Ulfgeir
Hero
All too true.
Ukraine invasion
There is reason to be optimistic, if the question is whether his country will remain occupied. The RAND corporation (who specialize in studies of military operations) has determined that, broadly speaking, if you want to hold a territory against minimal resistance, you need to have approximately 20 soldiers on the ground for every 1000 inhabitants of the region.
In Ukraine, that would mean the Russians need to have something like 800,000 troops in the area. Note: The Russian military at the moment, in total, including all branches, numbers about one million people. And the Ukrainians are putting up well more than "minimal" resistance. If the studies are correct, short of something that absolutely quells resistance, Russia can't really hope to hold the nation.
Unfortunately, they can hope to beat the crap out of Ukraine until they get some concessions.
That's possible, but a risky choice for Russia. It might shock the Ukrainians into surrender, but it might not. But it would almost certainly get Russia's remaining major trade partner, China, to walk away from them. This would be damaging to Russia internally, and start a bit of a race: which comes first - surrender in Ukraine, or civil unrest in Russia?
There are a bunch of EU/NATO/USA escalation options that have not been deployed short of attacking Russian territory directly.
Shutting off gas purchases, oil, selling jets, anti ship weapons, tanks, no fly zones (partial or full), arming other regions against Russia, moving troops into western Ukraine, blocking transit through Poland, attacking Belarus, converting frozen assets to seized assets, etc.
These are not going to be done lightly. But Russia will know escalating to NBC warfare in Ukraine may result in escalation on the part of the West.
Even without China doing anything in response.
I doubt most of the above will be deployed here. But doubt is not certainty.
Shutting off gas purchases, oil, selling jets, anti ship weapons, tanks, no fly zones (partial or full), arming other regions against Russia, moving troops into western Ukraine, blocking transit through Poland, attacking Belarus, converting frozen assets to seized assets, etc.
These are not going to be done lightly. But Russia will know escalating to NBC warfare in Ukraine may result in escalation on the part of the West.
Even without China doing anything in response.
I doubt most of the above will be deployed here. But doubt is not certainty.
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Legend
Interesting story about that convoy.
www.theguardian.com
30 guys on quad bikes hot the head of the convoy by riding through the forest at night using night vision goggles and some drones.
The drone operators who halted Russian convoy headed for Kyiv
Special IT force of 30 soldiers on quad bikes is vital part of Ukraine’s defence, but forced to crowdfund for supplies
www.theguardian.com
30 guys on quad bikes hot the head of the convoy by riding through the forest at night using night vision goggles and some drones.
John R Davis
Hero
It needs the UN to do something, not EU, NATO, etc.
With a Russian veto in the Security Council, there's very little that the UN can do.
John R Davis
Hero
They can put forward various resolutions that slowly stop certain countries from abstaining. Quite appalling behaviour and these actions shouldn't be forgotten.
To what end? It won't change Russian actions in Ukraine.
Russia's being a bully, but the UN is not built to stand up to bullies with vetoes on the Security Council.
John R Davis
Hero
So there is a chance they will in fact be United against the bully ( looking at you democracies in Africa, India, etc).
I can hope.
Or they sink his sitting duck Black Sea fleet.
Again, to what end? "United against the bully" doesn't really mean anything unless it changes the bully's actions.
Meanwhile, those abstaining at this point are generally doing so because Russia gives them something that they want/need, that they stand to lose if they cheese Russia off. You want them to make symbolic gestures that won't change the situation, except for their being left in the lurch for something they need?
I'm all for making some sacrifices for a cause, but only if those sacrifices are apt to be effective.
The UN is not going to engage in direct violent action against Russian forces, because expanding the conflict is a good way to get WWIII, a thing the UN was nominally created to prevent.
Similar Threads
