How Will the War End?
Thread Starter
Russia using significant amounts of Chemical or Biologic agents would be an interesting situation. The world let Saddam gas whole villages and did nothing, and the world let Assad gas whole villages and did nothing. The type of trench warfare we are seeing now would seem to invite a chemical attack, just like WWW 1. How would the US and Europe react to that ? Their form is not very encouraging....
The elephant in the room however is tactical nukes. I think this is a bridge too far for the West, and Putin knows that, but what about a miscalculation at Zaporizhia ? The place seems to be run on a wing and a prayer so what happens if there is a accident that creates a total melt down that sends a big radioactive plume over Europe ? What does the West do then ?
The elephant in the room however is tactical nukes. I think this is a bridge too far for the West, and Putin knows that, but what about a miscalculation at Zaporizhia ? The place seems to be run on a wing and a prayer so what happens if there is a accident that creates a total melt down that sends a big radioactive plume over Europe ? What does the West do then ?
No "high moral ground" admikar. It's just a fact that we cannot ever trust the Russians again and that's it. Nothing more to say!
It must be nice to have double or even tripple standards.
Once again, what exactly gives you the high moral ground if we consider how Russians were played with Minsk agreement?
Crimea is Russia's only warm water harbour. Nothwithstanding limitations of Bosphorus passage, it still remains the fact. Even though Russians weren't happy when Ukraine changes government, problems started when Ukraine announced that they don't plan to renew lease agreement on Crimea. I don't think Russia will give up on Crimea, but I have been wrong before.
Once again, what exactly gives you the high moral ground if we consider how Russians were played with Minsk agreement?
Crimea is Russia's only warm water harbour. Nothwithstanding limitations of Bosphorus passage, it still remains the fact. Even though Russians weren't happy when Ukraine changes government, problems started when Ukraine announced that they don't plan to renew lease agreement on Crimea. I don't think Russia will give up on Crimea, but I have been wrong before.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
Yes, the reason they needed Sevastapol was for wintering the fleet as the Russian ports tended to freeze over, however with global warming that has become a bit of an irrelevant issue.
Now they have long range Scalps, I am surprised they haven't hit the missile storage facilities in the port or some of the subs / ships, mind you the weapon storage is the important bit, without that the ships are useless. It would be nice to hit a boat whilst loading though..
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...ater-port.html
So for me there has to be something less than signing a big document on USS Missouri that will suffice. After all, NATO membership pretty much guarantees peace for Ukraine, it's just a matter of getting it done. If Ukraine, with all the aid they need, can drive Russian forces out of their country such that a defacto peace exists, ie military action on both sides has ceased, would that be sufficient? Or would continuing Russian threats and provocations prevent NATO going ahead? Are there other scenarios?
The only way NATO happens for Ukraine is a regime change in Russia and a new administration there that the West has confidence has given up design on Ukraine. That IMO is not very likely in the near to mid term.
I would suggest there are a range of less than full membership in NATO options that would achieve a similar outcome. One would be a multi-national permanent group of "trainers and adviser" deployed in Ukraine near the border of Russia after hostilities cease. The backdoor message would be if any of them are killed direct action against Russia would result. This would essentially be a bluff but would offer the West many options short of the article 5 required response.
Administrator
I share your reservations regarding the dubious value of Mr Putin's word, guarantee, or signature on a treaty. What deal could anyone have confidence in?
Russia using significant amounts of Chemical or Biologic agents would be an interesting situation. The world let Saddam gas whole villages and did nothing, and the world let Assad gas whole villages and did nothing. The type of trench warfare we are seeing now would seem to invite a chemical attack, just like WWW 1. How would the US and Europe react to that ? Their form is not very encouraging.
To give the Devil his/her due, Putin did make sure (apart from the odd stray shell or two) that the grain deal with Turkey was observed for the allotted time.
Thread Starter
But surely that's the whole point! Once Ukraine IS a NATO Member then they get the same protection as the other members. Any further Russian attack would result in Article 5 being invoked. It would IMO be unreasonable for NATO to prevaricate because they thought that maybe Russia might "lob a Kaliber at Kiev". The same could happen with other potentially at risk Members, eg the Baltic states, or even those that have already joined the queue - Sweden for instance. NATO didn't hesitate to let Finland join, despite the implied threats from Russia.
I'm sure those Baltic states are hugely relieved to learn that repeated Russian threats to invade/attack them are just theoretical. On the other hand, they may remember what it was like to be under Kremlin control and not believe a word they say.
I am neither in the military, nor am I a politician. My opinion, as a person on the street, is that NATO would lose all credibility (well, what it has left) if it further stalled accepting Ukraine on the basis that it may possible lead to direct confrontation with Russia. If it does, so be it!
Russia hasn't invaded any of the Baltic states so the threat is theoretical. It is obviously not in Ukraine. All the NATO leaders are desperate to avoid being put in the position of actually having to invoke article 5 which is why there was such a panic over the Polish incident. Promising Ukraine NATO membership but not actually coming through is an obvious dodge top avoid having to make a potentially very hard decision re article 5.
One thing is for sure, if Ukraine is not granted membership then invasion will be repeated and all the blood and treasure expended by Ukraine will have been in vain. NATO would lose all credibility, with all the cost in security entailed in such a cowed position. It isn't only NATO that has to face up to the consequences of its action or inactions, the same goes for Moscow!
The following 3 users liked this post by Chugalug2:
Any danger of a next Russian invasion very much depends on how trustworthy Russia's next government might be and what safety precautions might be taken, like some possible arms free corridor within Russia close to the western border and such. Nobody will trust treaties signed by them for a while.
But surely that's the whole point! Once Ukraine IS a NATO Member then they get the same protection as the other members. Any further Russian attack would result in Article 5 being invoked. It would IMO be unreasonable for NATO to prevaricate because they thought that maybe Russia might "lob a Kaliber at Kiev". The same could happen with other potentially at risk Members, eg the Baltic states, or even those that have already joined the queue - Sweden for instance. NATO didn't hesitate to let Finland join, despite the implied threats from Russia.
If (hypothetically speaking) events were to lead to (a) the Russians being driven entirely out of Ukraine, and (b) Ukraine then becoming a full member of NATO, it would be very hard to envisage Russia taking a gamble on NATO not invoking Article 5 in the event of a future invasion.
This unfortunately is an example of what should be vs what is. Of course Ukraine should be part of NATO. This is the Wests chance to conclusively demonstrate that Russia, or any country for that matter, can successfully invade another sovereign nation, Weakness here is inviting future conflict.
However the just enough just in time to keep Russia from winning but prevent Ukraine from pushing Russia back speaks volumes about the intestinal fortitude of the Western response.
The beauty of article 5 is that it has never been used so that the reality of a united agreement on that proportionate response hasn’t been tested. I think there is real doubt about wether NATO would survive the test. Fortunately there is still enough strategic ambiguity that I think Putin won’t risk poking the bear. That instantly changed if NATO blinks
This unfortunately is an example of what should be vs what is. Of course Ukraine should be part of NATO. This is the Wests chance to conclusively demonstrate that Russia, or any country for that matter, can successfully invade another sovereign nation, Weakness here is inviting future conflict.
However the just enough just in time to keep Russia from winning but prevent Ukraine from pushing Russia back speaks volumes about the intestinal fortitude of the Western response.
This unfortunately is an example of what should be vs what is. Of course Ukraine should be part of NATO. This is the Wests chance to conclusively demonstrate that Russia, or any country for that matter, can successfully invade another sovereign nation, Weakness here is inviting future conflict.
However the just enough just in time to keep Russia from winning but prevent Ukraine from pushing Russia back speaks volumes about the intestinal fortitude of the Western response.
The only solution is political, give the Russians Crimea and the Donbas and if need be get a demilitarised zone like North and South Korea, removing Putin like this will stir a pile of **** that has far reaching consequences.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
Roughly 80 per cent of Ukraine's oil, natural gas and coal production reserves can be found in the Dnieper-Donetsk region, which has been the major focus of Russia's military operations to "liberate" the country, the SevDev report noted.
Equally importantly, Ukraine is thought to have the second-largest natural gas deposits in Europe, estimated at 1.2 trillion cubic metres of proven reserves — and possibly up to 5.4 trillion cubic metres, much of it the now-contested offshore Black Sea region.
The gains Russia has made thus far in the invasion mean Moscow now has control of two thirds of its neighbour's maritime shelf, which is where an estimated 80 per cent of Ukraine's offshore oil and natural gas deposits are found.
The timing of Russia's military actions, and its choice of territory to conquer, is not a coincidence, said Oleksandr Kharchenko, the managing director of the Energy Industry Research Center, a research and consulting firm in Kyiv.
At the time of the 2014 annexation of Crimea, Ukraine had been in talks with the Shell Oil Co. and Chevron Corp. to develop the Black Sea reserves — plans that were scuppered because of Russia's actions.
The Black Sea is "a huge source of [natural] gas, which was [discovered] in Soviet time, and we have other sources that [were] clearly stopped because of [the] Russian invasion," he said.
Former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko said sabotaging his country's mineral and hydrocarbon development plans are "a very important part" of Russian President Vladmir Putin's plan, but not the prime motivator, from his point of view.
"Compromise is unreachable because the picture is black and white: Putin wants to kill us, and we simply want to live," Poroshenko said. "Putin wants to erase our country, our state and our nation from the world map."
Zuzanna Nowak of the Polish Institute of International Affairs said she also believes that the prime motivation of the war is rooted in the myth of a "Greater Russia" and patriotism, but she can't help but notice how the historic line of the war and the current battle map can be tied to resources.
"All the troubles, what we saw since 2014; they have always been related to the issue of liberalization of the Ukrainian gas market," said Nowak, who also noted that Ukraine has enormous potential for hydrocarbon storage and that European leaders were interested in developing it to improve Europe's overall capacity.
But it is too simplistic to say that the war in Ukraine is solely about resources, said one of the authors of the recent SecDev assessment.
Having said that, "all wars ultimately are about some kind of resource," said Rafal Rohozinski, the founder of SecDev.
He said it is hard to ignore the economic benefit that would accrue to Russia should it win the war and carve up Ukraine's mineral and hydrocarbon wealth.
"The areas of occupation, not just now but going back to 2014, really encompasses the eastern part of the country, which not coincidentally, happen to also be the place where you have the largest natural resource endowment that Ukraine has," Rohozinski said.
He described the rare earth deposits as "the real wild card" as many countries are quietly scrambling to secure their own supply.
The notion that Moscow saw its neighbour as a strategic economic threat should not be discounted, and Rohozinski believes that the longer the war drags on, the more Russia will feel the need to find some benefit in order to justify the enormous cost.
"A lot of Russia's security strategy over the last two decades has been built upon these twin pillars of military-political security, but then also energy security," he said.
"The fact that, now, as the war has gone definitely against Russia, in terms of its immediate political objectives of overthrowing the Ukrainian regime, it may well become a war over those resources that happen to be in the lands that it controls."
Equally importantly, Ukraine is thought to have the second-largest natural gas deposits in Europe, estimated at 1.2 trillion cubic metres of proven reserves — and possibly up to 5.4 trillion cubic metres, much of it the now-contested offshore Black Sea region.
The gains Russia has made thus far in the invasion mean Moscow now has control of two thirds of its neighbour's maritime shelf, which is where an estimated 80 per cent of Ukraine's offshore oil and natural gas deposits are found.
The timing of Russia's military actions, and its choice of territory to conquer, is not a coincidence, said Oleksandr Kharchenko, the managing director of the Energy Industry Research Center, a research and consulting firm in Kyiv.
At the time of the 2014 annexation of Crimea, Ukraine had been in talks with the Shell Oil Co. and Chevron Corp. to develop the Black Sea reserves — plans that were scuppered because of Russia's actions.
The Black Sea is "a huge source of [natural] gas, which was [discovered] in Soviet time, and we have other sources that [were] clearly stopped because of [the] Russian invasion," he said.
Former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko said sabotaging his country's mineral and hydrocarbon development plans are "a very important part" of Russian President Vladmir Putin's plan, but not the prime motivator, from his point of view.
"Compromise is unreachable because the picture is black and white: Putin wants to kill us, and we simply want to live," Poroshenko said. "Putin wants to erase our country, our state and our nation from the world map."
Zuzanna Nowak of the Polish Institute of International Affairs said she also believes that the prime motivation of the war is rooted in the myth of a "Greater Russia" and patriotism, but she can't help but notice how the historic line of the war and the current battle map can be tied to resources.
"All the troubles, what we saw since 2014; they have always been related to the issue of liberalization of the Ukrainian gas market," said Nowak, who also noted that Ukraine has enormous potential for hydrocarbon storage and that European leaders were interested in developing it to improve Europe's overall capacity.
But it is too simplistic to say that the war in Ukraine is solely about resources, said one of the authors of the recent SecDev assessment.
Having said that, "all wars ultimately are about some kind of resource," said Rafal Rohozinski, the founder of SecDev.
He said it is hard to ignore the economic benefit that would accrue to Russia should it win the war and carve up Ukraine's mineral and hydrocarbon wealth.
"The areas of occupation, not just now but going back to 2014, really encompasses the eastern part of the country, which not coincidentally, happen to also be the place where you have the largest natural resource endowment that Ukraine has," Rohozinski said.
He described the rare earth deposits as "the real wild card" as many countries are quietly scrambling to secure their own supply.
The notion that Moscow saw its neighbour as a strategic economic threat should not be discounted, and Rohozinski believes that the longer the war drags on, the more Russia will feel the need to find some benefit in order to justify the enormous cost.
"A lot of Russia's security strategy over the last two decades has been built upon these twin pillars of military-political security, but then also energy security," he said.
"The fact that, now, as the war has gone definitely against Russia, in terms of its immediate political objectives of overthrowing the Ukrainian regime, it may well become a war over those resources that happen to be in the lands that it controls."
https://www.oyetimes.com/news/europe...cal-chess-game
Russians won't know the freedom until they have their Day of the Bastille - burning down all FSB outlets. Logically, troll farms would be next.