Scenarios of increased Russian incursion into Ukraine

a reply to: noeltrotsky

I agree with Kukri,I think it will just be the land bridge.While it is popular to think that Russia is 'taking over the world' so we can beat war drums, I think Russia looks at Ukraine and just sees a country mucked down in its own corruption with no hope of getting out of it.(Ukraine has been mired in corruption since it broke away from Russia,the oligarchs grabbed everything and are still trying to run things there) Why take on all the expense and hassle? You can build a bridge going across the land and just tell Ukraine to piss off. It would be harder to defend if needed,but I don't see them moving on building this bridge until everything has calmed down over there. Once they know the fighting is over,then they will start on the building of it and feel its safe to do so.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Kukri
Truthfully I think securing what is already contested with both a narrow but minimal coastal land bridge along with a causeway or bridge through the straits would be an acceptable alternative to Russia.

Glad you added some comments and agree, a land bridge to Crimea is needed in some way. I just wonder if militarily taking the whole of East Ukraine isn't better. The 'creeping' incursions to take a bit more land seem to be headed for huge resistance in the EU/West. It seems a breaking point is coming quickly. Thus I'm thinking grabbing all of East Ukraine might be more plausible than I thought before.

it would be better but also harder to get by the international community. To do this would need a major incident to occur like Ukraine attacking a Russian border town. So I don't think this would happen. However we all ready see forces were fighting in maripole so the land bridge will definately happen if fighting continues.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
Ukraine belongs to Russia.

Fact is Ukraine is a sovereign nation and belongs to itself. Fantasists and Nazi's may think differently, but that's life.

Wrong Ukraine belongs to Russia and if you look at the a map over the past months increasing this is factual reality. Look what is happening.......Ukraine bit by bit is going back to Russia.

originally posted by: Pants3204

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Pants3204
The coastal scenario reinforces the notion that Russia is to unify their people. However you slice it, no one would be able to deny Russian aggression if any of these options were exercised.

Then I guess nobody can deny US aggression almost everywhere else, right? The same thing can't be wrong for Russia and right for the US.

Cheers - Dave

Permanent acquisition of sovereign territories is not the same thing as the US' temporary incursions elsewhere. The US has no ambitions of expanding its borders. That isn't to say they are justified or morally right, but they are different things.

Yes and no. The US uses a more subtle approach to empire creation. They create a war or action under a false pretense and then after the war or action is over they rebuilt the effected territory. The money to rebuild the territory is given as loans to the effected area, that is forced under treaty (or otherwise), to contract all or most of the rebuilding work back to US corporate interests. The cost of the rebuilding is literally paid for by the tax payers in the effected territory, with interest. Since the total can generally never be fully repaid, this gives the US and US corporate interests control over the currency, economy and resources of the effected territory.

There may or may not be a little more blood spilled over a long period of time, but it is still basically the same thing, whether by military conquest/misadventure or economic conquest/misadventure.

Cheers - Dave

Good point. The Americasns destroy the opposition then mould the reborn state to their likings. The US empire reminds me of the old East India company. It may not govern in name but does so by power. Once they are in they don't really go home either. US troops still in Germany, still in Korea, still in Japan. They never really leave 'liberated' land once funneled into 'democracy.'

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

I thought over 1,000 nuclear missiles with multiple warheads was enough of a deterrent. Foolish me! Russians also want client states surrounding them.

Ukraine belongs to Russia. It will get it back at some point. With Stratfor up against them I'd take everything they can get their hands on asap. Foget the Nazi leaning Baltics plus also Nazi leaning west Ukraine. The rest take it back asap, with Americans encroaching on their borders it's no wonder Moscow is getting trigger happy.

Even good old Henry Kissinger on BBC said last week USA should give up on teasing Russia anymore and stay out of interfering with Ukraine. That's coming from the horses mouth

Not according to documentation. Ukraine was given its freedom from Russia by the russians when the wall came down and the USSR dissolved. All claims became forfeit then by them. Putin is trying to rewrite history apparently.

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
Good point. The Americasns destroy the opposition then mould the reborn state to their likings. The US empire reminds me of the old East India company. It may not govern in name but does so by power. Once they are in they don't really go home either. US troops still in Germany, still in Korea, still in Japan. They never really leave 'liberated' land once funneled into 'democracy.'

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Really Japan and Germany are occupied?? You do know having a base in a country that you pay for isn't the same. There are US bases in lots of countries and the host country can ask them to leave. We have basses on UK and Turkey as well did we invade them?? To try to compare the US to Russian land grabs it isn't the same. Even in Iraq the US was asked to leave and they did though I'm betting they regret that one a bit right now.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
Good point. The Americasns destroy the opposition then mould the reborn state to their likings. The US empire reminds me of the old East India company. It may not govern in name but does so by power. Once they are in they don't really go home either. US troops still in Germany, still in Korea, still in Japan. They never really leave 'liberated' land once funneled into 'democracy.'

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Really Japan and Germany are occupied?? You do know having a base in a country that you pay for isn't the same. There are US bases in lots of countries and the host country can ask them to leave. We have basses on UK and Turkey as well did we invade them?? To try to compare the US to Russian land grabs it isn't the same. Even in Iraq the US was asked to leave and they did though I'm betting they regret that one a bit right now.

Ok, ask them to leave and watch what happens LOL. I ef'ing dare ya!

If a country asks the US to leave, a number of things will happen.

1. The country will be painted as a rogue state who are involved in human rights abuses.
2. They will extort the country using the IMF and World bank to try and kill off the potential for any loans.
3. If the state does not need loans and economic sanctions will not work, the US will send in the jackals targeting first middle upper politicians for assassination followed by targeting the head of the country.
4. If that doesn't work, then the US will create a rogue rebel group with CIA funding to overthrow the government.
5. If that doesn't work fast enough, the US will go back to #1 , but openly assist the rebel group it created in overthrowing the government.
6. Replay 1 to 5 to suit taste, boil until soft and pliable.

Any other comments? Have you never seen this happen before, even recently, can you say Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine? ROFLMAO!

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: dragonridr

I think he meant we still have bases there and forces remained even to this day. There really isn't a place we have invaded and won that doesn't have at least one if not many US military bases installed. There really is so many bases if you were to see the list you wouldn't even wanna read them all...or maybe you would, but its long.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
Good point. The Americasns destroy the opposition then mould the reborn state to their likings. The US empire reminds me of the old East India company. It may not govern in name but does so by power. Once they are in they don't really go home either. US troops still in Germany, still in Korea, still in Japan. They never really leave 'liberated' land once funneled into 'democracy.'

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Really Japan and Germany are occupied?? You do know having a base in a country that you pay for isn't the same. There are US bases in lots of countries and the host country can ask them to leave. We have basses on UK and Turkey as well did we invade them?? To try to compare the US to Russian land grabs it isn't the same. Even in Iraq the US was asked to leave and they did though I'm betting they regret that one a bit right now.

Ok, ask them to leave and watch what happens LOL. I ef'ing dare ya!

If a country asks the US to leave, a number of things will happen.

1. The country will be painted as a rogue state who are involved in human rights abuses.
2. They will extort the country using the IMF and World bank to try and kill off the potential for any loans.
3. If the state does not need loans and economic sanctions will not work, the US will send in the jackals targeting first middle upper politicians for assassination followed by targeting the head of the country.
4. If that doesn't work, then the US will create a rogue rebel group with CIA funding to overthrow the government.
5. If that doesn't work fast enough, the US will go back to #1 , but openly assist the rebel group it created in overthrowing the government.
6. Replay 1 to 5 to suit taste, boil until soft and pliable.

Any other comments? Have you never seen this happen before, even recently, can you say Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine? ROFLMAO!

Cheers - Dave

Now I'm confused are we talking about Russia Libya never had a US base and never will. Syria no US base though Russia has one. Afganistan again US basses closed however Russia maintains one.Ukraine never had or will it have a base but again Russia invaded Ukraine so they have troops there.And Iraq no US basses they were given to the Iraqis and to my knowledge no Russian one either.

So apparently your theory doesn't hold up according to you all the countries US doesn't have basses in will be destroyed economically. Well that list would be awfully big since most countries don't have US basses. See as much as you like can't alter facts US might have stupid reasons for invading a country like worried about middle east oil. But they never attack to aquire territory unlike Russia.

why should russia take such vast parts of ukraine?
but if the warmongers and hawks hope strong enough, who knows? maybe it will happen? then you all can come over there to fight, yippie!
screw peace, war is much cooler eh?

i just want to remind you that russia was a non issue until the west startet to mess with ukraine and set up a new government that rather drops bombs on a population thats mostly russian than use elections.

there is only one way russia will attack ukraine. and that is by "pre-emptive strikes".
a tactic the US made acceptable.

a reply to: anticitizen

i just want to remind you that russia was a non issue until the west startet to mess with ukraine and set up a new government that rather drops bombs on a population thats mostly russian than use elections.

No Russia was a big issue concerning Ukraine, but here in case you forgot Russia pretty much strongarmed Yanukovych to stay away from the EU deal or Ukraine would lose Russia as a trade partner, and for a little added bonus...discount on gas from Russia, so yes Russia was an issue.

there is only one way russia will attack ukraine. and that is by "pre-emptive strikes".

Actually they did and have been for a majority of this conflict...I guess since Russian troops are in Ukraine they already have started a pre-emptive strike.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
Good point. The Americasns destroy the opposition then mould the reborn state to their likings. The US empire reminds me of the old East India company. It may not govern in name but does so by power. Once they are in they don't really go home either. US troops still in Germany, still in Korea, still in Japan. They never really leave 'liberated' land once funneled into 'democracy.'

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Really Japan and Germany are occupied?? You do know having a base in a country that you pay for isn't the same. There are US bases in lots of countries and the host country can ask them to leave. We have basses on UK and Turkey as well did we invade them?? To try to compare the US to Russian land grabs it isn't the same. Even in Iraq the US was asked to leave and they did though I'm betting they regret that one a bit right now.

Ok, ask them to leave and watch what happens LOL. I ef'ing dare ya!

If a country asks the US to leave, a number of things will happen.

1. The country will be painted as a rogue state who are involved in human rights abuses.
2. They will extort the country using the IMF and World bank to try and kill off the potential for any loans.
3. If the state does not need loans and economic sanctions will not work, the US will send in the jackals targeting first middle upper politicians for assassination followed by targeting the head of the country.
4. If that doesn't work, then the US will create a rogue rebel group with CIA funding to overthrow the government.
5. If that doesn't work fast enough, the US will go back to #1 , but openly assist the rebel group it created in overthrowing the government.
6. Replay 1 to 5 to suit taste, boil until soft and pliable.

Any other comments? Have you never seen this happen before, even recently, can you say Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine? ROFLMAO!

Cheers - Dave

Now I'm confused are we talking about Russia Libya never had a US base and never will. Syria no US base though Russia has one. Afganistan again US basses closed however Russia maintains one.Ukraine never had or will it have a base but again Russia invaded Ukraine so they have troops there.And Iraq no US basses they were given to the Iraqis and to my knowledge no Russian one either.

So apparently your theory doesn't hold up according to you all the countries US doesn't have basses in will be destroyed economically. Well that list would be awfully big since most countries don't have US basses. See as much as you like can't alter facts US might have stupid reasons for invading a country like worried about middle east oil. But they never attack to aquire territory unlike Russia.

Points for being out of context, we had a little thread drift there and I responded to the "you can ask the US leave" BS. LOL If the US wants something, there's gonna be extortion, there's gonna be a war, there's gonna be a coup and then the US is going to roll in the corporations and the banks to take control of the target country.

Cheers - Dave

One of the biggest issues we have in this ongoing disagreement is that the pro-Russian side think countries voluntarily wanting to be part of Europe, part of NATO and part of the international community is "American Imperialism".

NATO countries have sought out involvement in the international community, they CHOSE to be a part of NATO for protection against a threat, and Russia is that threat.

The funniest thing is that these same people also claim that Crimea "voted" to become part of Russia and that this is self determination (it's not when it's the result of an invasion) but another country actively deciding to join Europe, or NATO, or side with the US, is somehow not self determination!

I do wish these people would make up their mind about what qualifies as self determination. They say the same thing about the election in Ukraine too, that somehow this is all wrong, but Crimea being made to choose at the barrel of Russian gun is somehow perfectly legit!

As for the OP, I believe the grab of E Ukraine up to the river is the most probable, but I doubt it would end there. Russia has risked far too much for this, there's a bigger plan than merely grabbing half of Ukraine as payoff for it. Putin has grand designs extending far further than just this half of a country, and one that will probably forever be fighting back with an underground resistance for decades.

Putin thinks he can just roll in there and snatch a country, but he's sorely mistaken if he thinks the people there are just going to let him take control.

I can guarantee that in the coming few years, no matter whether Putin carries on stealing land or not, the invading and occupying army is going to be under constant attack from a resistance movement. They've had their taste of freedom away from Russia, and they will not willingly go back to that.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: anticitizen


No Russia was a big issue concerning Ukraine, but here in case you forgot Russia pretty much strongarmed Yanukovych to stay away from the EU deal or Ukraine would lose Russia as a trade partner, and for a little added bonus...discount on gas from Russia, so yes Russia was an issue

yes, to maintain a buffer state between russia and the west. makes sense!
however, russia didn't intervene militarily until ukraine started bombing ex russians.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: dragonridr

I think he meant we still have bases there and forces remained even to this day. There really isn't a place we have invaded and won that doesn't have at least one if not many US military bases installed. There really is so many bases if you were to see the list you wouldn't even wanna read them all...or maybe you would, but its long.

Exactly. The Germans and Japanese didn't invite the Yanks to set up their military permanently in their nations. It was forced upon the people. The USA is very good at getting into a war scenario and then when things go its way digging in and staying put. Let's face it after 70 years since the US military occupied Germany and Japan there is no sign whatsoever of this ending in the forseeable future.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

All of these scenarios are stupid, basically ...

You are always thinking that NATO is holding the cards here ... they only hold the cards, that Putin either out of "fear", or "stupidity" allows NATO to hold.

The ideology that US is "powerful" in this situation, is to put it pluntly ignorant. If we put it all on the table ... and say "nuke" Ukraine. What are you going to do, Nuke Russia and have their retalliation inhialate the U.S. and Europe?

The cards on the table, if it came down to it ... the US would back off, and rather survive than die alongside Europe. Even George Bush isn't stupid enough to have every man, woman and child in the US ... die for Europe.

So, any pissing contest here ... claiming "We americans are all mighty" isn't worthy of responce. If it comes down to it, you're smart enough to hide behind your momas skirt.

So, basically speaking ... this all comes down to what the Russians are willing to do. So far, the Russians aren't willing to use any of their weapons, probably because the people in Ukraine are Russians, so they'll keep it within conventional warfare.

And that's the Russians achiles heel. They won't do, what it takes ... they won't occupy Ukraine (occupation isn't a viable option really), only those parts that are "controllable" by the local population. They keep whatever Russian aid there, to a minimum, to ensure it's within conventional warfare.

The wild card here, is NATO ... because the US is renounced for using Depleted Uranium shells, that are also renounced for their radiation poisoning state.

The BIG question is, what will the Russians do ... when the US starts using non-conventional weapons. The US will, eventually ... that's as certain as anything can be. US generals can't lose, they'll use any weapons in their disposal ... nuclear, chemical or biological. As their track record exposes.

And the question is, are the Russians dumb enough to make the same mistake as Saddam Hussein and disarm and give up ... when the US/NATO start using non-conventional weapons?

However, even if they don't and lose their position inside Ukraine ... Russia still has options to maintain Ukraine ... in all circumstances. But I don't think mr. Putin and his cabinet, have the balls to do what it takes.

They may win the battles ... but they'll lose the war, as in the end ... they'll flinch. Everyone expects them to, so the US and NATO will run this course, with the mental assurance that they will. Which means, they'll run it down the lane of nuclear warfare, absolutely certain that Russia will flinch at the last minute ... just like Cuba.

The bottom line is this ... Russia doesn't need any "buffer" zone in Ukraine to maintain Chrimea ... never did, never will.

a reply to: anticitizen

A civil war should never be interfered with. both sides did,and both are wrong.

Russia is not likely to push anymore in Ukraine. To do so would bring even more santions against its already crashing economy. It would also give hawks in the West ammo they need to begin full scale arming and training of Ukrianes forces. Russia also has the a big problem with it soldiers not wanting to fight in Ukraine and its failiing attempts to hide the dead and wounded. At this point everybody in Russia knows it has been Russian forces doing the fighting in Ukraine and if Russia were to move again the push back would be large.

Right now Russia has to try and get the West to end the santions, To try and paint the West as an aggresive enemy that is to blame for all of Russia's problems. To keep Russia out of any conflicts and slowly acknowlege and declare heros the Russian troops the died fighting in Ukraine to take the wind out of the sails of a growing oppostion of service members families, and to prepare to deal with repercutions of Iran joing the West with its huge oil and natural gas reserves which will be very very painful for Russia when they are developed and hit the market.

I expect Russia will just creat another puppet Republic like they have done in Georgia, Moldova, and Azebajian. That is pretty much the they have operated since the end of the Cold war. No wonder all of the former Soviets republics are headed west.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
Putin has grand designs extending far further than just this half of a country, and one that will probably forever be fighting back with an underground resistance for decades.

I would like to think Putin planned this whole Ukraine adventure out many years, but after the recent revelation that he decided to grab Crimea then 4 days later sent in the troops I am really wondering just how far ahead has Putin planned this excursion. Is he the real grand master all the Russian people believe or is he impulsive seeing an easy target and not fearing the long term consequences?

I am starting to think he might be more impulsive than many think.