen these types of tactics before? Greece and Spain come to mind. How's that going for them?

I guess old tricks are still the best tricks eh?

Instead, you're happy to have them chained to Russia instead?

It's not my country...so I have no say in the matter. Really??...."chained"...lol. Quit being so melodramatic.

Not much of a choice, really, assuming you're paranoid ramblings about the IMF are even true, that is.

Now that was FUNNY...because surely the IMF wouldn't do such a thing would they? PUHLEEEASE! It's been done time and time again all over the world. See Ireland for a recent example, though there are many more. The EU and their banking masters are the most corrupt organization on EARTH, next to the US Government.

Rumours are that the former President has done a runner with over $70 Billion of Ukraine's cash, leaving them broke.

Rumors are not facts. It would be rather convienient for the Western powers to spread that "rumor" though wouldn't it? But as we all know the West would never lie to intervene militarily now would they....*cough* IRAQ *cough*...nor would they fabricate evidence to futher their agenda would they....*cough* WMD's *cough*.

Secondly, the 2nd Afghan War was a victory for the Empire, so yes we were able to subdue them. The first time we just didn't take enough men and were cocky, the second time we did it properly.

In point of fact Mr Brit....I even highlighted the second Afghan war in my post....here...read it again.

According to the late Louis Dupree, the premier historian of Afghanistan, four factors contributed to the British disaster: the occupation of Afghan territory by foreign troops, the placing of an unpopular emir on the throne, the harsh acts of the British -supported Afghans against their local enemies, and the reduction of the subsidies paid to the tribal chiefs by British political agents. The British would repeat these mistakes in the second Afghan War (1878-81), as would the Soviets a century later; the United States would be wise to consider them today.

But I would hardly call a negotiated settlement, which was what ended the 2nd Afghan War known as The Treaty of Gandamak....as subduing the Afghan people....cause they certainly didn't stay "subdued" as a 3rd Afghan war was neccessary.....which you also failed at.

I knew you'd get it wrong, which is why I deliberately didn't mention the 2nd Afghan War in my reply to you to see if you could anything but read up on the first Wiki page you found. Try again, sunshine.

Ahhh... total weak sauce my English friend. You obviously didn't read the link, because I did not cite Wiki as a source. I cited a well known expert on the subject....Afghanistan, Graveyard of Empires by Milton Bearden. Who is also a retired member of the CIA.

Milton Bearden served as CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, where he was responsible for that agency's covert action program in support of the Afghan resistance to the Soviet-supported government.

So right back at you Englishman....better luck next time.

reply to post by deadcalm


The irony is that if Putin had only waited, the Crimeans would eventually have had a legitimate plebiscite and voted to join Russia. As it is, his military actions are about to cause them grief and suffering.

As it is, his military actions are about to cause them grief and suffering.

reply to post by DJW001


The Russian's hand was forced by US meddling in Ukraine's internal politics. This was nothing less than another US attempt at desablization and regime change....and it failed. Barry messed with the Russian's one too many times and now Putin is calling him out.

The Russians have nothing to fear from the US nor it's military. That would be biting off wayyyy more than they can chew.

Since Russia was formed, it has always been attacked from the west, Sweden, Poland, the Teutonic knights, France, Germany (twice) so yes the Russians are a bit paranoid, they have every right to be, its a defense dictum to have buffer states on its western borders, Ukraine under NATO control would get the Russians hysterical, and rightly so

deadcalm

As it is, his military actions are about to cause them grief and suffering.

reply to post by DJW001

 

The Russian's hand was forced by US meddling in Ukraine's internal politics. This was nothing less than another US attempt at desablization and regime change....and it failed. Barry messed with the Russian's one too many times and now Putin is calling him out.

That's certainly one interpretation. Another is that Putin saw a chance to take advantage of a crisis Rahman Emanuel style and utilized the Ukranians internal crisis as an excuse to leverage his influence farther with the hopes that any resulting civil war would allow the Russian Federation to be in a position of maintaining their ally/puppet government in the end by helping their new Crimean allies to regI control of the entirety of Ukraine. Honestly, what you seem to have been advocating in this thread in regards to Russian occupation of Crimea is the equivalent t supporting Mexico in their goal of retaking Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California who all have a large percentage of Spanish speakers and native Mexicans amongst their populations. National sovereignty is national sovereignty and Putin has no more right to be anywhere in Crimea outside of Sovostopol than te US has being anywhere outside of its territories or national borders. It's. Ukranian matter Nd shod be left to the Ukranians to sort out and I believe rather strongly that between now and whenever they hold national elections in Ukraine that Crimea would likely have at least ttempted to secede from Ukraine,at which point Russiancould have formulated a legitimate reason for sending in additional troops. Just my take on it.

The Russians have nothing to fear from the US nor it's military. That would be biting off wayyyy more than they can chew.

I'm inclined to disagree. Aside from a minor Goergian incursion a few years back, when was the last time the Russian military actually fought against foreign troops? Fights against Chechnya in the 90's? The US military, for all its flaws, has been training for and has had one consistent mission statement for over a dozen years now, battle preparedness. They've got some of the most experienced and battle hardened troops in the world right now with everything in place for quick mobilization as well as the largest SOC in American history giving them more tier 1 and tier 2 special forces troops than some nations have standing armies. The only advantages I see for Russia are troop strength/numbers and the AK-47. As you seem to be a student of history, tell me, how did Russia fare during its last outing in the Crimea? It led to not just their defeat but the upheaval of tw entirety of Russian society because it led directly to freeing the serfs among other reforms. And that time as well as now, the most important thing they were fighting for was the port of Sevastopol and once it fell then so did the Russians. Though in all fairness most of Europe fared worse in the end as the resulting new political alignments and national boundaries ultimately led to the beginning of WW1 but that's a little too far off topic and digressive.

That's certainly one interpretation.

reply to post by peter vlar


I'd prefer to call it an assesment based on observation and no small amount of research.

with the hopes that any resulting civil war would allow the Russian Federation to be in a position of maintaining their ally/puppet government

I take issue with that statement. Yanukovich was democratically elected by the people of the Ukraine. He was not installed by the Russians through nefarious means....as is the current transitional "government". Yanukovich and the majority of the Ukrainian people are sympathetic to Russia. This was a problem for the minority in the Ukraine that wanted the country to hitch it's post to the EU...ergo...the World Bank and IMF.

Honestly, what you seem to have been advocating in this thread in regards to Russian occupation of Crimea is the equivalent t supporting Mexico in their goal of retaking Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California who all have a large percentage of Spanish speakers and native Mexicans amongst their populations.

No...what I am saying is that the Russians have a legitimate reason for being in the Crimean penisula and the Ukraine. Without western interference, the Crimea and Ukraine would be free of Russian troops right now and we'd be debating something else. As I stated before....Russia's hand was forced due to Western meddling...and we've all seen how that turns out....can you blame the Russians for wanting to nip that in the bud?

National sovereignty is national sovereignty

Except when it comes to the US and western powers. They started this ball rolling by financing and giving logistical support to the Ultra Nationalist Fascists to overthrow a democratically elected leader. Just as they did in Iran....but what could go wrong with that?...(sarcasm). Ditto for Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The mistake here was thinking that the Russians would allow this on their own borders.

Ukranian matter Nd shod be left to the Ukranians to sort out and I believe rather strongly that between now and whenever they hold national elections in Ukraine that Crimea would likely have at least ttempted to secede from Ukraine,at which point Russiancould have formulated a legitimate reason for sending in additional troops. Just my take on it.

I whole-heartedly agree with your statement...alas, if only the US/Western powers would have kept their nose out of it. Maybe someday they will learn. I won't hold my breath though....

To illustrate my point...consider the following....this story only got a tiny bit of coverage.. but shows CLEARLY this was all planned.

At the start of February, a very important conversation between Assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked, the infamous "f----the EU" recording. During the clip, Nuland and Pyatt discuss their desired outcome for the crisis in Ukraine. Now that 3 weeks have passed since the leak and events have developed, it is instructive to listen to the recording once again. (See below.) Keep in mind that this leak was made on February 2, which means the conversation occurred before that date. Viktor Yanukovych did not lose power over the Ukrainian government until more than three weeks later February 24th.

The recording reveals Nuland and Pyatt discussing whether Vitali Klitschko, sometimes referred to as “Klitsch” in the recording, should be named the deputy prime minister and seems to assume that Arseniy Yatseniuk, sometimes referred to in the recording as “Yats,” will become prime minister. Since that conversation,Yatseniuk has, indeed, become prime minister. Anybody that tells you that the US is not running the "revolution" from behind the scenes is blowing smoke.

Source...Economic Policy Journal


Coincidence?? I think not. Ooops. In a better world the MSM would be all over this...but of course they aren't. I wonder why?


Link to leaked coversation...here

The US military, for all its flaws, has been training for and has had one consistent mission statement for over a dozen years now, battle preparedness.

If you mean by "consistant mission statement", breaking International Law, the Geneva Coventions of War ect...then yes...they have been ridiculously consistant. They weren't simply "preparing" for battle, they have been engaged in it non stop for the last 12 years. The Romans had the most technologically advanced, most highly trained professional army in the entire world too and it didn't save them. Hubris and arrogance are the hallmarks of an Empire headed for destruction.

They've got some of the most experienced and battle hardened troops in the world right now with everything in place for quick mobilization as well as the largest SOC in American history giving them more tier 1 and tier 2 special forces troops than some nations have standing armies.

Not to mention that they outspend the rest of the world combined in defence spending. But tell me this....why has every military adventure they've been on since WW2 ended in abject failure? Just because you are the biggest and the strongest doesn't assure victory as the last 12 years have clearly shown. Your over reliance on your fancy technology will be your undoing. Ask the Germans...they also had a highly trained, technologically advanced army...the best in the world at the time, and they lost. In any protracted engagement with a serious adversary...such as Russia, the US would get their butts handed to them. Please bear in mind that you no longer have the manufacturing capabilities you had in WW2, which was the reason that Nazi Germany was defeated. They had better toys technologically, and a far better trained army....but the US had the power of NUMBERS. They simply out produced the Germans.

The only advantages I see for Russia are troop strength/numbers and the AK-47.

I'd argue they have a lot more than just the AK-47....a lot more. See above.

how did Russia fare during its last outing in the Crimea? It led to not just their defeat but the upheaval of tw entirety of Russian society because it led directly to freeing the serfs among other reforms.

Not well as you clearly know....a mistake they will not repeat, I can assure you. But that situation bears no relevance to where Russia is today. They are a far different country now than they were then.

As you seem to be a student of history

I certainly try to be...

Thank you for the thoughtful post...I enjoyed it and hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction.

deadcalm

First off, thank you, I truly appreciate the opportunity to civilly and rationally disagree with someone as opposed to the usual "F you, I'm totally right and you're completely wrong so now to my superior intellect" type of post tht I myself am guilty of occasionally. While I still disagree with you on several points, you have more than clarified your stance and I do completely agree with you on other points. Most especially the role of western( and let's be honest primarily the U.S.) intervention in the internal policies particularly in regard to destabilizing regions for our own political gain as well as access to natural resources that we hope to exploit for profit.

with the hopes that any resulting civil war would allow the Russian Federation to be in a position of maintaining their ally/puppet government

I take issue with that statement. Yanukovich was democratically elected by the people of the Ukraine. He was not installed by the Russians through nefarious means....as is the current transitional "government". Yanukovich and the majority of the Ukrainian people are sympathetic to Russia. This was a problem for the minority in the Ukraine that wanted the country to hitch it's post to the EU...ergo...the World Bank and IMF.

Certainly, Yanukovich was the legitimate and duly elected leader of the Ukraine. The is no dispute. And while the Ukranian people would have been better off going along with the initial deal of allowing him to keep his job until the fall when new elections would be held in lieu of an interim government of questionable backing. However that's not the route the ever impatient Ukranians opted for so its rather moot.

Honestly, what you seem to have been advocating in this thread in regards to Russian occupation of Crimea is the equivalent t supporting Mexico in their goal of retaking Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California who all have a large percentage of Spanish speakers and native Mexicans amongst their populations.

No...what I am saying is that the Russians have a legitimate reason for being in the Crimean penisula and the Ukraine. Without western interference, the Crimea and Ukraine would be free of Russian troops right now and we'd be debating something else. As I stated before....Russia's hand was forced due to Western meddling...and we've all seen how that turns out....can you blame the Russians for wanting to nip that in the bud?

I understand that, I just disagree and feel that Russia would still be able to project the appropriate amount of power to make their point without occupying the entire peninsula. Flooding additional troops and ships into the port of Sevastopol, to me, would more than make their point. Just an observation based on raising interest rates by 50% today/ yesterday from 5 to 7.5% is indicative that a lot of power players in Russia are nervous about the long term financial prospects, likely to be. Result of impending sanctions, that will reduce both their ability to export items as well as reducing import tariffs.

National sovereignty is national sovereignty

Except when it comes to the US and western powers. They started this ball rolling by financing and giving logistical support to the Ultra Nationalist Fascists to overthrow a democratically elected leader. Just as they did in Iran....but what could go wrong with that?...(sarcasm). Ditto for Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The mistake here was thinking that the Russians would allow this on their own borders.

I make no excuses for the decisions of our illustrious leaders here in the US. I disagree with the vast majority of them along with many other Americans and if I had my druthers we would go back to put per WW2 isolationist policies. sadly getting a piece of West Berlin gave us a taste for our current overseas empire and now it's not just the US that relies on these ridiculous bases but even the local economies are dependent on them for a large portion of their incoming finances. From taxi drivers to restauranteurs all the way down to the seedy under belly of hookers and drugs becomes wearily entirely dependent on the influx of cash supplied by these bases and the vacuum they would leave would devastate the surrounding communities. Perhaps an awful analogy but its like feeding a start animal and then leaving it suddenly to fend for itself. It doesn't know how to any more.

Ukranian matter Nd shod be left to the Ukranians to sort out and I believe rather strongly that between now and whenever they hold national elections in Ukraine that Crimea would likely have at least ttempted to secede from Ukraine,at which point Russiancould have formulated a legitimate reason for sending in additional troops. Just my take on it.

I whole-heartedly agree with your statement...alas, if only the US/Western powers would have kept their nose out of it. Maybe someday they will learn. I won't hold my breath though....

To illustrate my point...consider the following....this story only got a tiny bit of coverage.. but shows CLEARLY this was all planned.

Coincidence?? I think not. Ooops. In a better world the MSM would be all over this...but of course they aren't. I wonder why?

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with you. And again, not making an excuse but its been par for the course since the end of WW2 that both the US and Russia/USSR have been getting their hands dirty in every possible country they can to try to expand their sphere of influence.

The US military, for all its flaws, has been training for and has had one consistent mission statement for over a dozen years now, battle preparedness.

[quote ] They've got some of the most experienced and battle hardened troops in the world right now with everything in place for quick mobilization as well as the largest SOC in American history giving them more tier 1 and tier 2 special forces troops than some nations have standing armies.

Not to mention that they outspend the rest of the world combined in defence spending. But tell me this....why has every military adventure they've been on since WW2 ended in abject failure? Just because you are the biggest and the strongest doesn't assure victory as the last 12 years have clearly shown. Your over reliance on your fancy technology will be your undoing. Ask the Germans...they also had a highly trained, technologically advanced army...the best in the world at the time, and they lost. In any protracted engagement with a serious adversary...such as Russia, the US would get their butts handed to them. Please bear in mind that you no longer have the manufacturing capabilities you had in WW2, which was the reason that Nazi Germany was defeated. They had better toys technologically, and a far better trained army....but the US had the power of NUMBERS. They simply out produced the Germans.

To be technical, every engagement we've been involved in since 1945 hasn't been a dud. Though all the ones that did blow up in our face were lengthy stays in hostile nations whe we didn't bother to make many allies.Panama, Grenada and the first gulf war are three off the top of my head that went very well for us, especially when compared to Vietnam Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq round 2. The major difference between our successful endeavors and dismal failures besides length of involvement was an unclear or non existent end game, no goal for us. Or as in Iraq, no real reason to be there in the first place coupled with no goals or clear mission. In Afghanistan we were woefully under manned and under equipped, even more so after the 2003 Iraq invasion. It's a similar parable to Nam. Inadequate game plan saddled with the weight of insufficient and inapropriate resources. The end result of that was Americans being chewed up by guerrilla insurgents leading to the desperation of drone warfare so tht they could claim the were saving or paring American lives. Had we utilized appropriate man power and force projection from the outset instead of playing it safe out of fear we could have been in and out of Afghanistan in a third of the time because the Taliban wouldn't have had the opportunity to escape throu Tora Bora into Pakistan which left them free to cross the mountains T will and mount attacks at their leisure. It's an unfortunate side effect of having civilian leadership in charge of the military because they usually just don't get it and refuse commanding officers what they need for a decisive victory. It's what these guys go to war college for and the fools in te White House and congress need to start listening to them. You can't have a hawkish attitude and the resolve of the dove. It just doesn't pro it for anyone except the enemy.

how did Russia fare during its last outing in the Crimea? It led to not just their defeat but the upheaval of tw entirety of Russian society because it led directly to freeing the serfs among other reforms.

Not well as you clearly know....a mistake they will not repeat, I can assure you. But that situation bears no relevance to where Russia is today. They are a far different country now than they were then.

There are certainly some fundamental differences, largest being the all volunteer army versus conscripted serfs but there are also many things that have not changed much. A big factor will be whether or not its a straight civil war in Ukraine with Russia supporting the Crimea or if it becomes a large multi front world war with multiple European engagements. That was one crushing factor for Russia in the first Crimean war, having to fight all through the Black Sea, the Danube as well as the Baltic in the north. One disadvantage they not net have to suffer through again is the disparity in communication that occurred when France and England installed telegraph lines all the way to the Crimean peninsula completely altering the war excuse the troops could communicate with their home nations in hours or even minues once England installed their own lines and didn't have to rely on the French to relay messages. Nearly every Army that took place in the first Crimean War was beyond inept and I think this time around the British and French will be more effective. But it's all speculation and I really hope it doesn't get to that point.

As you seem to be a student of history

I certainly try to be...

Thank you for the thoughtful post...I enjoyed it and hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction.

Again, thank you for the civil discourse. It's a nice change of pace from the normal dick measuring that is a regular occurrence.