Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IN POLITICAL, DIPLOMATIC and military terms, we have reached the point of maximum exploitation for the imminent invasion of Ukraine. The next 24 hours will be pivotal in the future of peace in Ukraine and Europe. Based on fast-moving events today, we may be on the precipice of invasion.
As I write, the US and UK media are quoting ‘intelligence’ sources indicating that a Russian invasion of Ukraine will commence between 1am and 3am Irish time, Wednesday morning. If this is the case, it will signal the commencement of the first conventional ground offensive in Europe since the Balkan conflict – and possibly the largest since World War II.
The signs are ominous. In political terms, the Russian Duma today voted to ask President Vladimir Putin to recognise the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk ‘People’s Republics’ within Ukraine as independent, sovereign nations.
This is a dangerous moment. If President Putin agrees to this proposal, the Ukrainian government has stated that this would mean an end to the 2015 Minsk Peace Process.
In other words, without sending one Russian soldier across the border into Ukraine, if the Kremlin formally recognises Donetsk and Luhansk as independent entities, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba today stated that this would represent the ‘de facto and de jure withdrawal of Russia from the Minsk agreement’. In political terms – irrespective of any military manoeuvres or movements – any such recognition would bring Ukraine and Russia one step closer to war.
Thus far, President Putin has not yet stated whether or not he supports the Russian Duma’s resolution on the independent status of Luhansk and Donetsk. However, President Putin did state today that the situation in Donbass resembled a ‘genocide’ – presumably of Russian speaking and Russian passport holding citizens in that area.
Speaker of the Duma, Vyacheslav Volodin also complained today of the ‘shelling’ of Donbass and Luhansk by the Ukrainian military. Echoing this view, Russia’s envoy to the EU also stated today ‘that Moscow would “respond” if Russian citizens started being killed anywhere, including Donbass’.
Last ditch diplomacy
He further stated Russia’s position to the EU, ‘We will not invade Ukraine unless we are provoked to do that … If the Ukrainians launch an attack against Russia, you shouldn’t be surprised if we counterattack. Or, if they start blatantly killing Russian citizens anywhere — Donbass or wherever’.
In political terms therefore, one could argue that the stage has been set for a possible Russian military intervention in Eastern Ukraine. In diplomatic terms, last ditch attempts are being made to prevent such an intervention at the highest levels.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited President Putin in Moscow today in order to dissuade him from any military operations against neighbouring Ukraine. In response, President Putin has stated that he still awaits assurances and guarantees from Nato and the US on limits for missile and troop deployments in central and eastern Europe.
In this insistence, Putin has signaled quite clearly that he does not attach much weight to the EU’s status as a negotiating party to this crisis. In political terms – post Brexit – and in military terms, the EU is regarded as weak.
Despite assurances that Russia has begun to withdraw some troops from its border with Ukraine, diplomatic tensions remain high. Frankly speaking, Russia still has a very large number of troops deployed along Ukraine’s borders from Transnistria through the Crimean Peninsula in the west and south and from Rostov on Don, to Smolensk in the east and in Belarus to the north.
Evidence of intent
The German Foreign Minister has reiterated today that ‘the situation is particularly dangerous and can escalate at any moment’. Nato General Secretary has also stated today that there is ‘no evidence’ of a Russian de-escalation along Ukraine’s borders.
In military terms, Russia’s deployment of ground, air and naval assets to the region remains very high. Over 100,000 combat troops remain forward deployed to Ukraine’s borders. This represents a very serious commitment in terms of personnel and logistical supports. To maintain such a force in the field – for such a prolonged period of time – demonstrates ample evidence of capacity and intent.
The Russian units deployed are highly maneuverable and fast moving armoured and mechanized units including elements of the 41st Army including the 74th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade, the 1st Guards Tank army. They are reinforced with combat units of the 20th and 8th Guards Armies to form so-called all-arms ‘Battalion Tactical Groups’ or BTGs. In turn, these are supported by naval assets from the Black Sea Fleet and considerable air assets from the Russian Air Force.
On paper – and on the ground – these units represent the optimum force that would be required to swiftly seize, occupy and hold an area approximate to that of Luhansk and Donetsk. In my view they would not be sufficient to mount an invasion of the entire territory and land mass of Ukraine.
Russia has stated today that it is withdrawing some of these troops. The specifics of their statements are interesting. Russian Defence Ministry Spokesperson Igor Konashenkov stated that ‘units of the southern and western military districts … will begin moving to their military garrisons’. Defence Minister Sergei Shoigh stated that ‘military exercises are ending’ and that more would ‘end’ in ‘the near future’.
The units identified as ‘returning to garrison’ would by virtue of their proximity to Ukraine – remain available and organic to any Russian command structure engaged in any cross border military intervention in the region.
What happens next?
The wording of the Defence Minister’s statement is also interesting. He does not speak of withdrawal, but an end to the exercise phase. Ideally, before offensive or defensive operations, large military formations rehearse and manoeuver together in large exercises. Therefore, in military terms, President Putin has the wherewithal to invade Ukraine in the next 24 hours.
What happens next is anyone’s guess. If President Putin endorses the Duma’s call for the recognition of the sovereignty of Luhansk and Donetsk as Russian-speaking Independent People’s Republics, then all bets are off.
In such a volatile scenario, Russian troops could be ‘called upon’ to pour over the border and ‘defend’ their citizens. Based on the numbers of troops deployed to the region, I do not believe that a full-scale, nationwide invasion of Ukraine is imminent. Russia has the capability to strike at Kyiv and to consolidate its hold of Donetsk and Luhansk.
However – like the US-led experience in Iraq, or Nato’s experience in Afghanistan – Russia could not occupy and hold 40 million Ukrainians at gunpoint. To do so would draw the Kremlin into a prolonged and catastrophic war of attrition in Europe.
Such a war would result in the deaths and displacement of millions of innocent men, women and children in Ukraine – not to mention the deaths of many thousands of Russian troops. It would also carry with it the risk of escalation – proxy war with the west and ultimately the risk of a new world war.
The military stage is set for conflict. It would be an untold human tragedy if war were to break out – based on fragile ego and brittle ambition. The next 24 hours will require ethical and imaginative leadership as diplomacy and political efforts reach their elastic limit.
Dr Tom Clonan is a former Captain in the Irish armed forces. He is a security analyst and academic, lecturing in the School of Media in DIT. You can follow him on Twitter.
Russia was promised that nato will not expand but they did and now they want to expand more. nato and the US broke the treaty as usual. The US is asking Russians now to move they Army from their own soil while the US is here thousands of miles in a foreign country. very funny the US are.
@Stephen Murphy: What treaty are you refering to precisely Stephen?
@Stephen Murphy: Gorbachev has said he was never promised nato would not expand east towards Russia. He said he was promised nato infrastructure would not occupy east Germany only and that was it.
@Stephen Murphy: So what you’re saying is Ukraine should not have the freedom to decide what it wants for itself because its neighbours might not like it?
@Stephen Murphy: Treaty Stephen? Tell us more about a treaty that removed Ukraine’s sovereign rights with themselves as a third party to it? Think yourself and Vlad must be experiencing the same wet delusions.
@Stephen Murphy: No, NATO did not sign an agreement with Russia not to expand eastward.
Russia says there was a verbal assurance given by James A. Baker (US Secretary of State) to Mikhail Gorbachev in February 1990, that assured Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward. They also claim this assurance was repeated by the Secretary General of NATO, Manfred Wörner, in a speech in May 1991, about a year after German reunification.
However, the statements by Baker and Wörner were made before Ukraine and several other former Soviet countries left the Soviet Union, so they could not apply to join NATO, and NATO could not expand east. So were the statements, a statement of fact, rather than an assurance?
The Soviet Union finally fell apart on 26 December 1991, a month after Ukraine voted in a referendum to leave the USSR on 1 December 1991 with 92.3% a majority.
Since then various smaller former Soviet countries applied for NATO membership and joined NATO, but Ukraine is Russia’s red line. It is a far larger country, it is strategically and culturally significant to Russia. So Russia is understandably angry that Ukraine might join NATO.
It is a pity the USSR or Russia did not sign an agreement with NATO, like they did when Russia singed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on 5 December 1994, when they agreed to leave Ukraine alone, not attack it militarily and not interfere with it politically, in turn for Ukraine surrendering its nuclear weapons.
@David F. Dwyer: Cuba wanted Russian military infrastructure back in the day… how did that end in the US/ NATO sphere of influence?
@David F. Dwyer: Can you imagine the reaction of the U.S. if Canada Mexico decided to ally themselves to Russia. You only have to look at the embargo imposed on it’s neighbour Cuba. The yanks were non to happy with the installation of Russian missiles in Cuba.. Russian concern about Ukraine is the same situation in reverse.
@Glenn O h’Ailpín: Really? You’re comparing a situation sixty years ago during the Cold War to this? There are some many things wrongheaded about that I don’t know where to start.
@Donal Desmond: Hypothetical situations involving Canada or Mexico are pointless discussing. There’s no comparison between NATO- a coalition of national military forces, and the former USSR- a rogue state intent on causing mischief. Plus that was sixty years. The possibility existed the reds would have attacked the US using Cuba as a launchpad. Do you honestly believe the reverse would happen today, that NATO would launch a nuclear strike against Russia from Ukraine? Is that what you think?
@Stephen Murphy: The USSR/Russia has always bordered NATO, from their colonies behind the Iron Curtain and across a narrow stretch of sea bordering Alaska. To me it appears plain and simple, an exercise in empire rebuilding by one Mr Putin and the Donbas and Donetsk argument by the way sounds a lot like what Corporal Schicklegruber did during the Sudetenland crisis.
Appeasement is the easiest policy but in the long term the worst possible policy. The more you give the more will be attempted to be taken. A Cold War mind plays a zero sum game.
@David F. Dwyer: why is it different? The US didn’t want Russian military hardware in their backyard. It was a red- line for them then and nearly started a nuclear war. Why is Nato military hardware encroaching onto Russian borders any different. Hypothetically if Russia and Mexico struck up a friendship and wanted to position Russian military infrastructure on the US border now… you can be sure the US would give the same response.
@Stephen Murphy: NATO expansion? That’s not how NATO works. The Ukrainian government including the opposition want Ukraine to join NATO and have even asked if it can be fast tracked so as to protect Ukraine from Russian aggression. The reason for this is Russia annexed part of Ukraine already and has been involved in a war on Ukraines Eastern border attacking Ukrainian infrastructure and troops. So how is this a NATO expansion problem. My view is Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO immediately and call Putins bluff.
@David Jordan: Unfortunately we live in a society in which facts don’t appear to matter anymore and extremists of all plumage make it up as they go along.
@Stephen Murphy: the main reason the US and others are there is due to the fact that for centuries, Russia has invaded virtually every nation on its borders and beyond. Understandably, these countries are fed up with Russian attempts at land grabs and coercive behaviour to keep them under Kremlin control?
There is a history to those states Tom, you know it.
England has illegally occupied the six counties since 1921. Its in our constitution.
NATO daily use Shannon airport.
Do you see international media reports?
Think very hard sir.
Borrowed this from the @qiaocollective on twitter – excellent observation.
“Russia is about to invade the Ukraine, just like China is about to invade Taiwan, just like North Korea is about to launch a nuclear strike and Iraq was about to develop WMDs… The relentless narrative of imminent threat from “enemy” states is just a way to fund endless US war.”
The real sense of urgency that our media should be pushing is a pivot away from war towards environment & ecological industries. The planet is crumbling while our media pushes narratives on behalf of the arms industry, it has to stop
@Kerrill Thornhill: Well said. There’s little reporting of the arms sales that this war-mongering has facilitated. The US, UK and others in the arms business have been upping their sales to the obliging Kiev administration. Even the Germans have been selling them German helmets. I suppose when you organise a coup you deserve to get paid.
Non-stop articles about Ukraine are great, but nothing is happening there and won’t happen unless Nato push Ukraine to retake Donbass/ Crimea. The imminent threat to human life is the media blackout on the theft of Afghanistans financial reserves? It’s beyond belief that not a single news outlet or politician is brave enough to take a stand – is the war machine that powerful that people are afraid to criticise?
@Kerrill Thornhill: It’s not just war machine stuff Kerrill. There’s a country sitting there with real people in it plus a bigger country to the east, and some of its people are nationalists while others identify with that country to the east. It might actually sound somewhat familiar.
@Mick Tobin: But but there is no invasion despite hundreds of articles about it. There is an imminent famine in Afghanistan! Which do you think is more important?
@Kerrill Thornhill: the word imminent has been used consistently since November. Methinks it should be redefined as ‘moving at a snail’s pace’
@Ian McDonald: It’s amazing how a coordinated media campaign can sustain such a high level of fear/anxiety for so long, it’s psychological warfare. I remember having the same feeling when I spent time in the states, non stop terror alerts and alarm – even the weather channel would stress you out!! It’s easier to cod a fearful population. It’s really dissappinting to see our own media going down the same road
@Kerrill Thornhill: Maybe because this is not a weather report, but maybe because this is the first time in roughly half a century that there’s a genuine threat of war in Europe. That *should* have alarm bells ringing given (1) what has happened in the past, and (2) the sort of somewhat more modern weaponary which might ultimately be involved.
@Mick Tobin: Cough…. tell that to the people of Bosnia/ Croatia/ Serbia/ Kosovo! And even if what you say was true – why are we ignoring Western involvement in current wars and atrocities outside Europe? Are the lives of Yemeni, Afghan, Libyans, Iraqis, Palestinians worth less? We have a serious issue of unconscious bias/racism in our media that has to be addressed.. atrocities are being covered up, just because the victims are not white!! But here we are accusing Russia of agression – for holding manouvers in their own country! If only we held ourselves to the standards we demand of others!
NATO saber rattling, Putin playing the stock exchange.
@Stephen Kelly: Another Putin apologist, NATO saber rattling you say, the only people showing hostility are the Russians with around 120,000 soldiers ready to pounce on a democratic country..
@Charles Coughlan: West Ukraine is about as democratic as the USA which was one of the countries behind the coup that deposed the president and backed the coup.
If you want unbiased reporting on military matters ask Tom Clonan or any other US /UK military spokesman……
@Fergus Quinlan: I fully agree! Why would anyone want to read them when instead they can read your recent posts on the subject and be educated by your clearly unbiased and refreshingly original take on the subject. The impartiality you display here is exemplary and quite rare by today’s standards and I say that in all seriousness…
We’ll see if the stand-down is a genuine de-escalation or a feint. Probably a little of both, he made himself a hostage to fortune and never expected the West to be so united over an issue such as Ukraine. All he has done, is do NATO a big favour by reinvigorating them and renewing their raison d’etre. Seems to be as big as strategic mistake as Putin has made in his 25 odd years of autocracy. That will cause serious discontent for the highly nationalist home audience.
As soon as he writes ‘what happens next is anyone’s guess’ it makes the rest of his article seems like pointless speculative padding. Well if it’s anyone’s guess my guess is something will happen or maybe it won’t but I could be wrong as I’m no security expert…
I’ve been advocating that Minsk II be implemented – granting Donbas federal autonomy and foreign policy veto – but at times I feel it puts me on the wrong side of Irish historical analogy, since that would be like the pro-treaty partition stance. The other viewpoint is that of a large former occupying neighbour having an enclave in one particular corner of the country, with people identifying with that neighbour living there, and that this idea of partition should be opposed, and by extension the large former occupying power must be opposed…
have your say