[Luvianka]

So, it seems that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is just a matter of days if not hours, also if John Kerry continues pushing his sincere and succesful efforts for descalating the conflict. This is a good article about the routes and logistics the Russkies would use to conquer/recover Ukraine for the Soviet Union... I say, Mother Russia... Mother Russia.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-04-25/he...plete-maps

[Big Nilla]

Option #2, a partial invasion, is plain dumb. If they invade it has to be all or nothing and take over everywhere except the far west of Ukraine. As long as western countries don't cross some sort of line, Option #3 is the way to go. Just keep spreading it west, town by town. Ukraine really can't deal with it since the Ukrainian military is littered with pro-Russians.

[RexImperator]

Nobody but Putin knows what he will do but recall the 2008 war in Georgia.

If it happens, Putin will want to appear to be as an internal separatist movement where the Russian troops are stepping in to stop the fighting as the peacekeepers, and not as an "invasion" as much as possible.

Most of the (clearly Russian-instigated) separatist/uprising/"protester" activity seems to be concentrated in the Donbass... this is where the heavy industry is that is tied to Russia's economy (and military). However, if they are going to be punished by west for whatever they do anyway, some of Putin's supporters must be pushing him to roll all the way to Moldova (goodbye south/east Ukraine, hello "Novorossiya"). He seems more calculating and cautious than that.

I don't think Putin wants to fight an insurgency in western Ukraine, so that will make him hesitate to go all the way. If you want to be extremely conspiratorial/Machiavellian about it one might suspect the west of goading Putin into grabbing the whole thing, so it could support an insurgency and then bleed Russia like in Afghanistan.

Whatever happens the people in Ukraine are and will be the ones suffering.

[Luvianka]

(04-28-2014 12:37 AM)Big Nilla Wrote:  

Option #2, a partial invasion, is plain dumb. If they invade it has to be all or nothing and take over everywhere except the far west of Ukraine. As long as western countries don't cross some sort of line, Option #3 is the way to go. Just keep spreading it west, town by town. Ukraine really can't deal with it since the Ukrainian military is littered with pro-Russians.

I agree with you Option#3 looks like the most feasible option for Russian interests. Problem is that NATO is going to have a huge excersie in the coming days, and they can use it as a coverage to put boots in the ground before Russia can do something about it.

[rover]

Yes, option #3 is clearly the best one: keep the discontent in the East going, have an army on the border to keep Ukraine and NATO on their toes, make sure the elections are either cancelled or at least can be claimed as illegitimate. The unrest will be spreading week by week, and the Kiev government won't be able to do much to stop it. Add in all the economic problems - hrivna devaluation, inflation and loss of Russian markets and by the end of summer it'll be time to send humanitarian aid and the local population will be begging for order and stability. The West thinks Putin is about to invade but to me it seems he is playing the long game and his cards are pretty damn decent. The caveman in me would love to see Russian tanks crossing Dniepr and maybe even some rockets back and forth but that definitely won't be good for Europe.

[Orson]

Long-time foreign policy and global trade columnist, "Spengler" (aka, David P. Goldman), weighs in on the outcome of events in Ukraine and Putin's Russia. He also agrees that option #3 - keeping a low boil in Ukraine - is in Putin's best interest. http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2014/04/30/b...epage=true

(But given his invasion of Georgia, why not a partial occupation of Eastern Ukraine? I wouldn't rule it out.)

More importantly, Goldman sees a federal solution as the more likely outcome of all the Ukraine troubles. As a Russian protectorate? Or as an internationally recognized one? Maybe the first, first - the second, later, I'll speculate. Financially, the West (EU, Nato, and IMF), can ill afford to finance their wish for independence from Russia. Ukraine is much too poor to afford to do it herself.

And most importantly, if Putin can make a mega-billions Chinese investment into Russian development a quid pro quo for sending energy, timber, and metals to Asia - re-balancing the old Euro-supplier gambit - then Putin's Russian quest for more political independence through economic triangulation will succeed.

I agree with Goldman.

Foreign direct investment has run for the exits of Russia and may still result in a recession this year. Can this outflow be countered to turn the tide next year? Maybe that's what Putin's betting on.

Meanwhile, what's extraordinary is how irrelevant the US has become to the grand power politics of Eurasia. This may well change if the Republicans occupy the white House in a few years. But these precedents set by Putin are unlikely to be reversed this decade or after. If the vector outlined here (and in Goldman's column) succeed, Putin rules the roost for the foreseeable future.

[Luvianka]

Here you have a more detailed description of troops buildup.