FILE PHOTO. © Sputnik / Alexander Galperin
New York Times: U.S. Considers Backing an Insurgency in Ukraine
WASHINGTON — For years, U.S. officials have tiptoed around the question of how much military support to provide to Ukraine, for fear of provoking Russia.
Now, in what would be a major turnaround, senior Biden administration officials are warning that the United States could throw its weight behind a Ukrainian insurgency should President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia invade Ukraine.
How the United States, which just exited two decades of war in Afghanistan, might pivot to funding and supporting an insurgency from fighting one is still being worked out.
But even a conversation about how far the United States would go to subvert Russian aims in the event of an invasion has revived the specter of a new Cold War and suddenly made real the prospect of the beginnings of a so-called great power conflict.
In Afghanistan, the United States showed itself to be dismal at fighting insurgencies. But when it comes to funding them, military experts say it is a different ballgame.
Read more ....
US Considers Backing An Insurgency If Russia Invades Ukraine
CIA-trained Ukrainian paramilitaries may take central role if Russia invades -- Yahoo News
CIA-trained special ops could fight Russians in case of Ukrainian invasion – report -- RT
'To Kill Russians'? CIA Reportedly Trained Ukrainian Squads to Launch Anti-Russian Insurgency -- Sputnik
11 comments:
Isn't that how this whole thing started in the first place?
Bad idea, because then we'd have a vested intere$t in how the insurgency performs, which only threatens to draw us even deeper into a conflict. The fact we've already had to train Ukrainian troops (on a much smaller scale) to fight a Russian invasion is itself bad news. Why do they still need training when they've already had a couple decades to prepare? You don't build the sort of military that Ukraine would need to repel a full-scale invasion by training a cross-section of troops for a few weeks or months. Such things take years and only work when the trainees are highly motivated. But again, if the Ukrainians were highly motivated, why would they still need training decades after the fall of the Soviet Union?
Hmm, do I smell another neocon/globalist neverending war? Didn't we just exit one of those? Who the hell is in charge of this clusterfuck waiting to happen? TRUMP IN '24.
the last US-backed insurgency didn't do too well in Syria, especially when the Russian air campaign began
So Trump can do what Putin tells him to do?
this one would be up against far more than a minor deployment of the Russian Air Force
You get what you vote for...Nuland special...
Caecus (Blind Pig),
The US backed people in Syria did not have full support. McCain backed off very fast, when people showed that the group he was touting had a lot of the same morals and ideas as ISIS.
Also consider the US president. Obama might have been a tad bit cagey, when he said he would only send non-lethal aid to Syria, when in reality the CIA was running manpads from Libya to Syria. For all that Obama was piker.
The US bombing campaign started before the Russian campaign. It ramped up significantly when Obama was shamed into supporting the Kurds during the Battle for Kobane. Obama was shamed to do more when the Russians came in. So no it wasn't all due to Russian air campaign.
Obama is more comfortable slap fighting or pillow fighting on the international stage. Obama is only a vicious opponent domestically when his party has the upper hand.
Supporting an insurgency has a a few problems. One it shows that you are conceding already. Another it is not vicious enough. If you are going to go there go all the way. Go ahead and tell the Kremlin that if Russia invades that you would support guerilla war everywhere from the Caucus to the Stans. Further, tell Moscow that you would considering allying with China and back China 's claim to Qing territory now in Russia's hands.
Vladivostok would be Chinese. Also, the whole Amur River basin.
Additionally, the Biden admin is Obama III, so the whole idea of supporting guerillas is risible.
Caecus please transmit to Putin when he tucks you in tonite. And no tongue. We would not want you to get glandular fever and come down with MS.
Ukraine is generally bad territory for an insurgency. Insurgents need a place to hide and terrain like forests and mountains are best. Ukraine is part of the Eurasian Steppe. Less than 20% of the country is forested. Most of that is either in the north near Belarus or in the west (it's only mountains, the Carpathians, are also in the west).
So the best territory for an insurgency is the part of Ukraine that Russia is least likely to invade. If Russia invades, it won't be to occupy all of Ukraine - it's sick of dealing with the Ukrainian nationalists in the western part of the country. It would invade in order to control the eastern and southern regions with the highest percentage of ethnic Russians, the people it thinks who would cause the least amount of problem; or in the hopes of discrediting the government so a more compliant regime can take over.
The most likely intended regions of control would be the entirety of the Donbas, Kharkhov, and a land corridor to Crimea. Putin would probably like to take the entire Black Sea coast to Odessa, but I don't think that'll happen.
Putin would want a short victorious war that would settle the dispute in his favor and lead to a conclusion that sanctions with Russia serves no further purpose. As it stands, a Russian invasion now would lead to a war with uncertain duration, massive western support for Ukraine, even more financial and trade sanctions, and possible one or more countries joining NATO in response.
That would seem to be way too high for the Risk/Reward ration Putin usually demonstrates. But it's possible Putin has fallen into a Thucydidean Trap. He sees Ukraine getting further and further away from his control, and if he does nothing, he may not get what anything that he wants from Ukraine in the long term. So he may feel he has no reason not to throw the dice now while he still has a chance of getting something, rather than nothing.
The Russians are clearly throwing tantrums right now because they aren't getting the response they wanted. But does that mean they are prepared to start a war a result? Or does it mean they can't get the war they wanted and will be looking to do a Plan B?
Part of me really doubts Putin will go to war, though he wants us to think he will in the hopes it causes NATO to abandon Ukraine. But I didn't expect Putin to invade Crimea or attempt annex Novorossiya afterwards. It's a scary time out there.
Chris
USA should defer to a unified NATO response.
What Chris writes is always a good read. Maybe they are a bureaucrat for former one form state, Pentagon or CIA, but so what.
I like the style . It is matter of fact and avoids being alarmist. I look forward to what Chris and James write and a few others.
Tell you one thing. it is better than that disdainful, patronizing, who commented on this site that if you look like a Russian patsy like Trump, bad shit happens. The guy was punchable. He intimated he was a government official of some sort. Five years layer and there is still no proof that Trump did anything wrong. In fact all the evidence points the Democrats and the government did a lot wrong.
Post a Comment