2014 Ukrainian Maidan Revolt: News, Views, Photos & Videos

Jeff Head said:

Well, their largest surface combatant is that frigate I showed earlier. And they only have the one, though they are building another. We know the large frigate was on exercises and returned to Odessa.

Their main Naval base was there near the Russian one at Sevastapol. So, unless vessels got out of there, or happened to be away like the frigate, they are probably in Russian hands now. How many Russia will allow to return to the Ukraine is questionable...but my guess will be not many.

The Ukraine was in the process of building a new, modern Frigate, a type 58250 frigate that was supposed to be launched this year. It would be interesting to know its status. It was to be a modern western design with 8 Exocet missiles, Aster 15 SAMs, and an Oto Malera 76mm gun.

When the Soviet Union fell, a lot of Soviet military hardware fell into Ukrainian hands which is what makes up the vast majority of the Ukraine fleet to this day...and so I am sure that the Russians, to a certain extent, are believing they are getting back what used to be theirs anyway...even if it was over 20 years ago.

Even then, after the fall, the Ukraine Navy was never very large in any case.

1 x Krivak II Frigate (U130)
2 x Grisha V Corvettes (U205, U209)
2 x Tarantula II Corvettes (155, U156)
1 x Grisha II corvette (U206)
2 x Pauk I Corvettes (207, U208)
1 x Zhuk class corvette (U120)

That's the extent of the surface combatants they had.

They also had one Foxtrot class diesel sub, five small mine counter measures vessels, one LST, two LSMs, and one remaining Zubr hovercraft. A few small harbor patrol boats and then their auxiliaries.

How many of those made it away to Odessa, I do not know.

Click to expand...

Equation said:

Jeff I believe that only remaining Foxtrot class diesel submarine has been seized and became a part of the Russian Black Sea fleet with half of the crew and commander left it, while the other half of the crew was ready to serve Russia.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

I take a completely different tact.

The Ukrainian military in Crimea was never ordered to resist with deadly force. To do so would have been a fatal error for them, and probably for the Ukraine. Theyre was no way for them to wrest control from the much more powerful Russians, and it would have invited a true war with Russian forces which would have been used as a pretext for Russia to go further into the rest of Ukraine.

I believe the soldiers in the Crimea were under very specific ROEs to not engage in or start any major firefight with the Russian military. The Ukraine wants to avoid the trap Georgia fell into when they started fighting with the Russians, which invited an invasion of Gerorgia proper by Russian forces. The Ukraine wants to avoid this if they can.

I am sure if Russia invades the Ukraine proper in an effort to take Kiev, that the Ukrainian military would fight. But I believe they are trying to avoid a wider conflict and annexation if they can.

My understanding is that the vast majority of forces in the Crimea are being pulled out statrting today, returning to the Ulkraine. While there have been some defections, there have not been that many, and some of those claimed by Russia turned out, appraently, to be false.

Click to expand...

US, Russia to de-escalate on Ukraine

The G7 countries — United States, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan — have decided that the G8 format will remain in a state of suspense and they will keep Russia outside the tent and looking in wistfully unless and until it behaved nicely. This is one major element in the Hague Declaration, which strongly condemned Russia for its annexation of Crimea and warned that there would be “significant consequences”.

The Hague Declaration signaled that there will be intensified actions including “coordinated sectoral actions” aimed at the Russian economy if Moscow “continues to escalate this situation.”
The operative part of the declaration calls on Russia to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, enter into discussions with Kiev and avail of “international mediation and monitoring to address any legitimate concerns.”
Moscow would be heaving a sigh of relief that the G7’s stress is on a diplomatic solution and not on threatening Russia with fire and brimstone. The Hague Declaration even welcomed Russia’s acceptance of a Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe [OSCE].
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, even as G7 was meeting at the Hague, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held his first meeting with the acting Ukraine Foreign Minister Andriy Deshchytsia. Lavrov flagged that he held the meeting on President Vladimir Putin’s instructions.
Lavrov also met US secretary of state John Kerry. The Russian account of the two meetings are notably lacking in any polemics. The accent is on dialogue.
Meanwhile in Moscow, the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stressed Russia’s continued interest in the G8 format “at all levels, including the highest level.” Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has stepped in to raise the comfort level of the Western companies operating in Russia in times of sanctions.
Clearly, Moscow has begun piping down and the noisy phase of grandstanding and ‘macho diplomacy’ seems to be getting over as realization dawns, finally, that the ’smart sanctions’ chosen by President Barack Obama can bite.
Indeed, no matter the brave face put on it, the exclusion from the Western clubs will leave psychological scars on the Moscow elites for whom a ‘pivot’ to Asia is not exactly Russia’s manifest destiny as a big power.
Does this mean that the West has accepted Crimea annexation saga as a closed chapter? At a lengthy media briefing at The Hague on Tuesday, the US deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes (who is accompanying President Barack Obama) said, “outcomes that we’re seeking in the coming days are a continued unified front [with allies] in terms of our ability to impose sanctions and to go further as necessary; continued support for our Eastern European NATO allies to reassure them of our commitment to their security; and also, importantly, robust economic assistance from the IMF [for Ukraine].”
Rhodes said the bottom line is that Russia should deescalate the situation, including in Crimea. He was dismissive of a ‘new cold war’ for the plain reason that “Russia is leading no bloc of nations like the Warsaw Pact”; Russia is no “ideological entity” that elicits global appeal; and, Russia is pretty much isolated on the Crimea issue.
Most important, Rhodes held out an exit route for Moscow. He said Russia could enter into a dialogue with Kiev on constitutional reform and “as a part of that, they could look at autonomy for regions like Crimea. They can look at different solutions to provide an assurance that people in different regions and people of different ethnicities are being protected.”
Rhodes summed up what Russia needs to do: “Deescalate the situation; put it back onto political and diplomatic track; pull back your forces; engage in a discussion directly with the government in Kyiv.” He said Russian leadership “needs to see that ultimately this is leading into a dead-end for them of greater economic pain, of greater international isolation.”
Rhodes brushed aside the possibility that Russia may play the role of a spoiler in Syria or Iran. He said on Syria, Russia is already non-cooperative while on Iran, he didn’t see it logical that Tehran will see it in its own interests to conspire with Moscow to scuttle a nuclear deal that is in the making, which it is keen on realizing.
All in all, what has strengthened Obama’s hands immeasurably would be the Chinese stance. Obama had a good discussion regarding Ukraine with Chinese president Xi Jinping. Edward Snowden’s valiant attempt to put a spoke in the wheel of the Obama-Xi meeting apparently didn’t work, considering the relaxed tone of the public remarks by the two leaders.
According to a Xinhua report, Xi said China is taking a “just and objective” stance on Ukraine and is supportive of the initiatives by the international community to seek a diplomatic and political solution.
Rhodes further disclosed that Xi “did affirm again that the principle of the independence and sovereignty of nations was fundamental to their approach and that they did want to see a de-escalation and a political resolution to the conflict.”
Rhodes added, “we would find it as a constructive step for them [China] to continue to refrain from supporting Russia’s action, and to speaking out for the principle of the rule of law, international law, and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Doing so, I think, further isolates Russia on the international stage… we’re going to continue to work with them to try to deescalate the situation.”
Rhodes explained the raison d’etre of the Chinese stance: “China, as they speak to their own national security interests, has always put front and center this notion of sovereignty and territorial integrity when you look at different regions of China, like Tibet. And so it’s very much in their interests to stand up for the notion that a nation should make decisions about its own future and not have external actors come in and make these decisions for them. And that’s the conversation we’ll continue to have with China going forward.” Transcript of Rhode’s briefing is here.
It stands to reason that Lavrov at his meeting yesterday with Kerry kickstarted the ‘deescalation’ process expected from Russia. He revealed that he had useful exchanges with Kerry regarding Ukraine’s constitutional reform.
Lavrov also seems to have held out private assurances from the Kremlin regarding future Russian intentions, Most interestingly, deviating from the stated US-NATO position that Russia’s deployments on the Ukraine border are a matter of extreme concern and worry, Obama has since added the caveat that while Russia should eschew any “intimidation attempt”, at the same time, “it has every right to station military units on its territory.”
Also, according to the latest indications, a crackdown on Ukrainian ultra-nationalists by the Kiev authorities, presumably under US advice, has begun. In particular, the killing of Olexander Muzychko, the wanted militant involved in terrorist acts in Chechnya, could have been a joint Russian-US-Ukrainian intelligence operation. From Moscow’s perspective, arguably, this becomes an important ‘confidence-building measure’ by Kiev and Washington in the ‘deescalation’ process.
Do not be surprised if the G8 summit is rescheduled. Everything depends on Putin’s resolve to ‘deescalate’. The G8 is the only forum bringing the West and Russia together. Peskov, notably, said yesterday at a Kremlin briefing that Moscow has not received any formal intimations yet of a G7 ‘boycott’ of the G8 summit in Sochi in June — or of the meetings of ’sherpas’.
No matter the Kremlin’s grandstanding, peering down the Ukrainian abyss — spectre of a ‘failed state’ in the heart of Europe — Putin (or Obama) couldn’t exactly be having a pleasant feeling about what lies ahead. The point is, Moscow did not optimally explore its diplomatic options on Ukraine before resorting to coercion in a characteristically native Russian reflex while acting under pressure, and, hopefully, this will be dawning on a ‘realist’ like Putin, who has never been in any serious doubt that Russia’s destiny lies with Europe.

Click to expand...

Also, according to the latest indications, a crackdown on Ukrainian ultra-nationalists by the Kiev authorities, presumably under US advice, has begun. In particular, the killing of Olexander Muzychko, the wanted militant involved in terrorist acts in Chechnya, could have been a joint Russian-US-Ukrainian intelligence operation. From Moscow’s perspective, arguably, this becomes an important ‘confidence-building measure’ by Kiev and Washington in the ‘deescalation’ process.

Click to expand...

Rutim said:

lol, Sampan, you're easy to pick up a fight.

Standing 1000+ miles away

Why they didn't fight? First of all I'm not sure Kiev trusted garrisons there from the start. And it looks now that they were 101% right.

Why they haven't fight when Russians took over their ships? most likely because they are more or less sure they'll be returned to Ukraine once the relations between both countries will 'normalise'. I know for some of you here it might look awful but after all there's no war between Russia and Ukraine and any action would end in probably heavy loss of lives on both sides. It might might be the best way out of the situation they're in at the moment. It's not like Ukrainian ships didn't want to break through the Russian blockade of Sevastopol's naval base - they tried but couldn't do much there.

Click to expand...

solarz said:

You're missing the point. The fact that the Ukrainian garrison in the Crimea was either unable or unwilling to defend the sovereignty of their nation is a pretty strong indication of the lack of legitimacy of the current Ukrainian administration.

Click to expand...