A more aggresive Russia

[shai]

Before I begin: this is a thread about ongoing events, things may have changed since the last time I checked.

In february 2014, Russian troops conquered Crimean peninsula, and pro-Russian protests started all over east Ukraine, leading to an armed conflict between the Ukrainian government to the DPR (Donetsk People's Republic) and the LPR (Luhansk People's Republic), supported by Russia.

A lot of people fled (almost 1 M) and many people (civilians and soldiers) died, and by the beginning of 2015 a large ceasefire took place, and the "war in Donbass" is stopping.

I wonder what could have happened if Russia have helped even more to the DPR and the LPR or even attacked Ukraine itself, leading to a many more casualties and a hardcore war in east Ukraine, maybe even an intervention of western countries, like the UK, the US and Germany.

What do you think would have happened if Russia was way more aggressive in Ukraine? would it cause a large war between Russia to western countries, or it would change the political status in east Ukraine?

 

[trurle]

The war with Ukraine was expected (and been prepared) long ago. I heard a persistent rumours about preparations to war with Ukraine among Russian officers back in 2006.
People were saying "First we will be sent to Georgia, next to Ukraine, and after that into some foreign asshole".

Therefore, the result will be likely full submission of Ukraine to Russian rule. If one party act according to long-term plan and other is improvising, improvising party is in the great disadvantage.

 

[Bakenellan]

Most likely after some initial success Russians are boggled down somewhere near Kiev. They have no experience of large scale military operations and personally I don't believe current Russian Army is up to the task of occupying the whole Ukraine.

There would not be open military confrontation with the west, not initially anyway. But full scale international isolation would take an effect. Open aggression would also seriously scare even normally friendly neighbors like Kazakhstan and even Belarus. As soon as local resistance (and there would be a real resistance in the west Ukraine) takes momentum it would be supplied from the west openly or not depending on how strong Russia would use the nuclear threat.

Then collapse of Russia due to economical and political difficulties or degeneration in some kind of giant North Korea if somehow held together internally.

 

[shai]

They have no experience of large scale military operations

I'm not very familiar with the Russian army, but I think that the Russian army is strong, strong enough to fight in many places at the same time.

BTW, Would you define attacking Syria as a large scale military operation?

personally I don't believe current Russian Army is up to the task of occupying the whole Ukraine.

I agree, and in a case of Russian occupy it'll probably be only the southern areas on the black sea coastline.

 

[Bakenellan]

I'm not very familiar with the Russian army, but I think that the Russian army is strong, strong enough to fight in many places at the same time.

Except it probably can't at least with similar degree of success. Of course it is just my impression and I could be wrong. But Syrian operation had began after things lulled down in Donbass. Attack on Georgia in 2008 happened when Chechnya was more or less pacified for several years. And Russians promptly withdrew (Abkhasia and Ossetiya excluding, but Georgians did't control them before anyway)
Right now there are some alarm expressed over recent successes of IS vs Taliban in Afghanistan which can bring Russian troops which still guard Tadzhik border in contact with IS.

What originally made me think about actual capabilities of Russian army vs. it perceived threat is when in spring 2014 Russian Duma first had given to Putin the right to order troop on foreign territory and then cancelled the permission. While a lot of things happened between, among them were large scale military maneuvers - some hundred thousand troops. There were some hints - though nothing went official - that the results weren't that great. That's a conjecture, admittedly. What is not a conjecture is the recent announcement of Russian Ministry of Defense that army is currently equipped on 55%. They meant modern equipment, but still...

BTW, Would you define attacking Syria as a large scale military operation?

No. Large scale in my definition is the 2003 Iraq war. I hesitate to point to this as times and circumstances are very different.
Admittedly Russians would have met far less capable resistance in Ukraine, but the scale should be similar for any hope of swift success.

Russia seems to concentrate almost all it's airforce capable of flying (though there may be also limiting factor of how much it can effectively supply) on Syria. But there are no troops deployed beyond airbase guards. There seems to be an artillery unit though... Anyway results are far from impressive military speaking.

I agree, and in a case of Russian occupy it'll probably be only the southern areas on the black sea coastline.

That would be most reasonable course, but unless someone (US/UN/China/Martians) forces both side to cease fire including sending any diversional war groups, Russians could not afford to give Ukrainians time and territory to regroup, rearm and strike back. I don't think Ukrainans would accept the loss of so much territory. Even if they would not have military capability left, there are also small group action chechen style. And Ukraine is much larger.