2014 Ukrainian Maidan Revolt: News, Views, Photos & Videos

Status
Not open for further replies.

nicky

Junior Member
I really appreciate an act of honor: MoD Admiral Tenukh resigned voluntarily over Crimea crisis these days.
But, he already did resign for political reasons in 2005 and 2010?!
And the only ship this three star admiral ever sailed twenty five years ago was a mine-sweeper?!
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Well, their largest surface combatant is that frigate I showed earlier. And they only have the one, though they are building another. We know the large frigate was on exercises and returned to Odessa.

Their main Naval base was there near the Russian one at Sevastapol. So, unless vessels got out of there, or happened to be away like the frigate, they are probably in Russian hands now. How many Russia will allow to return to the Ukraine is questionable...but my guess will be not many.

The Ukraine was in the process of building a new, modern Frigate, a type 58250 frigate that was supposed to be launched this year. It would be interesting to know its status. It was to be a modern western design with 8 Exocet missiles, Aster 15 SAMs, and an Oto Malera 76mm gun.

When the Soviet Union fell, a lot of Soviet military hardware fell into Ukrainian hands which is what makes up the vast majority of the Ukraine fleet to this day...and so I am sure that the Russians, to a certain extent, are believing they are getting back what used to be theirs anyway...even if it was over 20 years ago.

Even then, after the fall, the Ukraine Navy was never very large in any case.

1 x Krivak II Frigate (U130)
2 x Grisha V Corvettes (U205, U209)
2 x Tarantula II Corvettes (155, U156)
1 x Grisha II corvette (U206)
2 x Pauk I Corvettes (207, U208)
1 x Zhuk class corvette (U120)

That's the extent of the surface combatants they had.

They also had one Foxtrot class diesel sub, five small mine counter measures vessels, one LST, two LSMs, and one remaining Zubr hovercraft. A few small harbor patrol boats and then their auxiliaries.

How many of those made it away to Odessa, I do not know.


Jeff I believe that only remaining Foxtrot class diesel submarine has been seized and became a part of the Russian Black Sea fleet with half of the crew and commander left it, while the other half of the crew was ready to serve Russia.


Russian-Black-Fleet-Seizes-Ukrainian-Submarine.jpg


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
I have to go work so I must be quick (maybe there'll be typos etc. in what follows) but that's very interesting what I just read: Allegedly the Russians in the Crimea adopted the ideas of, well, Eugene Messner (Евгений Эдуардович Месснер) who was an enemy of the USSR but listen (there's a Wikipedia article only in Polish, gives links to Russian sources; I just quickly skimmed them): He was born in 1891 in Odessa; fought in the WWI; joined the White movement in 1917, in the rank of colonel (in Wrangler's group) was evacuated from ... Crimea in 1920; went to Kingdom of Yugoslavia. He lived in Belgrade during the WWII and mixed up with the Germans, so he left for Argentina, where he died in 1971. The books he wrote in Argentina allegedly contain the description of: global terrorism; insurrections; uprisings in the future. He claimed the future war(s) will be "of a rebellion type" ... he stressed PSYWAR and its importance for the future. Just check the names of the books:
"Мятеж – имя Третьей Всемирной" (1960) (my translation: "The Name of the WWIII: The Rebelion")
"Всемирная Мятежевойна" (1971) ("Mutinous World War")

Well, until today, I haven't heard of him. But I'm sure the Russian military did ...
 

delft

Brigadier
Jeff I believe that only remaining Foxtrot class diesel submarine has been seized and became a part of the Russian Black Sea fleet with half of the crew and commander left it, while the other half of the crew was ready to serve Russia.
I would be surprised if this old boat will ever serve in the Russian navy.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I take a completely different tact.

The Ukrainian military in Crimea was never ordered to resist with deadly force. To do so would have been a fatal error for them, and probably for the Ukraine. Theyre was no way for them to wrest control from the much more powerful Russians, and it would have invited a true war with Russian forces which would have been used as a pretext for Russia to go further into the rest of Ukraine.

I believe the soldiers in the Crimea were under very specific ROEs to not engage in or start any major firefight with the Russian military. The Ukraine wants to avoid the trap Georgia fell into when they started fighting with the Russians, which invited an invasion of Gerorgia proper by Russian forces. The Ukraine wants to avoid this if they can.

I am sure if Russia invades the Ukraine proper in an effort to take Kiev, that the Ukrainian military would fight. But I believe they are trying to avoid a wider conflict and annexation if they can.

My understanding is that the vast majority of forces in the Crimea are being pulled out statrting today, returning to the Ulkraine. While there have been some defections, there have not been that many, and some of those claimed by Russia turned out, appraently, to be false.

If Ukrainian policy is indeed as you describe, then I have to say that I find it hugely problematic and deeply counter productive.

Leaving aside views and opinions regarding the preceding period, we have a relatively young state that has just undergone a revolution. For a state at this point and a government of this type, nothing is more important than to be able to prove its worth and legitimacy. For many other nations, this legitimacy is forged in the crucible of crisis and conflict and the ability to rally the populace from across the spectrum to support and fight for the new flag.
I did raise the example of the Alamo in a recent post and I have no doubt that you do not need me to tell you about the significance and consequence of that action.

We have two broad explanations for the lack of resistance in the Crimea and neither are good for the new regime.

1) The Military will not fight for the new regime against an army most in the service view as old and eternal allies. This would be a critical disconnect with a range of potentially fatal consequences for the new regime.

2) Orders not to fight. The last order that should be issued at a time when rallying is the critical factor in maintaining national unity and cohesion. A Governments first duty must be its commitment to its territorial integrity and its citizens that dwell within it. A failure to be prepared to fight is a capital abdication of responsibility and a serious failure in proving legitimacy.

The consequences of not ordering a fight will be:
Military morale fallen through the floor, probably beyond redemption for the foreseeable future.
A total failure to show leadership to which people can rally. This does nothing to persuade Citizens in the Eastern Regions to put away their Russian flags and start waving Ukrainian ones instead.
Total alienation of International support, Political and Popular, because at the end of the day, if the Ukrainians are not prepared to stand up for themselves, why on Earth should anyone else do it for them?
The ultimate consequence of course, of such a policy is that it does nothing to dissuade Russia from taking further bites as the lack of resistance and the large Russian flag waving crowds in the East are as good a "Welcome" mat as any state is ever going to be offered.

So which one is it?

If option 1, the result in the Crimea is a major policy failure and the blame lies with the Minister of Defence. If Option 2 then the policy has worked and all the new Government should be taking the "credit" for it.

In reality of course even the Kiev media is talking about "the disconnect" and the Defence Minister has resigned.

It is also becoming clear that there have been significant defections from the Ukrainian garrison in the Crimea to the Russians or simply resigning altogether. It is difficult to be too precise as to the main factors driving this as virtually every source is quoting a different figure for the garrison strength and the defection rate. It does seem however that the Garrison was between 20,000 and 30,000 strong and that at least 50% have defected. To understand what this means exactly will depend on how many of the defectors were actually native to the Crimea. We also need to know how many native Crimean's have not defected and how many none Crimeans have.
Without a doubt though, we can but only assume that should Russia move into other Eastern Regions, that many Ukrainian military personnel native to these regions, will probably switch as well.
 

Rutim

Banned Idiot
lol, Sampan, you're easy to pick up a fight.

Standing 1000+ miles away ;)

Why they didn't fight? First of all I'm not sure Kiev trusted garrisons there from the start. And it looks now that they were 101% right.

Why they haven't fight when Russians took over their ships? most likely because they are more or less sure they'll be returned to Ukraine once the relations between both countries will 'normalise'. I know for some of you here it might look awful but after all there's no war between Russia and Ukraine and any action would end in probably heavy loss of lives on both sides. It might might be the best way out of the situation they're in at the moment. It's not like Ukrainian ships didn't want to break through the Russian blockade of Sevastopol's naval base - they tried but couldn't do much there.
 

delft

Brigadier
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

US, Russia to de-escalate on Ukraine

The G7 countries — United States, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan — have decided that the G8 format will remain in a state of suspense and they will keep Russia outside the tent and looking in wistfully unless and until it behaved nicely. This is one major element in the Hague Declaration, which strongly condemned Russia for its annexation of Crimea and warned that there would be “significant consequences”.

The Hague Declaration signaled that there will be intensified actions including “coordinated sectoral actions” aimed at the Russian economy if Moscow “continues to escalate this situation.”
The operative part of the declaration calls on Russia to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, enter into discussions with Kiev and avail of “international mediation and monitoring to address any legitimate concerns.”
Moscow would be heaving a sigh of relief that the G7’s stress is on a diplomatic solution and not on threatening Russia with fire and brimstone. The Hague Declaration even welcomed Russia’s acceptance of a Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe [OSCE].
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, even as G7 was meeting at the Hague, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held his first meeting with the acting Ukraine Foreign Minister Andriy Deshchytsia. Lavrov flagged that he held the meeting on President Vladimir Putin’s instructions.
Lavrov also met US secretary of state John Kerry. The Russian account of the two meetings are notably lacking in any polemics. The accent is on dialogue.
Meanwhile in Moscow, the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stressed Russia’s continued interest in the G8 format “at all levels, including the highest level.” Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has stepped in to raise the comfort level of the Western companies operating in Russia in times of sanctions.
Clearly, Moscow has begun piping down and the noisy phase of grandstanding and ‘macho diplomacy’ seems to be getting over as realization dawns, finally, that the ’smart sanctions’ chosen by President Barack Obama can bite.
Indeed, no matter the brave face put on it, the exclusion from the Western clubs will leave psychological scars on the Moscow elites for whom a ‘pivot’ to Asia is not exactly Russia’s manifest destiny as a big power.
Does this mean that the West has accepted Crimea annexation saga as a closed chapter? At a lengthy media briefing at The Hague on Tuesday, the US deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes (who is accompanying President Barack Obama) said, “outcomes that we’re seeking in the coming days are a continued unified front [with allies] in terms of our ability to impose sanctions and to go further as necessary; continued support for our Eastern European NATO allies to reassure them of our commitment to their security; and also, importantly, robust economic assistance from the IMF [for Ukraine].”
Rhodes said the bottom line is that Russia should deescalate the situation, including in Crimea. He was dismissive of a ‘new cold war’ for the plain reason that “Russia is leading no bloc of nations like the Warsaw Pact”; Russia is no “ideological entity” that elicits global appeal; and, Russia is pretty much isolated on the Crimea issue.
Most important, Rhodes held out an exit route for Moscow. He said Russia could enter into a dialogue with Kiev on constitutional reform and “as a part of that, they could look at autonomy for regions like Crimea. They can look at different solutions to provide an assurance that people in different regions and people of different ethnicities are being protected.”
Rhodes summed up what Russia needs to do: “Deescalate the situation; put it back onto political and diplomatic track; pull back your forces; engage in a discussion directly with the government in Kyiv.” He said Russian leadership “needs to see that ultimately this is leading into a dead-end for them of greater economic pain, of greater international isolation.”
Rhodes brushed aside the possibility that Russia may play the role of a spoiler in Syria or Iran. He said on Syria, Russia is already non-cooperative while on Iran, he didn’t see it logical that Tehran will see it in its own interests to conspire with Moscow to scuttle a nuclear deal that is in the making, which it is keen on realizing.
All in all, what has strengthened Obama’s hands immeasurably would be the Chinese stance. Obama had a good discussion regarding Ukraine with Chinese president Xi Jinping. Edward Snowden’s valiant attempt to put a spoke in the wheel of the Obama-Xi meeting apparently didn’t work, considering the relaxed tone of the public remarks by the two leaders.
According to a Xinhua report, Xi said China is taking a “just and objective” stance on Ukraine and is supportive of the initiatives by the international community to seek a diplomatic and political solution.
Rhodes further disclosed that Xi “did affirm again that the principle of the independence and sovereignty of nations was fundamental to their approach and that they did want to see a de-escalation and a political resolution to the conflict.”
Rhodes added, “we would find it as a constructive step for them [China] to continue to refrain from supporting Russia’s action, and to speaking out for the principle of the rule of law, international law, and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Doing so, I think, further isolates Russia on the international stage… we’re going to continue to work with them to try to deescalate the situation.”
Rhodes explained the raison d’etre of the Chinese stance: “China, as they speak to their own national security interests, has always put front and center this notion of sovereignty and territorial integrity when you look at different regions of China, like Tibet. And so it’s very much in their interests to stand up for the notion that a nation should make decisions about its own future and not have external actors come in and make these decisions for them. And that’s the conversation we’ll continue to have with China going forward.” Transcript of Rhode’s briefing is here.
It stands to reason that Lavrov at his meeting yesterday with Kerry kickstarted the ‘deescalation’ process expected from Russia. He revealed that he had useful exchanges with Kerry regarding Ukraine’s constitutional reform.
Lavrov also seems to have held out private assurances from the Kremlin regarding future Russian intentions, Most interestingly, deviating from the stated US-NATO position that Russia’s deployments on the Ukraine border are a matter of extreme concern and worry, Obama has since added the caveat that while Russia should eschew any “intimidation attempt”, at the same time, “it has every right to station military units on its territory.”
Also, according to the latest indications, a crackdown on Ukrainian ultra-nationalists by the Kiev authorities, presumably under US advice, has begun. In particular, the killing of Olexander Muzychko, the wanted militant involved in terrorist acts in Chechnya, could have been a joint Russian-US-Ukrainian intelligence operation. From Moscow’s perspective, arguably, this becomes an important ‘confidence-building measure’ by Kiev and Washington in the ‘deescalation’ process.
Do not be surprised if the G8 summit is rescheduled. Everything depends on Putin’s resolve to ‘deescalate’. The G8 is the only forum bringing the West and Russia together. Peskov, notably, said yesterday at a Kremlin briefing that Moscow has not received any formal intimations yet of a G7 ‘boycott’ of the G8 summit in Sochi in June — or of the meetings of ’sherpas’.
No matter the Kremlin’s grandstanding, peering down the Ukrainian abyss — spectre of a ‘failed state’ in the heart of Europe — Putin (or Obama) couldn’t exactly be having a pleasant feeling about what lies ahead. The point is, Moscow did not optimally explore its diplomatic options on Ukraine before resorting to coercion in a characteristically native Russian reflex while acting under pressure, and, hopefully, this will be dawning on a ‘realist’ like Putin, who has never been in any serious doubt that Russia’s destiny lies with Europe.
Especially interesting:
Also, according to the latest indications, a crackdown on Ukrainian ultra-nationalists by the Kiev authorities, presumably under US advice, has begun. In particular, the killing of Olexander Muzychko, the wanted militant involved in terrorist acts in Chechnya, could have been a joint Russian-US-Ukrainian intelligence operation. From Moscow’s perspective, arguably, this becomes an important ‘confidence-building measure’ by Kiev and Washington in the ‘deescalation’ process.
There is more to talk about such as a new association agreement with the EU without a military paragraph and doing no damage to the trade between Ukraine and Russia. One that gives more advantage to Ukraine and less to the EU. Also the gas supply to Ukraine, return of the naval vessels. Ukraine and Russia have a lot of matters on which they can cooperate.
The main matters for Russia are the Sevastopol naval base and the military neutrality of Ukraine. Besides the outcome of the referendum on the Crimea cannot be ignored.
 

Kurt

Junior Member
The death of Alexander Musytschko highlights the dark side of the Ukrainian revolution.
Alexander Musytschko was a blood-and-honour nationalist, leading the group called "Viking"(a very Aryan name with all racial supremacy implications) that fought in the First Chechen War. After the current Ukrainian revolution, he set up shop in Western Ukraine and exercised power, despite only having received 1%of the votes in previous elections. He seems to have been liquidated after a violent encounter with police special forces.
This is one of the problems, the right wing fights the ultra right wing after Maydan and there's little respect for democratic niceties.

Helmut Schmidt, the great elder statesmen of Germany has expressed, what most Germans agree on, that economic sanctions are nonsense and that you can't just blame Russia. And according to him, Merkel is doing excellent work with her cautionary course. Plus, the G8 was not of much value and the G20 is much more important.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The USA more or less offloaded that problem on Europe - Europe can't do a thing without Germany - most Germans think the sanctions are stupid and that Ukraine is a basket full of permanent troubles - Merkel tends to listen closely to important expressions of public opinion that influence her reelection.
All in all, forget the sanctions and wait for the stabilization of the situation via lots of EU money. As a sidenote, the agreement between EU and Ukraine gets a remake in Ukraine's favour. If Ukraine runs out of hand with all the derogatory rhetoric, than Russia is likely to invade and take over without firing much of a shot.
 

solarz

Brigadier
lol, Sampan, you're easy to pick up a fight.

Standing 1000+ miles away ;)

Why they didn't fight? First of all I'm not sure Kiev trusted garrisons there from the start. And it looks now that they were 101% right.

Why they haven't fight when Russians took over their ships? most likely because they are more or less sure they'll be returned to Ukraine once the relations between both countries will 'normalise'. I know for some of you here it might look awful but after all there's no war between Russia and Ukraine and any action would end in probably heavy loss of lives on both sides. It might might be the best way out of the situation they're in at the moment. It's not like Ukrainian ships didn't want to break through the Russian blockade of Sevastopol's naval base - they tried but couldn't do much there.

You're missing the point. The fact that the Ukrainian garrison in the Crimea was either unable or unwilling to defend the sovereignty of their nation is a pretty strong indication of the lack of legitimacy of the current Ukrainian administration.
 

Rutim

Banned Idiot
You're missing the point. The fact that the Ukrainian garrison in the Crimea was either unable or unwilling to defend the sovereignty of their nation is a pretty strong indication of the lack of legitimacy of the current Ukrainian administration.
When the war was declared so that you can say they 'didn't defend'? Because from what I've heard Ukrainian bases weren't open for Russians from day one...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top