Is Putin set to invade the rest of Ukraine?

[pjohns]

Is a Russian invasion of the rest of Ukraine imminent?

Here is a little from The Daily Beast on the subject:  Exclusive: U.S. Won?t Share Invasion Intel With Ukraine - The Daily Beast

American spies have spotted all the signs of an all-out Russian invasion of Ukraine. Why won’t they tell the Ukrainians about the forces on their border?

U.S. intelligence agencies now have detailed information that Russia has amassed the kind of forces needed for a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But the Obama administration hasn’t shared with Ukraine the imagery, intercepts, and analysis that pinpont (sic) the location of the Russian troops ready to seize more Ukrainian land, The Daily Beast has learned.

President Obama has repeatedly and publicly expressed solidarity with the Ukrainian people—and warned Russian leader Vladimir Putin that there will be consequences if he takes over any more Ukrainian territory. Yet Obama’s administration has so far been reluctant to hand over the kind of intelligence the Ukrainians could use to defend themselves. U.S. officials and members of Congress briefed on the crisis in Ukraine tell The Daily Beast that senior U.S. military officers have been instructed to refrain from briefing their Ukrainian counterparts in detail about what the United States knows about the Russians troops amassing on the border. ...

And while any decision about an invasion is Putin’s alone, the signs are mounting that an invasion is near. Congressional staffers briefed on the matter say U.S. intelligence agencies have detected the supply lines needed for an invasion. Battlefield hospitals and mobile medical units have accompanied the infantrymen, tank columns and artillery units amassing at the border as well. When Russia announced military exercises near Ukraine in February, the U.S. intelligence community did not see such supply lines or medical units...

The current estimate is that Russia has amassed 80,000 troops on Ukraine’s border. Vice Admiral Frank Pandolfe, the director for strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that the Russian forces include fixed and rotor wing aircraft, tanks, artillery, light infantry and special operations forces. Pandolfe said the Russian military has the ability to deploy these different units in a “synchronized manner.”

There is a reasonable argument to be made, of course, that this is merely a matter of intimidation, ostentatiously displayed.  Ultimately, though, it all depends upon what Vladimir Putin thinks is necessary to get what he really wants.  Neither the US nor Europe appears to be ready to stand up to him, with serious sanctions; so he can probably do whatever he pleases, free of any concern about the consequences.  (Well, there is one potential consequence, viz.:  Although Russia could doubtless conquer Ukraine, militarily--and with relative ease, considering the dilapidated state of Ukraine's military--it would surely face prolonged guerrilla warfare and sabotage; and I am not certain whether this is a price that Putin is willing to pay.  But it may be.)

[EC]

He doesn't want all of it. Everything East of the Dnieper plus the Crimea will be fine. Secures the one warm water port the Russian Navy has, the supply lines to the port and a hell of a lot of raw materials.

I doubt a full on military invasion is on the cards - look for increasing unrest and riots in eastern Ukraine, with Russia ready to move in for "humanitarian purposes."

[SPQR]

All the signs are there. If you see troops massing at a border of a neighboring country or moving equipment into an area they are getting to invade. For example, if we see troops massing at the DMZ by the North Koreans they are ready to make a move. Another good example, is when Operation Barbarossa began it started with German troops massing at the Soviet Union border before it invaded. Satellites will be picking up the area humming with Russian activity.

[EC]

I'm not sure.

Putin is a sly sod and trained in "the night side" of operations, if you like. He'll want a something to cloak him, rather than an out and out territory grab. He's ambitious, but far from stupid.

[SPQR]

I'm not sure.

Putin is a sly sod and trained in "the night side" of operations, if you like. He'll want a something to cloak him, rather than an out and out territory grab. He's ambitious, but far from stupid.

When the Russians are putting 300,000 troops total the Southern and Western military districts on the border of the Ukraine something big is going to happen. Every single newspaper on a Google search are coming to the same conclusion. Putin is an extremely smart man who makes his decisions on a calculation.He is betting that Obama will do nothing about it and he will be right. Obama does not have any standing in the international community. He is a weakling. While the Russians are playing chess the Americans are playing with marbles.

[EC]

There is an alternative. Sticking the troops on the East border of the Ukraine puts them a mere 4 hours from Georgia. Just a thought, of course. The loss of Georgia has got to hurt, especially someone who admires Stalin so much.

I do think he'll bide his time. Stir up unrest and riots, then send in the troops to keep the peace. A "grateful" populace will agitate to become a client state. All perfectly legal, no hassle and not exactly something the USA can complain about.

[SPQR]

There is an alternative. Sticking the troops on the East border of the Ukraine puts them a mere 4 hours from Georgia. Just a thought, of course. The loss of Georgia has got to hurt, especially someone who admires Stalin so much.

I do think he'll bide his time. Stir up unrest and riots, then send in the troops to keep the peace. A "grateful" populace will agitate to become a client state. All perfectly legal, no hassle and not exactly something the USA can complain about.

America is war weary. The EU will do nothing as usual. They will release a statement of condemnation and watch. NATO has a pulse but its barely alive.

[SPQR]

America is war weary. The EU will do nothing as usual. They will release a statement of condemnation and watch. NATO has a pulse but its barely alive.

The next few weeks will probably dictate what will be the politics of Europe decades to come.

[EC]

Loki - you may be wrong, but my lord, that is a solid bit of analysis. Thank you! 

[pjohns]

All the signs are there. If you see troops massing at a border of a neighboring country or moving equipment into an area they are getting to invade. For example, if we see troops massing at the DMZ by the North Koreans they are ready to make a move. Another good example, is when Operation Barbarossa began it started with German troops massing at the Soviet Union border before it invaded. Satellites will be picking up the area humming with Russian activity.

It is just unfortunate that Ukraine's military is so dilapidated that it poses no credible military threat; and President Obama, when asked by Ukraine for military weapons, responds that he will instead supply its soldiers with MREs. 

If it did have a reasonably serious military, the situation would be analogous to what happened about 65 years ago in that portion of the world:

Shortly after WWII--I think it was in 1949, when forces from the USSR and Hungary had gathered, ominously, along Yugoslavia's northern border--Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia was asked what he might do if Stalin were to invade. His calm, dispassionate response--and I cannot quote it verbatim, so I will not place it within quotation marks--was something like this: Let them do precisely that, if they really do not mind taking back 10,000 soldiers in body bags.

He meant it.
 
And the Soviets knew he meant it.

The Soviets never invaded... 

[pjohns]

Interesting analysis, Loki.

And you may be entirely correct.  (I guess we will just have to wait and see.  But your assumptions are not at all unrreasonable, it seems to me.)   

[SPQR]

It is just unfortunate that Ukraine's military is so dilapidated that it poses no credible military threat; and President Obama, when asked by Ukraine for military weapons, responds that he will instead supply its soldiers with MREs. 

If it did have a reasonably serious military, the situation would be analogous to what happened about 65 years ago in that portion of the world:

Shortly after WWII--I think it was in 1949, when forces from the USSR and Hungary had gathered, ominously, along Yugoslavia's northern border--Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia was asked what he might do if Stalin were to invade. His calm, dispassionate response--and I cannot quote it verbatim, so I will not place it within quotation marks--was something like this: Let them do precisely that, if they really do not mind taking back 10,000 soldiers in body bags.

He meant it.
 
And the Soviets knew he meant it.

The Soviets never invaded...

The reasons why the Soviets never invaded is Tito was getting aid from the Marshall Plan.Stalin's eyes were on Berlin, Turkey and Persia. Stalin eyes after the war amassed troops along the Turkish border to take the Dardanles and the oilfields in Persia.The Yugoslav Army maintained two official defense plans, one against a NATO invasion and one against a Warsaw Pact invasion.Stalin's successor, Nikita Khrushchev, later commented that "Tito was next on Stalin's list, after Korea."

[EC]

Ukraine has two big problems with it's military. They trusted the West to protect them when they gave up their nuke stockpile, and they simply don't have the economy to run maintenance. It really doesn't help that most of the spares they need are produced by Russia, if they are still produced at all.

You remember the Cold War. The USSR had a hell or a throw weight advantage on paper, but only about 1/3 of their planes and tanks were in working condition at any one time, due to bad design and worse maintenance.

It's actually one of the more worrying aspects of what is going on in the US. Support in the military has been cut to the bone (or through the bone in some cases) and that has a massively disproportionate effect on front line capability.

[SPQR]

You want the ultimate authority on the Cold War purchase the Cold War: A; Military History

Edited By Robert Cowley

http://www.amazon.com/The-Cold-War-Military-History/dp/081296716X

[EC]

You want the ultimate authority on the Cold War purchase the Cold War: A; Military History

Edited By Robert Cowley

I shall grab it! 

Assuming I can get this damned tablet to actually connect. Just bought it, and already think Andoid is an evil monster created by Skynet.

[SPQR]

I shall grab it! 

Assuming I can get this damned tablet to actually connect. Just bought it, and already think Andoid is an evil monster created by Skynet.

Its mandatory reading at military universities. Everything you want to know about the Cold War is in this book. This book should be read in conjunction with the "Cold War" narrared by Kenneth Branagh  from CNN that you can find on You Tube or for purchase on Amazon.com.

[EC]

It's created by Google which, I think, amounts to the same thing.

I'd not be in the slightest bit surprised. Any company that has "Don't be evil" as it's mission statement is going to raise my eyebrow!

[pjohns]

Stalin's successor, Nikita Khrushchev, later commented that "Tito was next on Stalin's list, after Korea."

Tito would not have been so easy to defeat.  He was bold and audacious--and utterly determined not to be bullied, whether by his erstwhile friend (who had become his enemy), Joseph Stalin, or by anyone else.

Now, let us be clear:  Tito was not a nice guy.  In fact, he seems almost to have been a cross between Stalin and Hitler; which is certainly no compliment.  (He was a thoroughgoing nationalist--just as Hitler was--yet he somehow merged his nationalism with communism.  In the end, Stalin and Tito were about as different as Lenin and Trotsky had been, a generation earlier.) 

About 1950--when Stalin was attempting to have Tito assassinated--Tito sent a brisk letter to Moscow, reading as follows:

Stop sending people to kill me. We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle. ...If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send one to Moscow, and I won't have to send a second.

If there is anything at all to be admired about Tito, it is the fact that he was entirely unwilling to succumb to the bullying of others, no matter how powerful they might be. 

[SPQR]

Tito would not have been so easy to defeat.  He was bold and audacious--and utterly determined not to be bullied, whether by his erstwhile friend (who had become his enemy), Joseph Stalin, or by anyone else.

Now, let us be clear:  Tito was not a nice guy.  In fact, he seems almost to have been a cross between Stalin and Hitler; which is certainly no compliment.  (He was a thoroughgoing nationalist--just as Hitler was--yet he somehow merged his nationalism with communism.  In the end, Stalin and Tito were about as different as Lenin and Trotsky had been, a generation earlier.) 

About 1950--when Stalin was attempting to have Tito assassinated--Tito sent a brisk letter to Moscow, reading as follows:

If there is anything at all to be admired about Tito, it is the fact that he was entirely unwilling to succumb to the bullying of others, no matter how powerful they might be.

Tito would have been steamrolled by the sheer weight of the Russian Armed Forces.From 1945 to 1948, the Soviet Armed Forces were reduced from ca. 11.3 million to ca. 2.8 million men,a demobilisation controlled first, by increasing the number of military districts to 33, then reduced to 21, in 1946. The personnel strength of the Ground Forces was reduced from 9,822,000 to 2,444,000.Throughout the Cold War (1945–91), Western intelligence estimates calculated that the Soviet strength remained ca. 2.8 million to ca. 5.3 million men. The reason why Tito was not the hit list first is because Stalin was massing troops along the Turkish border waiting to get his hands on the Dardenelles and the Persian border let alone he was busy with Korea. He was also stirring up trouble in Berlin.Stalin had his eyes on other things other than Tito. I suggest reading Cold War: A; Military History edited By Robert Cowley    and the "Cold War" produced on CNN in conjunction with the book which is available on You Tube.The massing of Russian troops along the Turkish border is on page 10. To make sure that this behavior by the Russians would not be taken lightly, US sent in the Battleship Missouri.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Straits_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Army

[SPQR]

Tito would have been steamrolled by the sheer weight of the Russian Armed Forces.From 1945 to 1948, the Soviet Armed Forces were reduced from ca. 11.3 million to ca. 2.8 million men,a demobilisation controlled first, by increasing the number of military districts to 33, then reduced to 21, in 1946. The personnel strength of the Ground Forces was reduced from 9,822,000 to 2,444,000.Throughout the Cold War (1945–91), Western intelligence estimates calculated that the Soviet strength remained ca. 2.8 million to ca. 5.3 million men. The reason why Tito was not the hit list first is because Stalin was massing troops along the Turkish border waiting to get his hands on the Dardenelles and the Persian border let alone he was busy with Korea. He was also stirring up trouble in Berlin.Stalin had his eyes on other things other than Tito. I suggest reading Cold War: A; Military History edited By Robert Cowley  and the "Cold War" produced on CNN in conjunction with the book which is available on You Tube. The massing of Russian troops along the Turkish border is on page 10.To make sure that this behavior by the Russians would not be taken lightly, US Navy sent in the Battleship Missouri.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Army

Another reason why the Soviet Union did not attack the Yugoslavs is because they had a port and could be resupplied the West. and the Russians did not.From a military standpoint, it wouldn't be easy for the Soviets.

[SPQR]

Another reason why the Soviet Union did not attack the Yugoslavs is because they had a port and could be resupplied the West. and the Russians did not.From a military standpoint, it wouldn't be easy for the Soviets.

Tito was not an angel too. He forced down  a U.S Army Transport plane in 1946

http://home.earthlink.net/~highjack2/shotdown2.htm
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17985185

[SPQR]

There are no angels in international realpolitik; there are wolves and there are sheep, exemplified by Putin and Obama, respectively.

Good Point

[pjohns]

Tito was not an angel too.

I have already noted that Tito appeared to be a cross between Stalin and Hitler; and that this is not to be seen as a compliment.

But his refusal to be bullied was his one admirable characteristic, in my opinion. 

[SPQR]

I have already noted that Tito appeared to be a cross between Stalin and Hitler; and that this is not to be seen as a compliment.

He was neither communist or Nazi, he did offer to help in 1967, Tito offered Czechoslovak leader Alexander Dubček to fly to Prague on three hours notice if Dubček needed help in facing down the Soviets

[pjohns]

[Tito] was neither communist or Nazi...

Well, as Wikipedia notes:

[Tito] was General Secretary (later Chairman of the Presidium) of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (1939–80)...

But Tito believed in a communism rising from within each individual nation--he was a devout nationalist--and this does not seem to dovetail very nicely with traditional Marxist doctrine.  In fact, it was this heterodox belief that ultimately led to the breakup of the onetime friendship between Stalin and Tito (before the former tried, several times, to have the latter assassinated).