What are Ukraine's military options for regaining the Crimea?

[snapper]

Recently I was talking about what Russia wants in Ukraine and my conclusion was that Russia wants it all.

Let's talk How Russia wants to get it.

There are two obvious (in the sense how it happens or happened before, and what we could see) ways how Russia could solve the Ukrainian problem. Two models, two policies, two patterns. They are, let's say, the Crimean model and the Moldavian model. Recently we all could see how works the Crimean model. The process of joining Crimea to Russia was described here:
Why Crimea said: Good by, Ukraine!
The essence of the process is simple - Ukraine loses the territories, Russia takes them.

But there is the second pattern - Moldavian.
There was an attempt to implement it in 2003, unsuccefully. And it was named "The Kozak's plan for Moldova's settlement". Kozak is the Russian statesman who led the talks on settlement between Moldova and Transdnistria in 2003. Sense of the plan was to create the federative state of Moldova. Two Moldavian rebellious autonomies - Transdnistria and Gagauzia - would restore the state unity with Moldova under conditions of independence of their internal affairs. Also, as members of federal state of Moldova, they would recieve very strong rights on key issues - concerning the international policy first of all. Moldova would not be able to join any international organizations without permission from Transdnistria. First of all, of course, NATO and EU were meant. Pro-Russian autonomies would have the ability to block Moldova's any movement towards the West. In exchange, Moldova restored its territorial integrity. So, Moldova's autonomies would have to be the anchors which reliably held the whole country close to Russia. Kozak's plan has been approved by all parties of talks, however it was destructed at the last minute because of joint counteraction of USA and European Union.

Today there are obvious evidences that Russia would wish the similar settlement for Ukraine.
As a matter of fact, such Russia's position was clearly expressed in the statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia from March, 17th. (the statement about "Ukraine support group")
ΠœΠ˜Π” Π*оссии | 03/17/2014 | ЗаявлСниС ΠœΠ˜Π” Π*оссии ΠΎ Π“Ρ€ΡƒΠΏΠΏΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π΄Π΅Ρ€ΠΆΠΊΠΈ для Π£ΠΊΡ€Π°ΠΈΠ½Ρ‹
This is Russia's response to the group of western countries on creation of contact group on Ukraine. Russia has stated its vision of the future of Ukraine. Briefly, it consists of the following items:
1) All Illegal armed forces (the Right Sector) should be disarmed.
2) Fascist parties and fascist ideology (Freedom and the Right Sector) should be banned.
3) Ukraine should create the new constitution. Ukraine becomes a federative state.
4) Russian language should become the second official one.
5) Ukraine should recognize results of a referendum in Crimea.

Russia's propositions were declined by the West.

In Crimea, on March 9th the prime minister Sergey Aksenov made a statement addressed to the residents of Odessa. He, particularly, declared the following:
"Under conditions of actual decomposition of Ukrainian state, the issue about people's right of self-determination becomes the first priority one".
"The first issue is to hold a referendum about the way of Odessa and Odessa oblast. Whether autonomy, or independence, or joining the more successful states, or living in Ukraine - here the questions for referendum."
Also he calls to form self-defense groups. He promises support from Crimean self-defense groups to bring the order "in territory of Odessa and its region". In case of need he promises a shelter and asylum.
ΠžΠ±Ρ€Π°Ρ‰Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ БСргСя Аксёнова ΠΊ одСсситам. - YouTube
In fact, S.Aksenov has called Odessa to break up with Ukraine.
Also, on March, 17th the vice-premier of Crimea Rustam Temirgaliev declares: “We have armored vehicles which we've got to us from the Ukrainian military units which are disbanded. We are able to not only defend ourselves, but also to clean from illegal authorities the Kherson, Nikolaev and Odessa regions”.
http://glagol.in.ua/2014/03/17/rusta...#ixzz2wEeXOHdz <http://glagol.in.ua/2014/03/17/rusta...nnyih-vlastey/

But, on March 23rd S.Aksenov again addressed to people of Ukraine. And now we can see how his opinion has changed.
As it was in previous speech, he calls for the people of Ukraine to fight against "a handful of nazi politicians" who are keen to get the license for authority through signing the agreement with EU, which means crash of economy, destruction of the industry, high taxes, and poverty for people. "I call you for fight for friendship with Russia, Belarus and other fraternal nations, to fight for Customs union." But next Aksyonov also says: "I have to emphasize - I'm not calling you to copy the experience of Crimea. Moreover, as I have understood from my dialogues with the Russian leadership and personally with Vladimir Putin, I have come to belief, that they wish to see on their borders the united, strong and independent state of Ukraine, but certainly, the state - ally of Russia. The state, whose leaders would not defame our shared slavic brotherhood to please the West."
ΠžΠ±Ρ€Π°Ρ‰Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ БСргСя Аксёнова ΠΊ Π½Π°Ρ€ΠΎΠ΄Ρƒ Π£ΠΊΡ€Π°ΠΈΠ½Ρ‹ - YouTube

The deputies of regional parliaments in Donetsk and Lugansk have already declared the similar, if to not tell identical, ideas about the future structure of Ukrainian state. They tried to use different words to not be suspected in espionage for Russia and separatism, what is actual for today's Ukraine where the authorities arrest leaders of Russian movements in eastern and southern oblasts. But as a matter of fact they copied the content of the statement of Russian Foreign Ministry of March 17.

This is clear the change of the attitude of Crimean government completely reflects the Russia's official opinion. Moscow supposes the re-uniting with Crimea was a double purpose: first, a restoration of historical justice, and, second, the strong reduction of military and political status of Ukraine with minimal efforts. These purposes have been successfully achieved.
Next strategic task is the involving Ukraine into Russia's integration projects - economic, political, military ones. Federation of Ukraine, in Moscow's opinion, is a way to gain the objectives. Moscow counts to hold the whole Ukraine through Donbass, Lugansk, Odessa, Zaporozhye - this is the Kremlin's point of view on this strategic geopolitical issue.

And I have to note this:
The Russia's proposition of March 17 was indignantly refused by the West.
But mr.Lavrov was persistent and determined at promoting the idea of federation of Ukraine. And yesterday in Paris mr.Kerry was not so unapproachable. "It is up to Ukrainians", he said.
US, Russia remain deeply at odds over Ukraine crisis after Kerry-Lavrov talks in Paris | Star Tribune

So, "the idea of federation" has found the audience - in Russia, in Ukraine, in the world.

Russia chooses the federation of Ukraine but not the "annexation", or "occupation", or dividing it into parts.

Rofl.

[JAD_333]

Mr. Second:

As usual you do a pretty good job of laying out Russia's position. Whether you agree with it or not is incidental.

One of the things lacking on the west's side is a clear understanding of Russia's point of view toward the Ukraine. To the west, what Russian has done with Crimea and wants to impose on the rest of Ukraine is morally repugnant. Not so from the Russian perspective, given its long history with the Ukraine. Something has to give, and I don't think understanding Russia's long-held cultural attitudes toward the Ukraine will motivate the west to agree to Russia's proposals to end the current standoff. Of course the Ukraine will have to make the final decision, but with the west on its side, I expect it will reject the major parts of Russia's proposal, or rather demands.

What do you think will happen if Russia does not get its way?

[Goatboy]

I totally agree.

Mr. Second's contribution is uniquely valuable here (a hell of a lot more than my meager contribution that's for sure).

[MrSecond]

What do you think will happen if Russia does not get its way?

Well, nothing special will happen. What happened in 2004, when "the Orange revolution" destructed all Russia's plans in respect of Ukraine? These plans were connected with the personality of Viktor Yanukovich who was supposed to be "pro-Russian" candidate and who, actually, won the elections. But revolution inspired by the West (what is actually a common opinion in Russia) forced him to step back.
Nothing has happened. Russia was waiting next 10 years, that's all. And I've said before - Ukraine lives from one crisis to another one. So, if that is not solved now, we have next 10 years.
By the way, Putin said once about Ukraine when he was asked the similar question - about Ukraine's going from Russia to Europe. He said: "Wherever Ukraine goes, we'll meet anyway." Seems, life confirms rightness of his words.

[MrSecond]

By the way - nice article, comes along with the Kerry-Lavrov meeting.

Anatoly Shariy, Ukraine: Moscow and Washington fool Ukraine

sourse in Russian

The sense of article of Ukrainian journalist is that Russia and USA have come to agreement about Ukraine. And now they jointly frighten Ukraine by Russian invasion to make Ukraine more compliant. That's why CNN shows Barbara Starr's report about Russia's preparations to cross the Ukrainian border, then all world media spread the news, then Kerry and Lavrov meet in Paris where Kerry says - Federation, you say? It's up to Ukrainians.

[Officer of Engineers]

Know what?

I change my mind. If the Chechens were willing to burn Grozny down to the ground to drive out the Russians, then the Ukraines have every chance of repulsing the Russians. It's going to be damned costly and the damage will not be limited to the Ukraines itself. Platoon and company size raiding forces will drive into Russia itself just like Beslan.

Putin is gambling that the Ukraines is unwilling to pay the price because for certain, he's not willing to pay that price. If MrSecond is correct, then it won't be a Ukrainian Civil War but a Russian Civil War.

[Blademaster]

Know what?

I change my mind. If the Chechens were willing to burn Grozny down to the ground to drive out the Russians, then the Ukraines have every chance of repulsing the Russians. It's going to be damned costly and the damage will not be limited to the Ukraines itself. Platoon and company size raiding forces will drive into Russia itself just like Beslan.

Putin is gambling that the Ukraines is unwilling to pay the price because for certain, he's not willing to pay that price. If MrSecond is correct, then it won't be a Ukrainian Civil War but a Russian Civil War.

In Ukraine, yes, in Russia, no. Putin is still highly popular. The populace haven't forgotten the days of Yeltsin and have no desire to go back. How else can Putin stay in power despite constitutional constraints?

[Officer of Engineers]

If MrSecond is right, then it will not be Russians killing Ukrainians but Russians killing Russians. Even Putin don't have the popularity to stomach that kind of back lash.

[Blademaster]

If MrSecond is right, then it will not be Russians killing Ukrainians but Russians killing Russians. Even Putin don't have the popularity to stomach that kind of back lash.

Please flesh out the reasoning that led you to conclude that it would be Russians killing Russians. I fail to see the connection.

[Officer of Engineers]

MrSecond has been posting all this time to state that there are no differences between the Ukrainian and the Russian peoples and that they are the one and same people. Even Minsk stated that the Russian Empire was borned in Kyev. So, there is some legitimacy to that.

We in the West think of them as two distinct peoples when even Misnk admits that they are culturally a single people. The language difference isn't that great. You find a bigger difference between Texan and South Afrikkan.

[Blademaster]

MrSecond has been posting all this time to state that there are no differences between the Ukrainian and the Russian peoples and that they are the one and same people. Even Minsk stated that the Russian Empire was borned in Kyev. So, there is some legitimacy to that.

We in the West think of them as two distinct peoples when even Misnk admits that they are culturally a single people. The language difference isn't that great. You find a bigger difference between Texan and South Afrikkan.

Are Canadians and America culturally a single people? Canadians and British culturally a single people? China and Taiwan culturally a single people?

Same people but different ideologies or belief systems.

[Officer of Engineers]

Are Canadians and America culturally a single people?

Yes. We have regional differences but overall, Ontarions have more in common with New Yorkers than we do British Columbians.

Canadians and British culturally a single people?

We have more in common than differences if that is what you mean.

China and Taiwan culturally a single people?

Same people but different ideologies or belief systems.

This last one is exactly what I mean. The Mainland Chinese have no illusions that they would be killing other Chinese.

[citanon]

MrSecond has been posting all this time to state that there are no differences between the Ukrainian and the Russian peoples and that they are the one and same people. Even Minsk stated that the Russian Empire was borned in Kyev. So, there is some legitimacy to that.

We in the West think of them as two distinct peoples when even Misnk admits that they are culturally a single people. The language difference isn't that great. You find a bigger difference between Texan and South Afrikkan.

I've been reading some of Mr. Second's posts and shaking my head regarding his "Russian Perspective". It strikes me as a version of the Ukrainian situation seen through a distortion lens, with somethings embellished, others diminished, subtleties blurred and dark visions of the future projected onto the present. It's certainly cannot be the actual view of the Russian leadership itself on the present situation in Ukraine.

But then I realized that the "distortion lens" really has its roots in how Russians see their own society, and from the Russian view on the Ukrainian situations, you get a perspective into Russia's fears about the forces of conflict and instability in Russia itself.

If you take the idea of the one Russian peoples a step further, and project what Russia is saying about Ukraine back onto Russia, I think you start to understand the perspective of the Russian leadership a little more. If you then take some of what they are saying about the present situation in Ukraine, and change the tense into this is what will happen in the future in greater Russia, then I think one starts to understand their thinking again a bit more.

In other words, what Putin is saying about Ukraine, is what he actually thinks and fears about Russia, and what he is trying to do in Ukraine (greater Russia in his mind) is to stem forces that could grow and spread to destabilize his own government. And here, I think, is one source of his misgivings regarding Western leaders not understanding him. He's not just fighting to extend Russian power, he's fighting Russia itself. He is, after all, Siloviki. Who did they most fear? Who do they devote most of their energies and thoughts fighting? Who do they fear the most? Other Russians. (This struggle he has with Russia itself is by no means all that drives him, but maybe one important aspect of his thinking).

It seems to me that the forces Putin fears are far more benign and manageable in Ukraine than the Russians would like the rest of the world believe, but in Russia, I'm not so sure, especially when the Russians themselves are so ready to believe in their power and reach.

One question for the West, I think, is that even as we support Ukraine, how much credence we should lend to Putin's views of Russia itself and how much support (maybe none) we need to give Putin as he fights to maintain control in Russia. After all, the Czar was not well liked by anyone, but what came after him was far worse.

[JAD_333]

One question for the West, I think, is that even as we support Ukraine, how much credence we should lend to Putin's views of Russia itself and how much support (maybe none) we need to give Putin as he fights to maintain control in Russia. After all, the Czar was not well liked by anyone, but what came after him was far worse.

To the first part of your question, we absolutely have to take into consideration Putin's views of Russia and try as best we can to allay any fears he may have about our designs in Ukraine. On the other hand, I don't expect we will agree with most of his demands.

As to the second part of your question, at this point we're not much disposed to go out of our way to help Putin stay in power. The Crimea will be the bump in the road for a long, long time to come. Putin can help Putin by diversifying his economy, cleaning up corruption and fixing the court system, to name a few things that would meet with the approval of average Russians.

[Minskaya]

MrSecond has been posting all this time to state that there are no differences between the Ukrainian and the Russian peoples and that they are the one and same people.

From my point of view, (European) Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians are indeed the same people. We are all the children of the Kievan Rus Slavic tribes and the Vikings.

The modern peoples of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia all claim Kievan Rus' as their cultural inheritance.

Kievan Rus' - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's going to be damned costly and the damage will not be limited to the Ukraines itself.

This isn't Chechnya. Ukraine is the largest country totally within Europe with 46 million people.

Balls-out Russian warfare against Ukraine? Almost everyone has relatives across either border. But supposing...

There is no doubt in my mind that partisan asymmetrical warfare would indeed transpire within Russia.

Black Widows from the Caucasus would be the least of their problems.