Is Ukraine a Failed State?

[SL0413]

There seems to be a lot passion going around about world leaders and invasions and such.

Here's my perspective, stripped of the machinations of any specific person or political group:

Russia has a problem.  It's borders are not secure.  Throughout history it has been invaded, with varying degrees of successes and failures.  The formation of the USSR was near perfect for Russia - buffer states on the west, southwest, and south, friendly or insignificant nations (geo-politically speaking) to the southeast.  But the SSR ultimately failed internally.

With the dissolution, Russia still had friendly buffer nations surrounding it.  Then came Maidan, and a new government that was looking to be a part of the EU and NATO.  Most likely NATO would be not open hostilities with Russia and dwindle over the years, and maybe decades later Russia would even join the EU (pure speculation and far fetched, but possible)

However, as the past 2 centuries+ has shown, Russia was invaded by the west.  Swedes, Prussians, French, Germans, etc.  So, for the sake of national interest and security, Russia needs a new buffer zone - Crimea and Donbass.  Straight invasion and takeover is politically difficult.  Encouraging and supporting local separatists efforts is lower risk and achieves the same result.  If it stresses and destabilizes the rest of Ukraine, even better (for Russia).

Sevastopol is critical to Russia - it is the only warm water port Russia has with relatively easy access.  It is not much of use to other nations.  They would desire it, but it is a logistical nightmare to support and is too vulnerable.

Russia could have made Sevastopol an exclave like Kaliningrad, but if the rest of Crimea is in the hands of a not-so-friendly state, then it is Kaliningrad all over again.  Therefore Crimea itself is critical for Russia, in addition to being a handy buffer zone.

Same for the southwest.  Georgia was becoming more westernized, but the caucasus creates a natural land barrier, except along the black sea shore.  Solution - Abkhazia republic.  A pro-Russian buffer zone. 

There is open terrain in the eastern side of the caucasus, but Azerbaijan is a friendly nation and not a concern...yet.  If Azerbaijan becomes more westernized, there will probably be another Russian support for the autonomous pro-russian people who would conveniently be located north of Baku (Guba-Khachmaz).  Or encourage and support populist change from a pro-western administration for a pro-russian one (Abulfaz Elchibey).  Much easier if the latter can be achieved.

Kazakhstan is interesting.  There is no practical way Russia can secure it's border with Kazakhstan.  It has to be pro-russian for border security.

I am not saying any of the above is morally right or just. I am only laying out the military and nation security viewpoint.

[Contrarian]

In other words, they dont feel threatened because there is no threat. This Russian threat malarkey is all made up nonsense.

 
You should tweet praise on Trump's page and get a foreign PR job with his administration,  you'd fit in perfectly,  well except that accent of yours. 

I find it annoying when propaganda swings from one extreme to the other.

There’s been ZERO evidence of collusion between DJT and Putin yet here’s Donhollio right on cue.

Because Congress has more power than Trump it’s unlikely there’s going to be any deals.

In fact President Trump shut down Russian embassies in San Francisco and Seattle.

Meanwhile lemmings like DonkyDon ignore that Hillary took Millions of $$$ from Russia in exchange for 20% of US uranium. 

[Contrarian]

There seems to be a lot passion going around about world leaders and invasions and such.

Here's my perspective, stripped of the machinations of any specific person or political group:

Russia has a problem.  It's borders are not secure.  Throughout history it has been invaded, with varying degrees of successes and failures.  The formation of the USSR was near perfect for Russia - buffer states on the west, southwest, and south, friendly or insignificant nations (geo-politically speaking) to the southeast.  But the SSR ultimately failed internally.

With the dissolution, Russia still had friendly buffer nations surrounding it.  Then came Maidan, and a new government that was looking to be a part of the EU and NATO.  Most likely NATO would be not open hostilities with Russia and dwindle over the years, and maybe decades later Russia would even join the EU (pure speculation and far fetched, but possible)

However, as the past 2 centuries+ has shown, Russia was invaded by the west.  Swedes, Prussians, French, Germans, etc.  So, for the sake of national interest and security, Russia needs a new buffer zone - Crimea and Donbass.  Straight invasion and takeover is politically difficult.  Encouraging and supporting local separatists efforts is lower risk and achieves the same result.  If it stresses and destabilizes the rest of Ukraine, even better (for Russia).

Sevastopol is critical to Russia - it is the only warm water port Russia has with relatively easy access.  It is not much of use to other nations.  They would desire it, but it is a logistical nightmare to support and is too vulnerable.

Russia could have made Sevastopol an exclave like Kaliningrad, but if the rest of Crimea is in the hands of a not-so-friendly state, then it is Kaliningrad all over again.  Therefore Crimea itself is critical for Russia, in addition to being a handy buffer zone.

Same for the southwest.  Georgia was becoming more westernized, but the caucasus creates a natural land barrier, except along the black sea shore.  Solution - Abkhazia republic.  A pro-Russian buffer zone. 

There is open terrain in the eastern side of the caucasus, but Azerbaijan is a friendly nation and not a concern...yet.  If Azerbaijan becomes more westernized, there will probably be another Russian support for the autonomous pro-russian people who would conveniently be located north of Baku (Guba-Khachmaz).  Or encourage and support populist change from a pro-western administration for a pro-russian one (Abulfaz Elchibey).  Much easier if the latter can be achieved.

Kazakhstan is interesting.  There is no practical way Russia can secure it's border with Kazakhstan.  It has to be pro-russian for border security.

I am not saying any of the above is morally right or just. I am only laying out the military and nation security viewpoint.

Congratulations, you’ve played right into the hands of the Putinista’s whose strategy of convincing Westerners that their unjustified military invasions are necessary is working. 

[Wiz]

There seems to be a lot passion going around about world leaders and invasions and such.

Here's my perspective, stripped of the machinations of any specific person or political group:

Russia has a problem.  It's borders are not secure.  Throughout history it has been invaded, with varying degrees of successes and failures.  The formation of the USSR was near perfect for Russia - buffer states on the west, southwest, and south, friendly or insignificant nations (geo-politically speaking) to the southeast.  But the SSR ultimately failed internally.

With the dissolution, Russia still had friendly buffer nations surrounding it.  Then came Maidan, and a new government that was looking to be a part of the EU and NATO.  Most likely NATO would be not open hostilities with Russia and dwindle over the years, and maybe decades later Russia would even join the EU (pure speculation and far fetched, but possible)

However, as the past 2 centuries+ has shown, Russia was invaded by the west.  Swedes, Prussians, French, Germans, etc.  So, for the sake of national interest and security, Russia needs a new buffer zone - Crimea and Donbass.  Straight invasion and takeover is politically difficult.  Encouraging and supporting local separatists efforts is lower risk and achieves the same result.  If it stresses and destabilizes the rest of Ukraine, even better (for Russia).

Sevastopol is critical to Russia - it is the only warm water port Russia has with relatively easy access.  It is not much of use to other nations.  They would desire it, but it is a logistical nightmare to support and is too vulnerable.

Russia could have made Sevastopol an exclave like Kaliningrad, but if the rest of Crimea is in the hands of a not-so-friendly state, then it is Kaliningrad all over again.  Therefore Crimea itself is critical for Russia, in addition to being a handy buffer zone.

Same for the southwest.  Georgia was becoming more westernized, but the caucasus creates a natural land barrier, except along the black sea shore.  Solution - Abkhazia republic.  A pro-Russian buffer zone. 

There is open terrain in the eastern side of the caucasus, but Azerbaijan is a friendly nation and not a concern...yet.  If Azerbaijan becomes more westernized, there will probably be another Russian support for the autonomous pro-russian people who would conveniently be located north of Baku (Guba-Khachmaz).  Or encourage and support populist change from a pro-western administration for a pro-russian one (Abulfaz Elchibey).  Much easier if the latter can be achieved.

Kazakhstan is interesting.  There is no practical way Russia can secure it's border with Kazakhstan.  It has to be pro-russian for border security.

I am not saying any of the above is morally right or just. I am only laying out the military and nation security viewpoint.

Well done young man, writing a long and complete objective analysis of the problems Russian Federation had and still have to face.

In a previous post, I asked that dreamer “Seasoned”, to tell me how many nations have common frontiers with Russian Federation….. he avoid to answer.

Whoever is the leader of the Nation he has to secure the frontiers and security of the country. In my reply also, I mentioned that the USA have only 2, it’s friendly neighbour Canada and Mexico and not 18 different Nations like the Russian Federation. I also posted a map with the US Based surrounding Russia and nobody paid notice.

http://ruadventures.com/forum/index.php/topic,27371.msg482210.html#msg482210

Today it appears that the present leader, Putin, is playing a very hard to balance game with so many enemies gunning for him personally because he is spoiling their plans. Makes no different if he was a KGB colonel or not the fact remains that he is trying to improve the life of the Nation and let’s not forget, he started from Zero.

I just wonder what anybody of us in his place would do for his nation and people of the country?

I think that Putin, most probably will prove to be the best leader the Russian Nation and people ever had.

PS: Have you noticed how fast you received the attacks and accusations from the Brainwashed and programmised people from your own country, because you openly expressed your objective opinion regarding the RF?

Wait and more is coming...... I always get such attacks when I express similar views, telling them the truth, which they don't like and they have an easy accusation: Copy and Paste, like that I have no brain neither I can think on my own, unlike those very clever fanatics and brain dead people.

 

[Contrarian]

^Sure Wiz. Throw gasoline on a burning fire why don’t you.

We don’t live in the 19th Century which is where this “analysis” belongs.

Our new poster mentioned Sweden and the West as being possible invaders of Russia. Absurd and devoid of any semblance to the reality of the real World today. Today’s Swedish men on average aren’t sure what gender they are or what restroom to use. A good percentage of them are prepared to bend over for their new Muslim masters. And these are the men who are allegedly going to invade Russia? 

The rest of Western Europe is only interested in economic commerce. They have Zero interest in invading Russia. Germany and Italy in particular want out of the sanctions because they’re harming their bottom line.

The notion that Russia needed a buffer zone of Crimea and Donbas is completely absurd. Putin didn’t order these invasions because of military necessity or strategy, he ordered them for his colossal ego. As B/B correctly pointed out it’s about Russian Nationalism. Solely for chauvinism, ego and strutting.

Claiming Putin to be the best Russian Prez ever, what a sad joke. He’s an anachronism of the 19th Century. The rest of Europe lives in the 21st Century where commerce is the order of the day.

Russia has no McDonalds to export. No Apple computers or Microsoft software. No Boeing Aircraft or Harley Davidson. No Dunkin’ Donuts.

Just military conflict. 

[Manny]

^Sure Wiz. Throw gasoline on a burning fire why don’t you.

We don’t live in the 19th Century which is where this “analysis” belongs.

Our new poster mentioned Sweden and the West as being possible invaders of Russia. Absurd and devoid of any semblance to the reality of the real World today. Today’s Swedish men on average aren’t sure what gender they are or what restroom to use. A good percentage of them are prepared to bend over for their new Muslim masters. And these are the men who are allegedly going to invade Russia? 

The rest of Western Europe is only interested in economic commerce. They have Zero interest in invading Russia. Germany and Italy in particular want out of the sanctions because they’re harming their bottom line.

The notion that Russia needed a buffer zone of Crimea and Donbas is completely absurd. Putin didn’t order these invasions because of military necessity or strategy, he ordered them for his colossal ego. As B/B correctly pointed out it’s about Russian Nationalism. Solely for chauvinism, ego and strutting.

Claiming Putin to be the best Russian Prez ever, what a sad joke. He’s an anachronism of the 19th Century. The rest of Europe lives in the 21st Century where commerce is the order of the day.

Russia has no McDonalds to export. No Apple computers or Microsoft software. No Boeing Aircraft or Harley Davidson. No Dunkin’ Donuts.

Just military conflict. 

And that ladies and gentlemen is the world according to a sheeple brainwashed by American media. 

[Manny]

There seems to be a lot passion going around about world leaders and invasions and such.

Here's my perspective, stripped of the machinations of any specific person or political group:

Russia has a problem.  It's borders are not secure.  Throughout history it has been invaded, with varying degrees of successes and failures.  The formation of the USSR was near perfect for Russia - buffer states on the west, southwest, and south, friendly or insignificant nations (geo-politically speaking) to the southeast.  But the SSR ultimately failed internally.

With the dissolution, Russia still had friendly buffer nations surrounding it.  Then came Maidan, and a new government that was looking to be a part of the EU and NATO.  Most likely NATO would be not open hostilities with Russia and dwindle over the years, and maybe decades later Russia would even join the EU (pure speculation and far fetched, but possible)

However, as the past 2 centuries+ has shown, Russia was invaded by the west.  Swedes, Prussians, French, Germans, etc.  So, for the sake of national interest and security, Russia needs a new buffer zone - Crimea and Donbass.  Straight invasion and takeover is politically difficult.  Encouraging and supporting local separatists efforts is lower risk and achieves the same result.  If it stresses and destabilizes the rest of Ukraine, even better (for Russia).

Sevastopol is critical to Russia - it is the only warm water port Russia has with relatively easy access.  It is not much of use to other nations.  They would desire it, but it is a logistical nightmare to support and is too vulnerable.

Russia could have made Sevastopol an exclave like Kaliningrad, but if the rest of Crimea is in the hands of a not-so-friendly state, then it is Kaliningrad all over again.  Therefore Crimea itself is critical for Russia, in addition to being a handy buffer zone.

Same for the southwest.  Georgia was becoming more westernized, but the caucasus creates a natural land barrier, except along the black sea shore.  Solution - Abkhazia republic.  A pro-Russian buffer zone. 

There is open terrain in the eastern side of the caucasus, but Azerbaijan is a friendly nation and not a concern...yet.  If Azerbaijan becomes more westernized, there will probably be another Russian support for the autonomous pro-russian people who would conveniently be located north of Baku (Guba-Khachmaz).  Or encourage and support populist change from a pro-western administration for a pro-russian one (Abulfaz Elchibey).  Much easier if the latter can be achieved.

Kazakhstan is interesting.  There is no practical way Russia can secure it's border with Kazakhstan.  It has to be pro-russian for border security.

I am not saying any of the above is morally right or just. I am only laying out the military and nation security viewpoint.

Well-written and raising very valid points. I'd not thought of it in those terms before.

[SL0413]

Please don't use my post as support Putin or justifying Russia's actions.

And as I mentioned the threats to Russia occurred in the past. 

If you look at nations after WWII the ones that were open and friendly to their neighbors generally prospered, and those that were closed did not do so well until they opened to trade and relations and were not aggressive with their border policy.  Africa is another matter entirely - I would and could not predict or justify any actions going on there.  Too much warlord mentality.

The problem with any military action or intervention is that you create instability and, for a lack of a better word, grudges.  A nation in power and military might would make immediate short term gains.  But things tend to bite them in the ass in the long run. 

[Contrarian]

Please don't use my post as support Putin or justifying Russia's actions.

                  


Welcome to the real World. Now wake up and have some coffee.

[Contrarian]

^Sure Wiz. Throw gasoline on a burning fire why don’t you.

We don’t live in the 19th Century which is where this “analysis” belongs.

Our new poster mentioned Sweden and the West as being possible invaders of Russia. Absurd and devoid of any semblance to the reality of the real World today. Today’s Swedish men on average aren’t sure what gender they are or what restroom to use. A good percentage of them are prepared to bend over for their new Muslim masters. And these are the men who are allegedly going to invade Russia? 

The rest of Western Europe is only interested in economic commerce. They have Zero interest in invading Russia. Germany and Italy in particular want out of the sanctions because they’re harming their bottom line.

The notion that Russia needed a buffer zone of Crimea and Donbas is completely absurd. Putin didn’t order these invasions because of military necessity or strategy, he ordered them for his colossal ego. As B/B correctly pointed out it’s about Russian Nationalism. Solely for chauvinism, ego and strutting.

Claiming Putin to be the best Russian Prez ever, what a sad joke. He’s an anachronism of the 19th Century. The rest of Europe lives in the 21st Century where commerce is the order of the day.

Russia has no McDonalds to export. No Apple computers or Microsoft software. No Boeing Aircraft or Harley Davidson. No Dunkin’ Donuts.

Just military conflict. 

And that ladies and gentlemen is the world according to a sheeple brainwashed by American media. 

If only the guys with the nuclear launch codes were less “brainwashed” than myself the World would be a safer place.   

[AvHdB]

Claiming Putin to be the best Russian Prez ever, what a sad joke.

Russia has no McDonalds to export. No Apple computers or Microsoft software. No Boeing Aircraft or Harley Davidson. No Dunkin’ Donuts.

Just military conflict. 

Since there have been only three Russian Presidents, I think yes Putin is the best so far.

Confederate you forget that Russia is a great and wonderful exporter. Some are self export models and others models require a fair amount of tuning and tweaking as well as cooing and even romancing. Fortunately there is a wide variety of colours, shapes and forms.

Unfortunately they do not come with a shop, maintenance or user manual, so it is Caveat Emptor.

[Contrarian]

Claiming Putin to be the best Russian Prez ever, what a sad joke.

Russia has no McDonalds to export. No Apple computers or Microsoft software. No Boeing Aircraft or Harley Davidson. No Dunkin’ Donuts.

Just military conflict. 

Since there have been only three Russian Presidents, I think yes Putin is the best so far.

Confederate you forget that Russia is a great and wonderful exporter. Some are self export models and others models require a fair amount of tuning and tweaking as well as cooing and even romancing. Fortunately there is a wide variety of colours, shapes and forms.

Unfortunately they do not come with a shop, maintenance or user manual, so it is Caveat Emptor.

When speaking about those types of exports I prefer ones from the Czech Republic or Poland.

I find they’re more reliable and need less maintenance. 

[AvHdB]

There seems to be a lot passion going around about world leaders and invasions and such.

Here's my perspective, stripped of the machinations of any specific person or political group:

Russia has a problem.  It's borders are not secure.  Throughout history it has been invaded, with varying degrees of successes and failures.  The formation of the USSR was near perfect for Russia - buffer states on the west, southwest, and south, friendly or insignificant nations (geo-politically speaking) to the southeast.  But the SSR ultimately failed internally.

With the dissolution, Russia still had friendly buffer nations surrounding it.  Then came Maidan, and a new government that was looking to be a part of the EU and NATO.  Most likely NATO would be not open hostilities with Russia and dwindle over the years, and maybe decades later Russia would even join the EU (pure speculation and far fetched, but possible)

However, as the past 2 centuries+ has shown, Russia was invaded by the west.  Swedes, Prussians, French, Germans, etc.  So, for the sake of national interest and security, Russia needs a new buffer zone - Crimea and Donbass.  Straight invasion and takeover is politically difficult.  Encouraging and supporting local separatists efforts is lower risk and achieves the same result.  If it stresses and destabilizes the rest of Ukraine, even better (for Russia).

Sevastopol is critical to Russia - it is the only warm water port Russia has with relatively easy access.  It is not much of use to other nations.  They would desire it, but it is a logistical nightmare to support and is too vulnerable.

Russia could have made Sevastopol an exclave like Kaliningrad, but if the rest of Crimea is in the hands of a not-so-friendly state, then it is Kaliningrad all over again.  Therefore Crimea itself is critical for Russia, in addition to being a handy buffer zone.

Same for the southwest.  Georgia was becoming more westernized, but the caucasus creates a natural land barrier, except along the black sea shore.  Solution - Abkhazia republic.  A pro-Russian buffer zone. 

There is open terrain in the eastern side of the caucasus, but Azerbaijan is a friendly nation and not a concern...yet.  If Azerbaijan becomes more westernized, there will probably be another Russian support for the autonomous pro-russian people who would conveniently be located north of Baku (Guba-Khachmaz).  Or encourage and support populist change from a pro-western administration for a pro-russian one (Abulfaz Elchibey).  Much easier if the latter can be achieved.

Kazakhstan is interesting.  There is no practical way Russia can secure it's border with Kazakhstan.  It has to be pro-russian for border security.

I am not saying any of the above is morally right or just. I am only laying out the military and nation security viewpoint.

An interesting perspective though I do not entirely agree.

Russia has repeatedly invaded its Western neighbors as well is maintaining a very aggressive attitude regarding there seizure of the Kuril Islands in the East.

Historically Russia dominated and enslaved Ukraine in one form or the other. Sometimes they point to the fact that Kiev is in fact the birthplace of the Kievan Rus identity. While it moved to Moscow they still thought and think of Kiev as there own.

Bear in mind the entire Donbass conflict started out as little more than a violent conflict between rival ogliarchs and there enforcers.

[AvHdB]

In an attempt to move back to the core of this thread.

https://www.unian.info/society/10224501-over-400-000-ukrainians-leave-country-since-late-march-2018-for-work-abroad-ukrainianpeopleleaks.html

Over 400,000 Ukrainians leave country since late March 2018 for work abroad – Ukrainianpeopleleaks 15:47, 14 August 2018 UKRAINE 1075 0 Two Ukrainians leave their country every minute in search of a better life. pixabay.com Over 400,000 citizens of Ukraine have left their country since late March 2018 to work abroad. Such a statistics is presented by the Ukrainianpeopleleaks platform, which is an online count tool used to estimate migrant workers leaving Ukraine. Read also Over 360,000 Ukrainians leave their country since March 2018 for work abroad Two Ukrainians leave their country every minute in search of a better life, the platform says, referring to Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Pavlo Klimkin's words. According to him, 100,000 people leave Ukraine for work abroad every month. The Social Policy Ministry’s estimates are more ambitious and frightening: labor migration has already involved nine million Ukrainians.

Read more on UNIAN: https://www.unian.info/society/10224501-over-400-000-ukrainians-leave-country-since-late-march-2018-for-work-abroad-ukrainianpeopleleaks.html