Can you expand on this? I can't find much about what you're talking about
I think this may be what he's referring too. I actually saw this guy talk on CNN last night (Stephen Cohen). He was defending/supporting Putin insofar as trying to stop the eastern expansion of NATO. There used to be a buffer between the NATO countries and the Russian border. With the Ukraine falling to Pro-EU/NATO people Putin reacted to protect Sevastopol...or something along those lines.
Hard to find decent links. But he is a professor at NYU I believe.
Ripley says the normal Russian troop level at Black Sea Fleet facilities in Crimea historically has been about 11,000. But most are seamen or support personnel -- not the kind of ground combat forces that have fanned out on the Crimean Peninsula.
...
Under various agreements between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is allowed to keep up to 25,000 troops on the Crimean Peninsula. Those troops are allowed outside of their bases for operations considered normal to maintaining the facilities. But there are limitations on deployments -- even for training operations.
...
Ripley says security camera footage of the seizure of the Crimean parliament by uniformed pro-Russian gunmen is the most interesting evidence of Russian private security firms playing a role.
“You saw some really fit athletic guys with quite extensive military equipment -- assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, and they were carrying big [containers] full of spare ammunition and spare rockets," he said. "They had on identification tape so they could recognize each other in the dark. These were pretty well-organized guys. But they weren’t in the same uniforms as the Russian troops that we saw blockading the Ukrainian bases, which suggests that [some of them were] contractors. The best description I’ve had of them is that they are former Russian special forces who have set themselves up in the private sector. Many of them work under contract to companies that have close links to Russian oligarchs who, of course, have close links to the Russian president. So we see a [Russian] state-private sector synergy there.”
Langton points out that much work appears to have been done before Russia’s intervention to raise small local units among Crimea’s ethnic Russians that could be activated in times of tension.
he army recruitment office in Cherkasy, central Ukraine, has never been so busy.
More than 500 people have already turned up to enroll since Russian President Vladimir Putin declared on March 1 the right to invade Ukraine.
Katerina Shelest, a local recruiting office employee, told RFE/RL that "scores of people are showing up, including retired officers who have long been demobilized. Young men are also volunteering. We try to enroll everyone."
She added that she and her colleagues had worked virtually nonstop since Putin's announcement, "without lunch breaks, until late at night."
Ukraine has put its army on high combat alert and is calling up reservists.
In theory, all men up to 40-years old could be asked to join army ranks in the event of a full-blown war with Russia, whose military capabilities are far vaster than its neighbor's.
The army has had no trouble drumming up popular support.
As Russian forces extend their control of Crimea, Ukraine's strategic Moscow-friendly southern peninsula, volunteers have been queuing up to enlist.
Andriy Lomtev, a 21-year-old Cherkasy resident, was demobilized a year ago after serving in Crimea.
He decided to show up at the city's army recruitment office during his lunch break – hours after his own father, 46, signed up as a volunteer.
"I want to defend my people," he said. "Some of my friends have already enlisted, others are waiting to be called up. Our patriotic feelings are roused in such emergency situations."
Another fresh recruit, Cherkasy firefighter Yevhen Protsenko, says he stands ready for combat:
"I have a family and I want to protect it. It's good to see that people are not indifferent to the fate of our country, of our families," he said.
With fewer than 130,000 active military personnel -- a far cry from Russia's 845,000 -- the Ukrainian Army will need all the help it can get.
Cash-strapped Ukraine owns almost 10 times fewer tanks than Russia. It has one major warship and only about 230 combat aircraft.
Russia, which has spent billions of dollars over the past decade to upgrade and modernize its military, owns more than 30 large warships and more than 1,500 combat-capable planes.
All a bit too late.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
in the last 5 years i have kept comparing Russia/Putin to Blofeld (James Bond villain).
Both like to oppose democracy and always support the 'bad-guys' in the world.
All Russia needs is big white cat and a device that captures satellites in space....
At the risk of sending this thread way off-topic my understanding is that this is more or less what Israel is attempting with Palestine - move enough of your people into the region that you can win the vote. Personally I think Canada should use this strategy to take over Arizona. As long as the voting is done in winter it could work!
Yup, this is not only off topic, but you couldn't be further from the truth. Israel is not attempting anything with Palestine. Israel is made up of citizens of all backgrounds with human rights, freedom of speech, democracy, education, health care, etc. Do you honestly believe that is what Russia is attempting to provide to Ukraine?
Yup, this is not only off topic, but you couldn't be further from the truth. Israel is not attempting anything with Palestine. Israel is made up of citizens of all backgrounds with human rights, freedom of speech, democracy, education, health care, etc. Do you honestly believe that is what Russia is attempting to provide to Ukraine?
Can we keep this thread on topic?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
A few years ago I read George Friedman's The Next 100 Years, where he discusses at length the prediction of a second collapse of Russia. Ukraine figures prominently in the predictions, not so surprising given the history and that the Orange Revolution had occurred only 3 years before the book was published.
A snipet from the Stratfor blog, which George Friedman runs:
"Russia's grand strategy involves the creation of deep buffers along the North European Plain, while it divides and manipulates its neighbors, creating a new regional balance of power in Europe. What Russia cannot tolerate are tight borders without buffer zones, and its neighbors united against it. This is why Russia's future actions will appear to be aggressive but will actually be defensive."
Read more: Ukraine and the 'Little Cold War' | Stratfor
A few years ago I read George Friedman's The Next 100 Years, where he discusses at length the prediction of a second collapse of Russia. Ukraine figures prominently in the predictions, not so surprising given the history and that the Orange Revolution had occurred only 3 years before the book was published.
A snipet from the Stratfor blog, which George Friedman runs:
"Russia's grand strategy involves the creation of deep buffers along the North European Plain, while it divides and manipulates its neighbors, creating a new regional balance of power in Europe. What Russia cannot tolerate are tight borders without buffer zones, and its neighbors united against it. This is why Russia's future actions will appear to be aggressive but will actually be defensive."
Read more: Ukraine and the 'Little Cold War' | Stratfor
In all honesty, having Crimea leave Ukraine will be a bit of a double edged sword for Russia. If Crimea becomes a part of Russia, then Russia becomes stronger because they have some certainty as to the Fleet home base in Sevastopol. However, it also means that elections in the Ukraine would loose a large Russian voter bloc, strengthening the pro-western bloc in that country. If Putin gains Crimea, he may end up losing Ukraine as a whole. In this case, strengthening Russia will end up weakening Russia. Putin is in a weak scenario with the former head of state being toppled. All he can do now is make sure his fleet's position is secured, return Crimea to Ukraine, and hope he can rig the next election in the same way he did after the "Orange Revolution".
What does Russia really gain in security with the taking of Crimea, if it results in it's rivals could gain an ally in Ukraine?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Knalus For This Useful Post:
In all honesty, having Crimea leave Ukraine will be a bit of a double edged sword for Russia. If Crimea becomes a part of Russia, then Russia becomes stronger because they have some certainty as to the Fleet home base in Sevastopol. However, it also means that elections in the Ukraine would loose a large Russian voter bloc, strengthening the pro-western bloc in that country. If Putin gains Crimea, he may end up losing Ukraine as a whole. In this case, strengthening Russia will end up weakening Russia. Putin is in a weak scenario with the former head of state being toppled. All he can do now is make sure his fleet's position is secured, return Crimea to Ukraine, and hope he can rig the next election in the same way he did after the "Orange Revolution".
What does Russia really gain in security with the taking of Crimea, if it results in it's rivals could gain an ally in Ukraine?
Yeah, the more I think about it and ask questions just like this, the more it seems Putin kinda goofed up, even from his angle or goals.
That said, I see more and more why he felt he had to do something. Roundly disagree with it, it's illegal and immoral, but purely from a 'power' standpoint it was quickly getting eroded away.
Things like this though always make me wonder why leaders like this, that tend towards dictatorship, don't just realize there is more for them to benefit by playing nice and strengthening their own economy and people from the inside. I mean, just look at all the trade and value they lost in one day!
Unless a lot of the big reasons are because of the people in power are just wanting to profit regardless of how their people fare. Putin, his inner circle, and the plutocrats who keep him in power. I suspect that often plays a large role.
Stephen Harper
@pmharper
Ukrainian flag being proudly flown on Parliament Hill to demonstrate our solidarity w/ people of #Ukraine #cdnpoli
That's sweet of us, but I agree with this article:
"The Harper government's response to the Russia-Ukraine crisis smacked of empty gestures from a country that has become increasingly marginalized on the world stage, two retired Canadian ambassadors charged Sunday."
And also by expanding NATO after collapse of USSR...viewed by Russia as very provocative
I warmly recommend this podcast from Dan Carlin (A non-partisan historian) about the situation....start listening at 8:15
Thanks for posting. This a great backgrounder for those who are not well-versed in the ongoing situation. I think you can go back to that leaked conversation between the US Ambassador to the Ukraine and the Assistant Secretary of State to find the reason for the strong Russian response here.
I've never heard of Dan Carlin before, but just listened to a few of his podcasts and I'm quite impressed. He seems to be one of the few Americans who realizes just how inept the US political system has become, and that neither political party represents the best interests of Americans. Very refreshing!
The Following User Says Thank You to Zarley For This Useful Post:
