You would have to be living on a desert island not to have heard that Russia annexed the provinces of Ukraine that it (partially) occupied during their current invasion. Equally known is that they have mobilized 300K (or whatever the real number is) men into the military, at least some (maybe more than some) of whom have no military experience and many of whom may not have received a full compliment of their gear.
The current story is that this rag-tag army is going to be used as ground lubricant as they march, unarmed, into the waiting Ukrainian guns.
So, the following is just my current opinion of whatâs happening.
Putin has âestablishedâ (with possession being 9/10th of the law, despite contrary opinions) that the four provinces in question now constitute part of the Russian Federation and have the same full protection from military attack that every other part of the country has.
He has precedents that NATO, et al, is more afraid of starting another world war than of losing territories back to Russia from former Soviet states (based on South Ossetia and Crimea).
He has also shown a willingness to retaliate against attacks against âRussian soilâ (including those against Crimean bases) by poking holes in building in the cities of Ukraine (such as Odessa) which are not in the battle zone, but seem, so far, to have avoided firing directly at Kiev.
So what is the purpose of the 300K recruits (probably less than 10% of what a âfullâ wartime mobilization could produce)? Other than being a numeric âequalizerâ, they provide the equivalents of hostages. While Russia would be free to take, not only pot-shots into Ukrainian cities if their new states were attacked, but far heavier responses as well - say, strategic heavy bombers dropping conventional weapons on Kiev and Odessa. Any direct response by NATO members would risk splatting some of those humble souls and escalating the conflict.
The current Russian party line is that Russia is not just fighting Ukraine, but actually fighting the NATO nations who are supplying Ukraine with modern weaponry. That said, if Russia were to directly attack any member of NATO, they would be the first to cross the line and be termed the aggressor. On the other hand, if NATO were to come to the direct assistance of a Ukraine which was having the snot bombed out of it and assault these poor slobs in land that Russia (but few others) considers its own, that would constitute their being the aggressor.
While who started things might not sound important, it actually does matter (say, to China, India, Turkey et al) as it indicates who was willing to go âall inâ and put the existence of the world on the pile of bets.
Jeff
