Khepesh wrote:I read all the posts about Russia not invading Ukraine because it is a trap, and agree. The few posts I have made about VSN tanks being on lawn of Mariinsky palace by end of September should be seen in the first place as VSN tanks, not Russian, and in the second place as simply a little provocation.
However, what is not mentioned is what happens in the event of a VSN victory on the battlefield. Without making a very long post about this, I will just say that when ukrops forces in the south are destroyed and they cannot then hold the northern front and cover the huge gap from Donetsk to Zaporozhia, and they must cover that as they cannot presume VSN will stop at Mariupol, even tho they probably will, and they by necessity begin to withdraw, perhaps not leaving any forces south of the Donets, what will happen in Kiev? What if there is a civil war or military coup in Kiev and the country collapses in real chaos, who stops this? I believe this is a serious possibility and that Russia must be prepared to invade Ukraine, not in the sense of a war of conquest, but to restore order. Playing clever games of chess to avoid upsetting the "partners" when all Ukraine burns will not be so clever. You see, this is not so easy, for while Russia will not let DNR/LNR loose, the very fact of surviving the ukrops offensive when it comes may well precipitate events that spiral rapidly out of control and upset everything. I am sure thought is given to this in Moscow, and Kiev and Washington, but it seems not so much on the networks.
Actually it think that this meltdown of the Ukraine is beneficial to Russia's interests in the long run and there are clear benefits to letting rest of Ukraine burn for a while:1) It is quite possible that Russia's "support" for Ukrainian territorial integrity has lot less to do with reintegrating Novorossia back into Ukraine and
a lot more to do with integrating rest of Ukraine into Novorossia. Several analyst have already suggested this.
2) This will be much easier to do if Ukraine is left to properly "tenderize" in societal collapse and infighting for several months or maybe years if need be (why not?). In this situation partitioning Ukraine into several nearly independent states will be much easier. On paper they can remain part of one country. Managing several smaller entities is much easier than single large one.
3) Lengthy period of chaos will also drastically reduce price tag for putting this plan into practice. Longer the chaos lasts, lower the expectations of the locals will be. After a while they will be satisfied with just cheapest of basics. As it stands now, Ego of average holhol is simply too big for them to be cost effective investment.
More patience=bigger discount. After a while it will basically be "fire-sale"
4) Total chaos in Ukraine will also deter US and EU from sticking their nose into that money-pit. That type of military-financial adventurism is frowned upon in post Iraq/Afghanistan world. Not to mention bear next door.
5) In this scenario there would be mass exodus of people from Ukraine and into EU and Russia. For Russia this is beneficial, especially if that Siberia homestead initiative goes into full gear. For EU not so much and there are clear benefits to financially harming Russia's competition in EU.
All in the game...
6) There would be some military involvement by RU armed forces but other than air-cover I think that it would be wise to leave most of the dirty work to willing locals.
In terms of law enforcement and security (front lines aside), Novorossia is already safest place in "Ukraine". I fully expect them to remain at that position if this scenario occurs.
7) Needless to say, this process would be extremely unpleasant for 99,99% of population of "rest of Ukraine" but I think that no one should concern themselves too much with their discomfort.
They volunteered for that job themselves, let them enjoy.