The Ukrainian armed forces are superior to the eastern insurgents and could likely crush the resistance unless the insurgents were suppled from Russia and volunteers allowed to cross the border to join the insurgents. These observations reported are likely some of those military supplies being transferred in anticipation of further hostilities.
There is still no hard evidence that Russian has committed troops to the conflict in Ukraine although it may have committed advisors, just as NATO may have to the Ukrainian armed services.
This doesn't look like it is going to end unless one side predominates or they fight to a stalemate. It's reasonably sure, however, that Putin will not permit the eastern Ukraine to fall, and it is likely that in the event that this would seem eventual, Russian troops would be committed to defend the east.
However, Putin seem to prefer a divided Ukraine rather than a Ukraine either captured into Russia or into NATO as a buffer between Russia and the West. All indications are that if and when Russia would decide it is necessary to intervene they would commit the resources to quickly advance to their territorial objective.
The objective of the Ukrainian government is to draw Russia into the conflict in order to force NATO to respond. This is the only way that Ukraine can predominate unless there would be a change in US administrations in 2016 that puts neocons in greater power. But Ukraine probably cannot survive that long just kicking the can down the road either.
There is pressure from the Right Sector to continue the fight now that the elections are over, with the veiled threat of a coup if the government does not comply. Similarly on the insurgent side there is great pressure to press on to Kiev, viewing the ceasefire as merely an opportunity for a previously defeated UAF to regroup and mount a stronger attack. So it comes down to the belligerents on both sides rather than those seeking a workable settlement for a functioning Ukraine federation.
It's unclear at this point what the US and NATO objective is, other than to put an economic squeeze on Russia that forces Russia to abandon the Crimea, hopefully with the added advantage of undermining the Russian economy sufficiently to depose Putin and effect neoliberal regime change to relieve the economic pressure. At this stage it seems unlikely that the West has the appetite for another war in Europe that would likely go nuclear at least tactically.
Many heads in Europe are beginning to realize that this is a no-win situation for them, and voices are being raised to cut a deal. Furthermore, they see this as the US picking a fight with Russia and offering to hold Europe's coat while the Europeans bear the brunt of the conflict. For this angle, the US is a loser itself in putting Europe in a loss position.
Tom, you are in denial. Those tank and truck columns with evenly uniformed men with face masks... Every time some license plate or a name tag is not removed they happen to be Russian armed forces. Are they "observers"? Or you take Putin's word that this stuff can just ge bought in local sports goods stores?
ReplyDeleteThere is no hard evidence that they are either Russian regular military or special forces. The insurgents don't need reinforcements anyway. They do need military equipment to counter the well-armed UAF. it's clear that Russia is providing it.
ReplyDeleteIn the fog of war and propaganda it's difficult to determine what's actually happening.
For example, the West has minimized or denied neo-Nazi influence while the insurgents have amplified it. My conclusion is that it is a significant factor that the West is ignoring or submerging at its peril.
Same with MH17. Same with the claims of Russian intervention.
The actual evidence is very thin. Intelligence works largely by surveying many reports and trying to develop to tentative assessments that are reasonably objective.
We watched the units transit from Russia to Ukraine... But they aren't under Russian control. Uh huh. In the same way that the unmarked white jets that fly out of Laredo Texas every few minutes aren't controlled by the United States Government. Would Putin would allow any other government to operate heavy military equipment in Russia? NO WAY.
ReplyDeleteOf course they are Russian troops, who else would they be? Chinese? Kazakhs? The Russians don't even deny it anymore. They just don't comment or change the subject to transgressions of western nations.
Russia has a national security interest in Ukraine, they have units on the border, we have seen pictures of the units sitting in Russia and then into Ukraine, we have dash cams from drivers showing them in transit. All the equipment is standard Russian military equipment. It really isn't an open question unless you close your eyes, plug your ears and scream really loud to avoid the issue. Russia needs to maintain some amount of control over the area leading to Crimea. Why pretend?
They are denying cross-border troop involvement.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons I conclude that it is not happening is that the most belligerent of the eastern Ukrainian insurgents are severely criticizing Putin for holding back and not getting directly involved other than supply the necessary equipment to counter the UAF military advantage in aircraft, tanks and artillery.
A KGB guy is denying it so it must not be true....
ReplyDeleteFog of war and all that, right?
You completely lost credibility.
A basic principle in intelligence analysis is that none of the interested parties are ever telling the truth as long as their interests are involved. So the challenge is to come up with an analysis that it close to the situation without having the advantage of evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe bane of intelligence analysis is cognitive-affective bias, which is hard to avoid when one has a horse in the race. So analysts do their best to stand back and be objective.