Scenarios of increased Russian incursion into Ukraine

While the Russians take some time to rest and reload in East Ukraine I thought an interesting article on different possible strategies might be entertaining to discuss.

Currently the situation for Russia in Ukraine isn't that good. They have annexed Crimea but have only extremely expensive options to support the population there. Water and electricity delivery to the peninsula is dependent on Ukraine, a big source of leverage for Kiev. Foodstuffs can be delivered via the Kerch ferry for now however a permanent land link will take a few years to build. The reality is that a permanent land bridge to Crimea is needed.

www.stratfor.com...

Enter the infamous Stratfor! They may be all sorts of Evil but they sure are good at military planning...which is what this document does. It goes through various different scenarios for Russia in Ukraine. Needless to say all the future plans are bad for Ukraine. They are:

1. Land Bridge Scenario
Russia grabs up to the Dnieper river just above the Crimea peninsula. This option exposes a long land 'border' between the river and Dontesk creating a difficult to defend territory with poor transportation links internally.



2. Coastal Scenario
Russia grabs the entire coast of the Black Sea away from Ukraine, including Odessa, linking up with Russia's breakaway Republic of Transneistria in Moldova. This option again leaves a massive land boarder with Ukraine. It does provide greater control over the Black Sea, something Russia highly values.



3. Eastern Ukraine Scenario
Russia basically invades all of Ukraine grabbing everything to the East up to the Dnieper river. Kiev becomes a city on Russia's new boarder. This leaves a very easily defendable Eastern boarder with few choke points and bridge crossings to defend.



What do ATS'ers think will be the final result of Russia's incursion into Ukraine???

At first I thought the 'Coastal' scenario was what would happen, however the Stratfor document converted my thinking to all of East Ukraine or status quo. It's a defensible and functional 'republic' for the future. I suspect Russia will reload and manufacture some 'provocation' to grab everything up to the Dniper.

One would expect the Russians will want everything east of the river, plus take much of the coastline including Odessa. This is a historical right for Russia, these regions belong to Moscow in reality. The only thing they won't want is the Nazi population in the west around Lvov, theycan forget that, too much hassle.

Russia is hell bent on having a buffer state around its borders, everyone from the Australians, Swedes, Mongols, Brits, New Zealanders, Germans, Romanians, Koreans, Japanese..........oh I mean literally just about everyone has had a go at invading Russia. Who can blame Moscow for wanting a defence against this?


a reply to: noeltrotsky

I was going to skip this as quite frankly I'm tired of all the Ukraine threads but you bring up and interesting exercise.


Logically option three would be the most militarily sensible choice but Russia doesn't want the headaches of a financially crippled region of Europe. One that offers no real geopolitical benefits other than securing a buffer to to western incursions.

Alternatively securing Transnistria as you/Stratfor pointed doesn't offer the security of having a defensible border with the minor complication of creating a possible second front towards Ukraine and compliocating Black Sea operations.

Truthfully I think securing what is already contested with both a narrow but minimal coastal land bridge along with a causeway or bridge through the straits would be an acceptable alternative to Russia.

Quite frankly I find the whole exercise saddening. Here it is 2015 and we are still playing stupid cold war politics based on hegemonic greed and an obsolete concept of American Imperilaism. I use the term American Imperialism out of convenience not that i think the US as a nation really cares about world domination just certain factions (Plutocrats) in the west in general.

Sadly until this planet is actually capable of acting in a globally responsible way I have to accept that these juvenile squabbles will continue at the cost of lives, fortunes and the environment.

May we all seek enlightenment and create a truly global society free of such divisions.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

I thought over 1,000 nuclear missiles with multiple warheads was enough of a deterrent. Foolish me! Russians also want client states surrounding them.

The coastal scenario reinforces the notion that Russia is to unify their people. However you slice it, no one would be able to deny Russian aggression if any of these options were exercised.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

I think the best bet would be a 4 lane bridge with two rail lines between the M25 (Russia) and the E97 (Crimea). The bridge only has to be about 4km long and high enough for ship passage, I just don't know what the depths are between the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea. That way they have a traffic route that is direct from Moscow on the E115 through Krasnodar (Russia) and ends up in Kersch (Crimea). It provides for two very small land bridges (Chervonyi Chaban/Armyans'k E97/M17 and the E105/M18 or at the north end of the island at Yasna Polyana and blow the second land bridge to the island to the north-west) to be defended in north Crimea, everything else is by sea and you can see that coming easily.

It will cost more more the Russians to capture and defend a wide border than it would to build a bridge.

ETA: The only choke point for the Russians of course would be the "bridge" between Russia and Crimea. If that bridge were taken out, supply lines/physical movement has to be by sea, which could be problematic but not an insurmountable problem. Of course taking out their bridge if they made one would be a good way to start world war 3.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

I thought over 1,000 nuclear missiles with multiple warheads was enough of a deterrent. Foolish me! Russians also want client states surrounding them.

Ukraine belongs to Russia. It will get it back at some point. With Stratfor up against them I'd take everything they can get their hands on asap. Foget the Nazi leaning Baltics plus also Nazi leaning west Ukraine. The rest take it back asap, with Americans encroaching on their borders it's no wonder Moscow is getting trigger happy.

Even good old Henry Kissinger on BBC said last week USA should give up on teasing Russia anymore and stay out of interfering with Ukraine. That's coming from the horses mouth

originally posted by: Kukri
Truthfully I think securing what is already contested with both a narrow but minimal coastal land bridge along with a causeway or bridge through the straits would be an acceptable alternative to Russia.

Glad you added some comments and agree, a land bridge to Crimea is needed in some way. I just wonder if militarily taking the whole of East Ukraine isn't better. The 'creeping' incursions to take a bit more land seem to be headed for huge resistance in the EU/West. It seems a breaking point is coming quickly. Thus I'm thinking grabbing all of East Ukraine might be more plausible than I thought before.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I agree the land bridge option through Kerch would be best as it wouldn't push the international community to apply stronger sanctions. I just get the feeling that the couple years it will take to actually build that might be too long. Ukraine is going to use the leverage it has against Crimea to keep gas flowing from Russia. If Ukraine cuts off the water and electricity people in Crimea are going to suffer terribly. It's a massive problem. So big I think Russia will solve it with military action.

I could be wrong of course! Not the first time, not the last!

I would not be surprised if Russia tries to take all of Ukraine and then moves on to other adjacent countries like Lithuania and Latvia, but will probably use countries like Poland as bufferzones after using espionage/propaganda to get them into their realm of influence.

originally posted by: johnnyjoe1979
I would not be surprised if Russia tries to take all of Ukraine and then moves on to other adjacent countries like Lithuania and Latvia, but will probably use countries like Poland as bufferzones after using espionage/propaganda to get them into their realm of influence.

Yes a move into Poland. Anyone who's been on a night out in Krakow will know Russia is already in control of the night life

originally posted by: Pants3204
The coastal scenario reinforces the notion that Russia is to unify their people. However you slice it, no one would be able to deny Russian aggression if any of these options were exercised.

Then I guess nobody can deny US aggression almost everywhere else, right? The same thing can't be wrong for Russia and right for the US.

Cheers - Dave

I would expect Russia to make the Putin move and not take any of the options in the OP . With some patience and ingenuity I suspect that the present Ukraine Govt . will fail and there will be no one to bail them out of the economic situation except with Russian help and corporation .Just like Russia sold Alaska to the US.the US may decide to sell the Eastern part of Ukraine to Russia .Problem solved :>)

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Pants3204
The coastal scenario reinforces the notion that Russia is to unify their people. However you slice it, no one would be able to deny Russian aggression if any of these options were exercised.

Then I guess nobody can deny US aggression almost everywhere else, right? The same thing can't be wrong for Russia and right for the US.

Cheers - Dave

Permanent acquisition of sovereign territories is not the same thing as the US' temporary incursions elsewhere. The US has no ambitions of expanding its borders. That isn't to say they are justified or morally right, but they are different things.

originally posted by: Pants3204

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Pants3204
The coastal scenario reinforces the notion that Russia is to unify their people. However you slice it, no one would be able to deny Russian aggression if any of these options were exercised.

Then I guess nobody can deny US aggression almost everywhere else, right? The same thing can't be wrong for Russia and right for the US.

Cheers - Dave

Permanent acquisition of sovereign territories is not the same thing as the US' temporary incursions elsewhere. The US has no ambitions of expanding its borders. That isn't to say they are justified or morally right, but they are different things.

America is not being surrounded by Russian and Chinese military bases on its borders is it? You do know USA is encircling Russia with bases and NATO EU partnerships don't you? USA has been the aggressor for 25 years post supposed end of Cold War. Now, at last, Russia kicks back and they've got every single right to do so. America is a very big aggressive machine that doesn't seem capable of being restrained. Just makes a change to see it pushing for war against people who don't have yellow or brown faces - for a change

Rememebr this word........... STRATFOR.

That is the issue when it comes to people being killed in Eastern Europe. Everything worked pretty well in an Eastern European way until that lot got involved

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
Ukraine belongs to Russia.

With people like you, is it no wonder Ukraine wants to join the West!

Besides, surely Russia belongs to Ukraine.

Kaliningrad belongs to Germany or Poland.

... and so on.

Fact is Ukraine is a sovereign nation and belongs to itself. Fantasists and Nazi's may think differently, but that's life.