The Situation in the Ukraine. #3

macedonian wrote:Russia cannot win the battle of Ukraine with guns...it's all about hearts and minds...
That's where Russia should concentrate its efforts.

macedonian wrote:Russia cannot win the battle of Ukraine with guns...it's all about hearts and minds...
That's where Russia should concentrate its efforts.

etaepsilonk wrote:

macedonian wrote:Russia cannot win the battle of Ukraine with guns...it's all about hearts and minds...
That's where Russia should concentrate its efforts.

Well, it's not really needed much, since "pravy sektor" has won Russia many H/M already  


To medo:
"Not Kornet or newer Igla. They could send older Igla-1 (SA-16)"

I don't think supplying MANPADs to insurgents, no matter how "secular", is a good idea.

Vann7 wrote:
What is Pravy sektor?

Vann7 wrote:

macedonian wrote:Russia cannot win the battle of Ukraine with guns...it's all about hearts and minds...
That's where Russia should concentrate its efforts.

Thats for sure.. but if Russia do nothing and allow all protesters to be harmed and wounded and killed , it will be bad for Russia seen as a realiable parter. So is not about winning , but saving lives of people closer to Russia.  Central ukraine will beg Russia for help as soon they no longer have a job or anything to eat..and the kiev government turns to be worse for them.. The western side of Ukraine will hate Russia anyway not matter what they do..

Vann7 wrote:

macedonian wrote:Russia cannot win the battle of Ukraine with guns...it's all about hearts and minds...
That's where Russia should concentrate its efforts.

Thats for sure.. but if Russia do nothing and allow all protesters to be harmed and wounded and killed , it will be bad for Russia seen as a realiable parter. So is not about winning , but saving lives of people closer to Russia.  Central ukraine will beg Russia for help as soon they no longer have a job or anything to eat..and the kiev government turns to be worse for them.. The western side of Ukraine will hate Russia anyway not matter what they do..

macedonian wrote:

Agreed in full. Russia should definitely NOT be passive here.
There are plenty of options on the table. One of them is to instigate troubles in the west of Ukraine..Lvov and such...
Keep the coup appointed govt (and their CIA handlers) off balance.
And Kiev should be appreciated as the mother of all Russian cities...so that people there know that Russia cares.

Vann7 wrote:

macedonian wrote:Russia cannot win the battle of Ukraine with guns...it's all about hearts and minds...
That's where Russia should concentrate its efforts.

Thats for sure.. but if Russia do nothing and allow all protesters to be harmed and wounded and killed , it will be bad for Russia seen as a realiable parter. So is not about winning , but saving lives of people closer to Russia.  Central ukraine will beg Russia for help as soon they no longer have a job or anything to eat..and the kiev government turns to be worse for them.. The western side of Ukraine will hate Russia anyway not matter what they do..

So what Russia should never do.. is send their own army..and tanks.. unless there is a real massacre of civilians there.
if that happens then they will need to create a buffer zone and use their combat jets to force the Ukranian army to leave the eastern side.

etaepsilonk wrote:And what troubles would that be?   

flamming_python wrote:

Hannibal Barca wrote:This is a dangerous gamble but if Russia act immediately might save from a catastrophic civil war.
If they let things now unfold progressively like they always like to do might find themselves in a fully fledged, mega scale war that can last years and take decades to alter.
Now you can still paralyze Kiev's government with a successful blitzkrieg. I know this is not the kind of warfare Russians specialize into but the stakes are high.
If the condition settle on the ground Ukraine is no Georgia, is vast and populous....

It is the sort of war Russia specializes in, and unfortunately I'm incline to agree - the current military operation is almost certain to build-up into a wider civil-war, it's obvious to everyone. The second point is - Kiev shows absolutely no interest in deescelation (nor is it able to, it fears getting overthrown by its own hardliners).

A massive, disproportionate conventional strike by Russia on mobilized units active in the fighting, and other combat-capable units (artillery, ballistic missile regiments) - will pretty much rob the Ukraine of any means by which to continue the war; while all the various anti-Russian militias and so on, with next to no combat experience - can be contained far more easily.
In the extreme event, this can be combined with a decapitation strike on Kiev, to make sure that there is no leadership left to give orders. This will also stop the war, and prevent any more havoc in the south-east.

BUT, and I want to STRESS - these options are in fact pretty much as bad as letting the current situation continue and develop into a civil war. Because then, further massive violence will be absolutely inevitable, ethnic cleansings, warlords arising, complete lawlessness and anarchy through large portions of the country - mostly western and central regions - but they are humans too don't forget.
Especially if the government is decapitated, but even it isn't - it won't hold onto any authority for long; it won't be so much as the break-up of a country, as it turning into some Syria or Afghanistan in the heart of Europe. And no-one needs such a mess lying around.

Coupled with the international reaction - this option should simply not be considered, unless there is the threat of genocide or something, or the situation really does grow out of all recognition and there is absolutely no alternative.

There are several other alternatives that are better, all of them consist of waiting and delaying any action:

a). Wait to see if the hardliners there are overthrown by a mass-uprising. The speed of events over the past week is uplifting in this regard; Kiev is very firmly under the putschists control but if a week and a half ago they all just started getting settled into their seats, started reigning in Pravyj Sektor, Turchinov was triumphently about to embark on a visit to Lithuania, etc... then now their control has slipped severely.
It's quite possible that military units will start refusing to take orders, defecting, etc.. and with them will come more towns and cities, more police departments, etc...
With this loss of confidence, perhaps someone with some sense will get a mandate from the more reasonable portion of the country in the central regions, but I admit that this isn't very likely.

b). Wait to see if the Ukraine dissolves by itself - like above pretty much, same chain of events, but it just becomes clear, to any clear-minded political forces in the country - that it's preferable to dissolve the state USSR-style, than to delve deeper into a civil war.
Federalization is also possible but less likely - if it gets to the stage where the current government is being pressed and overthrown - then I doubt any such political settlement will be an option.

c). Wait to see if the hardliners there are overthrown by even worse hardliners. Unfortunately this is the most likely scenario. Yarosh and Pravyj Sektor will increasingly gain in popularity, opposing the 'corrupt, incompetent' government that is not even WILLING to fight for the Ukraine's own territories. Now the government has stepped up to the fight, but it may not be enough for Pravyj Sektor, and for a large portion of the population - and they may decide to organize a Bolshevik-style 2nd revolution; replacing the revolutionaries with more radical revolutionaries.
Alternatively, Yarik can get elected in via the upcoming presidential election, although it's a big question whether the situation can wait that long.
The south-east can harry this process along by all voting for him. What seems on the face of it - like the worst possible decision of all - not only recognizing the election but voting in it's most rabid ethno-nationalist - may actually end up saving the south-east in the end.
If Pravyj Sektor takes power - a large amount of Kiev's and indeed the rest of the Ukraine's population will view him as bigger threat than Russia. The military and police will certainly not want to follow any orders from such a leader.
It will lead to a collapse of the country and all government authority - but in a much less bloody way than if the Ukraine were attacked by Russian forces.

d). Probably the best option - try and get the West onboard for a solution. They have no 'trust' towards Russia right now, as they claim - but at the end of the day 2. it's not in their interests to see a civil war in Europe. Obama right now is trying to persuade Putin to help influence the east to 'simmer down'. That's already evidence of the fact. But Putin should insist on a balanced solution, a true transition government, federalization, and joint-peacekeeping forces if it proves neccessery. That the current government is non-viable and not viewed as legitimate, and that it doesn't know what it's doing or what sort of country it's leader - is something that can be proven to the EU and the US. They won't agree out of kindness, but out of mutual-interests - no-one needs a new Somalia, a new radical-right wing movement, a refugee crisis, a massive conventional war, etc...

macedonian wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:And what troubles would that be?   

CIA troubles   
Are we done with the emoticons now?

etaepsilonk wrote:

macedonian wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:And what troubles would that be?   

CIA troubles   
Are we done with the emoticons now?

I was under impression that you suggest using terror tactics, hence the emoticon. Do you?
In my opinion, there cannot be such things. Not only it's immoral, but it also spreads the conflict further, to the point things go out of control.

etaepsilonk wrote:OK, I apologize if you feel offended. But for my defense, I wasn't making any accusations, just asked for clarification, that's all.

Well, whatever those things would be, leaving western Ukraine alone would in everyone's best interest, don't you agree?

macedonian wrote:
I disagree strongly. That's not how you win wars. Nevermind that this is not 'a proper' war, it's a war nonetheless.
If you're looking to win - you strike your enemy deep inside his ranks where he doesn't feel vulnerable...you create havoc, so that he cannot attack you where you're weak...you let him know that he's as vulnerable as you are...especially if your 'enemy' is a puppet to a 'greater master'...

etaepsilonk wrote:

macedonian wrote:
I disagree strongly. That's not how you win wars. Nevermind that this is not 'a proper' war, it's a war nonetheless.
If you're looking to win - you strike your enemy deep inside his ranks where he doesn't feel vulnerable...you create havoc, so that he cannot attack you where you're weak...you let him know that he's as vulnerable as you are...especially if your 'enemy' is a puppet to a 'greater master'...

Could you clarify who exactly is "the enemy" you're talking about in this case?

Firebird wrote:I think the reality is that people who think they wont get a taste of their own medicine will even more readily give other people a load of grief.

For instance, the most violent people in the Irish problem weren't ones livingin  the disputed territory. 
It was ones 100s of miles away in the independent Ireland, not the British controlled North. Its exactly the same with America. Never been bombed, but happily blows up half the World.

Now if Lvov had to endure armed gangs on the streets, sabotage of IT, electrics etc, police officers running for their lives, they will end up deciding anarchy isnt quite so fun "overall".

Unfortunately, its not rational decent people you are dealing with or trying to understand the mindset of. Its Nazi, terrorist scum.

By far the best incentive to stop someone giving you shit, is to give them shit. You can block punches all day long, but you're probably gonna get hit very soon. Better to hit back.

macedonian wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:

macedonian wrote:
I disagree strongly. That's not how you win wars. Nevermind that this is not 'a proper' war, it's a war nonetheless.
If you're looking to win - you strike your enemy deep inside his ranks where he doesn't feel vulnerable...you create havoc, so that he cannot attack you where you're weak...you let him know that he's as vulnerable as you are...especially if your 'enemy' is a puppet to a 'greater master'...

Could you clarify who exactly is "the enemy" you're talking about in this case?

People in Ukraine who are brainwashed into believing western propaganda. On top of that, you have Ukrainians who are delusional about Russians.

But if you're asking who the REAL enemy is - it's more than obvious - it's the American political establishment, trying to conquer Russia.

Anything else?

etaepsilonk wrote:Are you really suggesting to wage war against everyone who has a different opinion, even non-combattants??

I think it would be a warcrime.

macedonian wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:Are you really suggesting to wage war against everyone who has a different opinion, even non-combattants??

I think it would be a warcrime.

You BETTER stop putting words in my mouth little man!
If you have a comprehension deficiency, perhaps it would be best to read more and post less?
I'm about to lose my temper with this idiocy of yours.

Regular wrote:There is enough hate for Russians in Western Ukraine, listen to their slogans, listen how they call Russians.
Why even try?
Only way to win their hearts and minds is by hanging them on feet and by bleeding their hearts dry. To win their minds You could use nagant right at the back of the skull. Done and tested in good old days. Oh and healthy diet called Holodomor would be nice too