What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?

[BC]

So, what will be next?

Status quo as was before, but without Crimea.

UA is dependent on transit revenue and low energy prices.  Although the west is capable of helping, 'restructuring' UA is not possible, thus any help will be conditional and limited.

RU will then become again the favored 'partner' in trade for political influence... after all RU has energy and 'knows' the 'UA system' best.

I get the feeling that the west is looking at UA as a 'rats nest' of problems and that throwing money in that mouse hole won't help at all.. in fact it will only benefit RU.

[jone]

Thank you for asking.

The reality is that Crimea is a peninsula.  It gets its electricity and energy from Ukraine.  I believe, although it is speculation only, that the coup that took place in the Crimea parliament was not sanctioned by Russia, but that Russia took advantage of it.  I think that the entire actions in Crimea were not planned in advance but reacted to by the Kremlin.

Now, Russia has three choices of working with Crimea.  1.  Supply the peninsula through ship transports.  2.  Negotiate with Ukraine to supply the former autonomous region of it's own country.  or 3.  Invade Ukraine to create a Russian supply route directly to Crimea.

Given the current state of affairs, do you really think that Ukraine wants to negotiate with Russia to supply Crimea with anything while it is in control of Russia?

Russia has its tit in a wringer right now.  It can't supply Crimea and yet it has embraced it as a new section of Russia.  By embracing it as Russia, it makes negotiations with Ukraine impossible.  No national leader will survive in Ukraine by negotiations with Russia on supplying Crimea.  Contrasting that, Russia cannot sit there and have Crimea starve and not have electricity or gas.

So take this one step further:  Russia now begins to float ideas of a "Joint Ownership" of Crimea.  While that may be novel, it is not based in reality.  Ukraine still sees Crimea as part of Ukraine.  Stolen from Ukraine.  And Russia's actions have pushed Ukraine directly into the arms of the European Union.  (Frankly, I think Ukraine aligning with any faction is incorrect.  For those who watched the movie, Divergent, Ukraine should be 'Factionless'.)

Ukraine is casting about for alliances that will help defend against Russia.  Right now, the big debate in the Rada is whether to invite NATO forces into Ukraine.  (Personally, I don't believe NATO would consider sending forces in.)

The longer the standoff continues, the greater the pressure on Russia to act.  It really has no choice in supplying Crimea.   As I said before, if Russia does not act, in five years, when the bridge is finally built to supply Crimea, it will be too late to effect the outcome.

In the end, Russia only has two choices:  1.  Invade;  2.  Back off and beg for forgiveness.  Which do you think they will do?

[Faux Pas]

I find the way your question is formulated is loaded. As you are aware, not everyone consider Crimea's annexation as invasion. I also feel you are not interested in my opinion therefore I am not going to address your question.

Annexation with a gun pointed at your head isn't an annexation. It is an invasion but, you call it anything you need to make that koolaid more palatable 

[justme100]

I get the feeling that the west is looking at UA as a 'rats nest' of problems and that throwing money in that mouse hole won't help at all.. in fact it will only benefit RU.

Can't agree more.

[Ranetka]

Annexation with a gun pointed at your head isn't an annexation. It is an invasion but, you call it anything you need to make that koolaid more palatable 

You know using koolaid reference is not a valid argument.

[jone]

Status quo as was before, but without Crimea.

UA is dependent on transit revenue and low energy prices.  Although the west is capable of helping, 'restructuring' UA is not possible, thus any help will be conditional and limited.

RU will then become again the favored 'partner' in trade for political influence... after all RU has energy and 'knows' the 'UA system' best.

I get the feeling that the west is looking at UA as a 'rats nest' of problems and that throwing money in that mouse hole won't help at all.. in fact it will only benefit RU.

I like the way you think, BC.

However, as of now, since Crimea is now part of Russia, Russia has cancelled the subsidy for gas to Ukraine for leasing ports it now controls and Ukraine is now paying more for energy than Western Europe.  You will quickly see a contract for Fracking in SE Ukraine, if, perchance, Russia doesn't invade.  Such would make Ukraine self sufficient in energy in five or six years.

As for transit revenue, Russia is finishing Southern Route connections for gas that bypass Ukraine. 

Russia is the natural trading partner for Ukraine.  But, as punishment for EuroMaidan, Russia continues to shut down all avenues of trade between the two countries.  If Western Europe were not receiving gas through Ukraine, I am confident Russia would already have stopped gas sales to Ukraine altogether.

The Austerity Bill that just was passed through the Rada was required for EU Association.  It is similar to the structure of requirements made on other Eastern Block countries that wished to associate with the EU.  Those countries survived the austerity and are now thriving (comparatively) so the Ukrainian leaders see their actions as needed but distasteful medicine to cure their ills.  Only time will tell.

Ultimately, the true test of Ukraine's future comes at the muzzle of a gun from Russia and the choice of a people at the ballot box.  Aside from my opinions on Russia invading, I no longer believe that the Party of Regions can muster a majority for a Presidential candidate, therefore further throwing Ukraine into chaos.    (Where are those Crimean votes when you need 'em.)  I believe that a less corrupt Party of Regions platform is still the best option to stabilize the country and the region.  As I said above, only time will tell.

[Ranetka]

Jone,

you certainly have a point. You arguments if I am correct are mainly based on assumption that Russia will not be able to supply electricity without the bridge. It would be interesting to find out if it is true or not, I have seen the explanations how it could be technically done but I personally do not have the knowledge to evaluate if it was technically viable or not.

I agree that joint government is not going to happen.

personally I am of opinion that invading Ukraine is not going to be beneficial to Russia and more think along BC's scenario. So I think Russia will try to avoid further confrontation. As an indirect conformation I think it is quite clear that waiting to invade does not make sense, it should have been done as quick as possible, would you agree?

But of course, anything can happen.

[Ranetka]

Jone,

Just saw your second post. Again you have a point. It seems though Ukraine is in considerably worse situation then say Poland was when the EU association measures were first implemented. Not sure if they have 5/6 years to survive.

[jone]

Jone,

you certainly have a point. You arguments if I am correct are mainly based on assumption that Russia will not be able to supply electricity without the bridge. It would be interesting to find out if it is true or not, I have seen the explanations how it could be technically done but I personally do not have the knowledge to evaluate if it was technically viable or not.

I agree that joint government is not going to happen.

personally I am of opinion that invading Ukraine is not going to be beneficial to Russia and more think along BC's scenario. So I think Russia will try to avoid further confrontation. As an indirect conformation I think it is quite clear that waiting to invade does not make sense, it should have been done as quick as possible, would you agree?

But of course, anything can happen.

A great part of Ukraine's future includes Russia.  But, like a painful family divorce, Ukraine and Russia are like sniping spouses, with Russia carrying a cudgel.

As for electricity and gas in Crimea, I have never seen Russia do anything instantaneously.  Upon that idea, my argument stands.  As I said, Russia's tit is in a wringer.  You are absolutely correct that the longer Russia waits for invasion, the more untenable the situation becomes. 

In this waiting period, the West is becoming more emboldened.  When the entire situation started, I stated that Putin would have been much smarter to let the initial period play out and then capitalize on the disfunction of the Ukrainian people.  (They are notorious for disfunction.)  Had Russian not absorbed Crimea, it would have the upper hand in controlling the future destiny of Ukraine.  Now, absent invasion, I see Ukraine as pro-West leaning and Russia left with the albatross of Crimea, cut off from any support.

Anyone who remembers the Kursk, knows that Russian commanders will never ask for outside help, even to their own demise.  That is the situation right now. 

Putin had every opportunity to be the magnanimous neighbor, coming off a successful Olympics.  (Remember the Olympics, they seemed so long ago!)  Instead he listened to his fears and the opportunity of absorbing a long coveted piece of Russian/Soviet former territory.  In so doing, he alienated Russia from the international community and went down a road he could not retreat from.  I still contend that his actions were not thought out.  By continuously lying to the world, he belittled his former stature and made himself out to be someone not to be trusted as an ally or as a combatant.

The world has been slow to react, but the more time that expires, the more Russia will be pressured to act.

Somewhere, above or below, Tom Clancy must be sitting at his keyboard, writing reams of this stuff for us all to consume.

[jone]

Jone,

Just saw your second post. Again you have a point. It seems though Ukraine is in considerably worse situation then say Poland was when the EU association measures were first implemented. Not sure if they have 5/6 years to survive.

That is, of course, the great debate.  You have hit the nail on the head with that observation.  All Western help depends on someone believing that they can.  And all Russian action depends on whether a coherent government can emerge from the ashes.  (See, I do read the Russian point of view.)

[Ranetka]

Unfortunately Russia could not leave Crimea in hands of an becoming increasingly unfriendly neighbour for a number of reasons, such as being the only Russian warm water port, for example. And of course the will of the people, both in Russia and in Crimea.

[Ranetka]

That is, of course, the great debate.  You have hit the nail on the head with that observation.  All Western help depends on someone believing that they can.  And all Russian action depends on whether a coherent government can emerge from the ashes.  (See, I do read the Russian point of view.)

Yes, absolutely, agree with both your statements.

[jone]

Unfortunately Russia could not leave Crimea in hands of an becoming increasingly unfriendly neighbour for a number of reasons, such as being the only Russian warm water port, for example. And of course the will of the people, both in Russia and in Crimea.

Russia is completing another warm water port, as I am sure you are aware of.  The move was reactionary and illicit.  Your logic is faulty that because one small area of a country has a majority of patriots to another country, that should not be means for invasion.  And that because a country has designs on another for historical or sentimental purposes, that also should not be means for invasion.

The move is the move of a one party government with no checks and balances.  A free press would have debated successfully the question.  Of course, who am I to say?  Where was the US's free press or two party government when the US invaded Iraq?

[Daveman]

Unfortunately Russia could not leave Crimea in hands of an becoming increasingly unfriendly neighbour for a number of reasons, such as being the only Russian warm water port, for example. And of course the will of the people, both in Russia and in Crimea.

"...the will of the people...in Crimea."

That's the important aspect for me if that's indeed truly the will of the people.  If the inhabitants of Crimea want to be part of Russia (or even a free and independent nation of Crimea) then they have the human right to do what needs to be done to enable self determination, IMO. 

[jone]

"...the will of the people...in Crimea."

That's the important aspect for me if that's indeed truly the will of the people.  If the inhabitants of Crimea want to be part of Russia (or even a free and independent nation of Crimea) then they have the human right to do what needs to be done to enable self determination, IMO.

I don't understand your post, Dave.

Are you saying that the referendum followed the will of the people?  That question will be debated into the next century.

While I truly believe that in a perfect world the majority of Crimeans would have preferred to be affiliated with Russia, such things don't happen overnight and usually require much more forethought.   There are many other issues to consider and contend with than where someone's loyalties lie.   Instead we see the patriotic mumbo jumbo, but no time for true self determination.

What are your thoughts on this?  It was indeterminate from your post.

[Belvis]

Given the current state of affairs, do you really think that Ukraine wants to negotiate with Russia to supply Crimea with anything while it is in control of Russia?

It may come as supprise to you but Ukraine will continue to supply Crimea with everything. The difference may be the inceased price for resourses.  The explanation would require too extensive post Nevertheless Russia will build two bridges to solidify the communication lines.

[missAmeno]

What Putin wants is obvious 
Ukraine, preferably whole but if not achievable minimum east and south east of Ukraine. 
However he doesn't want just Ukraine, many other countries on his list of want.
Only blind Russians to whom have been served 'pre-cooked' views on events in the world for a long time do not know what Putin wants. They under some childish illusion their president cares for their interests and wants what is best for Russia. In reality Putin seeks glory, somehow he believes by aggression towards other countries he will make Russia once again mighty. And average Russians remain wondering why are they disliked by other nations.

Naive people of Crimea believed Russian president cares for them and wants bring them back to motherland. How silly of them. Right now they are just a game card Putin is trying to use. Suddenly Russia is the one who wants new referendum in Crimea and will withdraw every single military out of Crimea including Russian Navy in exchange  for new constitution for Ukraine (yeah, constitution that would allow him take each region of Ukraine one by one  ). Narcissistic Sociopath!


http://gazeta.ua/ru/articles/politics/_rossiya-potrebuet-ot-ukrainy-navsegda-otkazatsya-ot-chlenstva-v-es-i-nato-i-stat-federaciej-ekspert/549878

[Ranetka]

Russia is completing another warm water port, as I am sure you are aware of.  The move was reactionary and illicit.  Your logic is faulty that because one small area of a country has a majority of patriots to another country, that should not be means for invasion.  And that because a country has designs on another for historical or sentimental purposes, that also should not be means for invasion.

The move is the move of a one party government with no checks and balances.  A free press would have debated successfully the question.  Of course, who am I to say?  Where was the US's free press or two party government when the US invaded Iraq?

Well I think the pivotal here are two points:
1. Do you accept the right of Autonomous republic to self determination without agreement of central government (Kosovo, anyone?)
2. And another is if the referendum was indeed the expression of will of the people (I think there is a general agreement that majority of Crimeans indeed wanted to be part of Russia, at least that's what BBC's reporting)

[calmissile]

Perhaps worth a read.......

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/the_enigmatic_russian_soul.html

[Daveman]

I don't understand your post, Dave.

Are you saying that the referendum followed the will of the people?  That question will be debated into the next century.

While I truly believe that in a perfect world the majority of Crimeans would have preferred to be affiliated with Russia, such things don't happen overnight and usually require much more forethought.   There are many other issues to consider and contend with than where someone's loyalties lie.   Instead we see the patriotic mumbo jumbo, but no time for true self determination.

What are your thoughts on this?  It was indeterminate from your post.

My comment wasn't directed at the current state of affairs but rather tossing a mention to the self determination/governance ideal (which is why I deleted the references to Russian interests).  Whether or not a group will succeed in creating self determination is a different subject.


The referendum may be legitimate or it may have the predetermined outcome of those counting the votes.

Either way, I don't think this will go as well for "Crimeans" as they currently think/hope/wish it will.

I agree with BC if the situation remains isolated to Crimea.  If, however, Russia decides to invade other parts of Ukraine, the chance of NATO involvement will rise significantly. 

[jone]

Well I think the pivotal here are two points:
1. Do you accept the right of Autonomous republic to self determination without agreement of central government (Kosovo, anyone?) YES
2. And another is if the referendum was indeed the expression of will of the people (I think there is a general agreement that majority of Crimeans indeed wanted to be part of Russia, at least that's what BBC's reporting)  Indeterminate - See below

I believe, if everything were laid bare and totally understood, not only about the actions that caused the referendum, the illicit presence of the Russian forces (Putin would never even admit that they were there) and the future prospects on going on without Ukraine's ability to supply the peninsula, calmer heads would have prevailed.

Does that mean that Crimea would not have voted for a referendum to separate from Ukraine?  I don't know.  I don't think anyone does.

But the censorship of the press and the propaganda fed the Crimean people, coupled with the patriotic fervor introduced by the landing of Russian troops led to a mass action by the population that (while based in loyalty to Russia) was both reactionary and not thought out. 

Keep in mind that only 4% of the population supported the eventual leaders of the coup in the last election cycle.  That should tell you that much of what happened was artificially created.

I believe that rational thought of an autonomous region should include time as a prerequisite before such a plebiscite should be held.  Remember as well, that when the authorities thought that a counter insurgency might be occurring, they moved up the vote so that the fervor was still at its zenith.

Somehow, I can't get the pictures out of my mind of the billboards with Nazi images on one side and the Russian flag on the other.  That is pure emotionalism and plays directly into what I believe.

[Ranetka]

I think until very recently Crimean had more access to Ukrainian press then they had to Russian press. So I can not see how a few days of billboards could have influence people's opinion.

I do feel like many foreigners you overestimate influence Russian press have on Russian people. I know you understand Russian, if you just spend a day reading most popular blogs you would see people are not shy in expressing different opinions.

[jone]

Given the nature of the Russian women on this forum and their shy demeanor, I never would have thought that possible.   

I should add, however, that if what you say is true, it would have to have been true six months down the road.  When all of the impact of separation with Ukraine was well known.  Other rogue states have had plebiscites.  Very few seek to disassociate.  The referendum was an emotional response that was encouraged and emboldened by the presence of Russian troops.   I stand on my statements of artificially created and based on emotionalism. 

That is not to say that such separation through referendum could not have happened.  But, you, too, have to agree that such emotionalism was in play and the result was, at best, staged.  Wouldn't if have been a much stronger statement if the results came from true determination?  Wouldn't that have created a society that did not totally alienate 40% of the population?

Our world society has to grow up at some point in time.   Crimea is a perfect example of last century techniques from a society that is still operating in the last century.

[Ranetka]

Thanks for the conversation, Jone.

it was interesting to find out we agree on quite a lot of things.

[justme100]

Jone,

you certainly have a point. You arguments if I am correct are mainly based on assumption that Russia will not be able to supply electricity without the bridge. It would be interesting to find out if it is true or not, I have seen the explanations how it could be technically done

Ukraine already cut 50% of electricity to Crimea.Last we week we passed evenings in total darkness. Now that a lot of  generators were delivered from Russia to each city in Crimea we are perfectly ok