• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How much has Ukraine’s army changed?

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
18,786
Reaction score
5,468
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
When I talked of the Ukrainian Army folding it was case of Russia going full bore. The frontiers are long, very long. Ukraine has a very long border with Belarus. It is not a given that Russia will come in through Belarus, but how can Ukraine be sure? So Ukraine has no choice but to position forces on her border with Ukraine, just in case. The Donbass frontier with Russia is also long. Then Russia has ample forces in Crimea to launch offensives from there as well.

But I dont see Putin doing that. Another Russian leader may, but I dont see Putin doing that. He has so far always appeared to settle for less than he could have obtained with the forces he had. In Georgia Putin could have pushed much further than just the breakaway portions; there was nothing to stop him. In the Donbass he had the Ukrainians on the ropes. It seemed to me like he settled for far less. He didnt have to seize major Ukrainian cities, but he could have pushed his artillery to within range of say Kharkiv. Put Kharkiv within artillery range, not take it.

I will have to leave it to those who have a better grasp of military matters. I was a cub scout as a kid, that is the closest I ever came to a military uniform .:)
In ukraine putin just wanted crimea plus enough stability to prevent them from joining nato, he was fine with just leasing crimea but went to war over threats of it being yanked from russian use.

In georgia that is a completely different scenario, russia was acting as peace keepers in the breakaway regions, the ossettians launched attacks on georgia and lured them to the border, causing georgia to not only hit russian peacekeepers but also have attacks hit russian neighborhoods on the other side of the border. In georgia russia had no plans to just take said regions until georgia attacked them, in ukraine russia had no plans to attack unles something strategic was taken ie crimea or they planned to join nato.


One had to do with trying to play peacekeeper with georgia actually being the agressor, the other was russia being the agressor over land they deemed of the upmost importance that they leased being taken from them by a new ukrainian govt threatening just that.
 
Top Bottom