Actually, Ukraine is swinging rather decisively West since 2014, in part due to Russia's own actions. That said, though, the West will still have western Ukraine in its sphere of influence, and if it will be able to provide a better life for Ukrainians than Russian-occupied puppet Ukraine would, then Ukrainians will likely be "voting with their feet" by moving to western Ukraine, in which case Russian-occupied puppet Ukraine would either have to restrict emigration or else face a legitimacy crisis among its own population.
Russian-Ukrainian-Polish Eternal Friendship Thread
- Thread starter Husky_Khan
- Start date
Actually, Ukraine is swinging rather decisively West since 2014, in part due to Russia's own actions. That said, though, the West will still have western Ukraine in its sphere of influence, and if it will be able to provide a better life for Ukrainians than Russian-occupied puppet Ukraine would, then Ukrainians will likely be "voting with their feet" by moving to western Ukraine, in which case Russian-occupied puppet Ukraine would either have to restrict emigration or else face a legitimacy crisis among its own population.
There's also some Ukrainian polling from late 2015:
Table 5. «In your opinion, what kind of foreign policy course should Ukraine take-», %, February 2013 - September 2015*
Table 6. “In your opinion, what kind of foreign policy course should Ukraine take - ” by macroregions, %, September 2015
Neutralism is rather popular in Ukraine other than in the West.
Table 5. «In your opinion, what kind of foreign policy course should Ukraine take-», %, February 2013 - September 2015*
| Feb.2013 | Sep.2013 | Feb.2015 | Sep.2015 | |
| joining the European Union | 36.6 | 41.3 | 47.2 | 44.1 |
| joining the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia | 37.5 | 35.3 | 12.3 | 17.3 |
| joining neither the EU nor the Customs Union | 10.7 | 9.2 | 27.3 | 27.5 |
| Hard to say, don’t know | 15.2 | 14.1 | 13.1 | 11.1 |
| TOTAL | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Table 6. “In your opinion, what kind of foreign policy course should Ukraine take - ” by macroregions, %, September 2015
| West | Center | South | East | UKRAINE IN TOTAL | |
| joining the European Union | 75.8 | 48.7 | 27.5 | 19.4 | 44.1 |
| joining the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia | 3.9 | 8.2 | 25.1 | 37.6 | 17.3 |
| joining neither the EU nor the Customs Union | 14.1 | 29.2 | 35.3 | 31.7 | 27.5 |
| Hard to say, don’t know | 6.2 | 13.9 | 12.2 | 11.3 | 11.1 |
| TOTAL | 75.8 | 48.7 | 27.5 | 19.4 | 44.1 |
Neutralism is rather popular in Ukraine other than in the West.
Descalatiory tac nuke is something Russia has stated it will use in situations like this, plus the forward deployment of troops to VZ and possibly Cuba.
And unfortunately/fortunately, because of Chernobyl, much of Ukraine would barely notice the uptick in background rads/fallout in the long run, even if a part city got levelled by an airburst.
Putin is not even half crazy enough to use a nuke against Ukrainian guerillas. It would be a political suicide, both domestically and abroad. If he didn't use nukes against moderate beheader Chechens, why would he do so against fellow Slavs?
It would put a nuclear crater in Russian political narrative for the next few centuries on top of the real one.
Troops approve of free tropical vacation, because most of them can't afford one on their salary.
USA? Laugh as dumb Russians waste perfectly good troops which are in limited supply for Russia (or at least will be if they have to occupy Ukraine) to do something that should totally ire them but for all practical purposes really doesn't.
Considering how things are going for the separatist republics, that has already happened.
Which may be one reason why Russia is hesitating here. This whole operation seems worthwhile if everything goes perfectly...
But it could be a waste of effort in long term if some things don't go perfectly.
Last edited:
You're Polish, right? Do you think that Russia could make the Donbass into a Russian version of Upper Silesia if it outright annexed the Donbass and invested a lot of money into it? What are the relevant distinctions between the Donbass and Upper Silesia? Both are heavily industrial regions full of natural resources, no?
But Yeah, subsidizing the Donbass Republics (and Crimea) is already enough of an expense; Russia would then have to subsidize a much larger Ukrainian puppet state.
Its 2022, not 1922, that's the main problem. The resource business in Upper Silesia itself is not such a great economic boost as it used to be.
The second problem is that Russia has a long line of places that could use this kind of investment funding, and most of them will never get it. If they get themselves into more western sanctions that list will be only getting longer, not shorter. Let's just say the taxpayers in the rest of Russia would be less than amused. Thanks to their experience with Chechenya Russians have a pretty good idea how much it would cost them to rebuild post urban warfare cities, and they aren't looking forward to it.
What does Upper Silesia's economy primarily rely on nowadays, then?
Car industry with its support industries outsourced by EU corps, typical city service economy in the major cities, coal energy for the rest of the country.
Last edited:
History Learner
Well-known member
Here, you say there is no loss to be had...
...but then here are panicmongering about the U.S. alliance network unravelling, which rather undercuts your above claim there is nothing to be lost.
It cannot obviously be both and the fact your argumentation is so schizophrenic is because it is without substance; it's "just because" reasoning born of knee jerk Anti-Russian sentiments. You're Polish, so I'm sympathetic in general to your concerns about your larger neighbors, but my sympathy ends where your expectation of me being willing to surrender American blood and treasure for a nation my own has no formal agreements with, and no strategic reasoning to back either. There's no compelling logic to defend Ukraine, especially in the context of it escalating to nuclear war. If Russia were to attack Poland, for example, that would be a different story, but as you put it earlier, we can't lose something we never had (in NATO) and that's Ukraine.
If you want to persist in your jingoism, be my guest, but you have yet to provide any compelling rationale for why Americans should die for Ukraine and at this point you're asking for something much worse to come back. I said Poland has my sympathies but not my brain, and if Warsaw wants to provoke a conflict then I'm not going to shed a tear when Moscow responds with T-90s on the Vistula.
Also how is it turning everyone else against USA? Its not like Russian expansionism is loved in the region, quite the opposite.
This is a nice masturbatory fantasy, but it doesn't really have any place in reality. First and foremost, Moscow didn't win Chechnya by bribing it; it sent in the tanks and physically conquered it by destroying much of Grozny. It then instituted a wide ranging COIN doctrine that was extremely effective.
Last edited:
History Learner
Well-known member
Given the stop lines suggested by your earlier maps, it seems clear Moscow recognizes the need to steer clear of the fervently nationalist areas in favor of biting off that which is both easy logistically and which would contain a population more apt to be neutral or even Pro-Russia. Certainly, I'm not the only one questioning the likelihood of the U.S. successfully stirring up an insurgency.
Last edited:
I did explain what is there to be lost, and how it is not Ukraine.
Where the hell did anyone suggest defending Ukraine through conventional or nuclear warfare?
Yes, they did destroy them, and not just once, but twice! And then, seeing how after the 2 destructive wars they still had insurgency problems, they bought off a local warlord to keep the peace for them, through... regionally appropriate third world methods. That's working for now, but the money needs to keep flowing for it to work.
Analysis: Kadyrov's Chechnya Appears Exempt From Russian Funding Cuts
The economic sanctions imposed by Western governments on Russia and plummeting oil prices have necessitated stringent cuts in funding to Russia's constituent subjects. But there is one glaring exception to that trend: The Chechen Republic is seemingly exempt from such belt-tightening.
www.rferl.org
I'll take a look at those Tweets. That said, though, I can already tell you that Kiev could be a problematic area. It doesn't necessarily have to be a full-on insurgency, but it could be full of IRA-style terrorist attacks on Russian military targets. I think that Kievans are capable of that if the Northern Irish were. And there would also be the possibility of infilitration from Free Ukraine to Occupied Ukraine. There's a large border there--can Russia police and guard every single mile of it? Maybe if it will actually build a solid wall, as with the Korean Demilitarized Zone, but will it?
"The superior military force of NATO quickly defeated the Serbs and imposed its will on Belgrade. No Serb insurgency in the Balkans followed after this. I wonder if the Russian military planners have studied NATO’s campaign in the Balkans to potentially apply it in Ukraine. /10"
It's worth noting that the NATO: Serbia force disparity is likely to have been much greater than the Russia: Ukraine force disparity, though. I wouldn't be surprised if NATO is 50 or even 100 times more powerful than Serbia is (based on their respective populations) even without nukes, for instance. For Russia and Ukraine, the force disparity might be in the range of 6:1. And again, Yes, I am anticipating some Western Ukrainian troop infilitration into Russian-occupied Ukraine.
He does have a point about Ukraine's lack of youngsters, but population aging is also an issue that affects Russia as well. It's not like Russia itself has a much greater percentage of youngsters than Ukraine has.
It's worth noting that the NATO: Serbia force disparity is likely to have been much greater than the Russia: Ukraine force disparity, though. I wouldn't be surprised if NATO is 50 or even 100 times more powerful than Serbia is (based on their respective populations) even without nukes, for instance. For Russia and Ukraine, the force disparity might be in the range of 6:1. And again, Yes, I am anticipating some Western Ukrainian troop infilitration into Russian-occupied Ukraine.
He does have a point about Ukraine's lack of youngsters, but population aging is also an issue that affects Russia as well. It's not like Russia itself has a much greater percentage of youngsters than Ukraine has.
@History Learner Let's look at Northern Ireland, shall we? :
en.wikipedia.org
Northern Ireland has slightly less than 2 million people, or about 1.5 times less than Kiev slightly less than 3 million people. Yet in spite of this, in Northern Ireland, slightly over 1,000 British troops and police were killed during The Troubles. An equivalent ratio for Kiev would be around 1,500 Russian and pro-Russian troops and police. And in the case of Ukraine, as I previously stated, I also suspect that fighters/insurgents from western Ukraine will be sneaking across the border into Russian-occupied Ukraine in order to cause trouble over there unless of course Russia will decide to build a big beautiful wall between the two parts of Ukraine similar to what Korea currently has between North Korea and South Korea.
The Troubles - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Northern Ireland has slightly less than 2 million people, or about 1.5 times less than Kiev slightly less than 3 million people. Yet in spite of this, in Northern Ireland, slightly over 1,000 British troops and police were killed during The Troubles. An equivalent ratio for Kiev would be around 1,500 Russian and pro-Russian troops and police. And in the case of Ukraine, as I previously stated, I also suspect that fighters/insurgents from western Ukraine will be sneaking across the border into Russian-occupied Ukraine in order to cause trouble over there unless of course Russia will decide to build a big beautiful wall between the two parts of Ukraine similar to what Korea currently has between North Korea and South Korea.
I am the one defending ukraine with conventional means.I did explain what is there to be lost, and how it is not Ukraine.
Where the hell did anyone suggest defending Ukraine through conventional or nuclear warfare?
Yes, they did destroy them, and not just once, but twice! And then, seeing how after the 2 destructive wars they still had insurgency problems, they bought off a local warlord to keep the peace for them, through... regionally appropriate third world methods. That's working for now, but the money needs to keep flowing for it to work.
Analysis: Kadyrov's Chechnya Appears Exempt From Russian Funding Cuts
The economic sanctions imposed by Western governments on Russia and plummeting oil prices have necessitated stringent cuts in funding to Russia's constituent subjects. But there is one glaring exception to that trend: The Chechen Republic is seemingly exempt from such belt-tightening.
Which I am still sure the US will send beacuse as muchas people say we wont....NATO may not give us a choice
This is precisely why any Russian invasion of Ukraine is unlikely to win over Ukrainian hearts and minds. If anything, it might make Ukrainian attitudes even more anti-Russian than they already are, thus resulting in the formation of a solid anti-Russian Intermarium bloc while Russia has to constantly prop up whatever new neutralist government in Russian-occupied Ukraine that it will install while also dealing with severe Western sanctions and becoming more and more reliant on China.
And honestly, any Russian leader who resorts to nuclear war over Ukraine (not the Donbass, not Crimea, but the rest of Ukraine) would be a total lunatic. But then again, lunacy throughout history was not exactly unprecedented.
I'm not sure how is that going to work when Biden said no troops.
Not sure who in NATO would be insistent enough to change that either.
Not Germans, not French, that's for sure. Eastern flank countries, welp, if they wanted to they could easily send their own forces as reinforcements to Ukraine and no one could stop them, setting a kind of political tripwire, but they aren't doing that.
I still don't think the US will sit back without troops
What would be the objective of such operation be?
Because if it would be to stop Russian invasion, now would be the time to pre-position at minimum several divisions and few hundred aircraft either in Ukraine, or eastern NATO countries bordering it.
Is this being done? We sure would know if it was, it would be impossible to hide really.
Anything less than that would be purely symbolic, a lot of trouble for little to no effect.
A counter invasion into Ukraine! DUH!
I am sre there are plans just have never thouyght about it