Oopski:
In early 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine. This began with special operations troops, the so-called “little green men” appearing in Crimea and declaring that they were separatists who wanted to free Crimea from Ukrainian rule. This invasion and the subsequent effort (which stalemated) in eastern Ukraine were in response to the February 2014 Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine where a corrupt president was found to have been bribed by Russia to suppress economic and diplomatic links with the EU (European Union) and the West in general. By March 2014 Russian soldiers had seized control of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, which Russia then annexed. During the invasion of Crimea, there was no effective response by the thousands of Ukrainian military personnel stationed there. This caused the Russians to think they might be as successful with this tactic in the two eastern Ukraine provinces that comprise the Donbas industrial region.
In March 2014 Russia found that Donbas was not like Crimea and would not be taken over by some little green men and intimidation of the locals. Donbas had a lot of ethnic Russians but the local Ukrainian Army units were more prepared to resist and they did. This was followed by a major mobilization of the Ukrainian military and development and production of updated Cold War era equipment that were largely built in Ukraine. Russia was not expecting this, nor did they expect so many of the ethnic Russians in the Donbas to favor Ukrainian over Russian rule.
Do read it all.
Early on I figured Russia would be smart to bank the success of their Crimea operation and bask in the glow of a short and glorious war that burnished the reputation of their largely sad armed forces.
I warned that Ukraine had to fight for Ukraine even if the effort was doomed in order to deter Russia from invading the Donbas. In one post I wrote that Putin would stop at Crimea and not move on to the Donbas:
So I'll hazard a guess and say the immediate crisis is over. And if it isn't, I think Russia risks defeat or an ugly victory.
But no, Ukraine didn't fight in Crimea and Putin got greedy and thought he could repeat Crimea in the Donbas with just a little more effort than little green men. My rational was not Putin's rational.
And now Russia remains stuck between defeat and an ugly victory.
Strategypage says the stalemate might be just what Russia wants because it prevents Ukraine from joining NATO under rules that say no state with a territorial dispute with Russia can join NATO. But I thought that rules already prevented a state with a non-NATO base on its territory--which is what Russia had in Crimea before taking it over--from joining NATO.
And would Russia really count on NATO not changing rules to screw over Russia? Are the Russians paranoid about NATO but not that paranoid?
No, I think Putin thought he'd get quick and cheap victories. I bet the Russians wish they'd been satisfied with their short and glorious Crimean war rather than gamble on another such win in the Donbas.
UPDATE: Given that Ukraine is the one invaded by a strongman in 2014 and still hanging on, I wonder if any Russians will start to consider whether the Russians are in fact the baddies this time:
Maybe Ukraine will turn Moscow into occupied rubble by the time this is over. You never know.
UPDATE: Oh, and on lengthy campaigns, the duration of Iraq War 2.0 still bothers me.
