Betting on a Russian “invasion” of Ukraine

Why wouldn’t Vladimir Putin take over – at least – eastern Ukraine? Michael Weiss over at lays out 10 reasons not to believe Putin when he says Russia will not invade Ukraine.

It may be a fait accompli at this point. There will not be a fighting war, just simply a “take-over” for the good of the area. Don’t you know the people in eastern Ukraine are suffering? Sure, the Americans, European Union and the IMF have offered more than $30 billion in a financial assistance package, but really … don’t you need people in place to “manage” all of the assistance?

In place now is about 50,000 Russian upper and middle-management types (military troops) that have the experience to help. Just by chance they are in a position of assistance since they were “training” in the area.

Back to Weiss

… 10 facts on the ground that add up to a very real chance that Russia might still invade Ukraine:

  1. The size of troop movements, and the field hospitals.
  2. Putin enjoys embarrassing the United States, and especially its current commander-in-chief.
  3. The IMF bailout.
  4. Putin has seen how reliably the U.S. policy establishment has done his work for him already.

Do go over to and read the full post. In my opinion, he’ll do the exact same thing he did in Crimea, Ukraine.

Why does this matter to the United States? Excellent question, and the answer is simple. We make commitments years ago – affirmed by President Barack Obama. From NPR.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine had on its territory the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal. It was bigger than Britain, France and China combined. And the Ukrainians were prepared to eliminate that arsenal to transfer the warheads to Russia for their dismantlement, but the Ukrainians asked for certain things. And one was security assurances that the United States and Russia would pay attention and respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, that there would be no use of force or threat of force against Ukraine.

And the 1994 Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances was the document that reflects those commitments by the United States. And Russia also joined by Great Britain to extend to Ukraine those assurances, including respect for its territorial integrity.

No, this is not a treaty, and no, this does not mean we go to war. This is an agreement we made with the Ukrainians … including those in the Crimea, which Russia has already broken. This is nothing new. Agreements and treaties have been broken since the beginning of time no matter what Obama thinks the 21st Century foreign policy should look like.

Exit question. What happens if Putin does the same thing to a NATO partner?

6 replies
  1. Shock and Awe
    Shock and Awe says:

    Pss Obama, Neville Chamberlain called and he wants his foreign policy back…I predicted this in 2004 that Putin would try to reconstitute the Soviet Union, and this isn’t about treaties.? Do we want Putin to march across Europe unopposed?? This isn’t about law or treaties, but morality.? Can we ethically stand by and do nothing?

    • ricbee
      ricbee says:

      The Weekly Standard says that Russia is actually very weak militarily & any real opposition could cause a complete collapse.Send in the SAMs!

  2. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    From what I’ve read, we need to Sell our oil to others and drill baby drill. We need to crush Russia economically by sanctions.

  3. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    If our community organizer in chief had any testicular fortitude, he would get the Ukraine admitted to NATO as fast as Putin pushed through the annexation of Crimea.? That answers the exit question, inasmuch as all NATO members are required to come to the aid of any of the other members.
    For the good of the Ukrainian people of course.?? And the children!? Don’t forget the children!? 😉

Comments are closed.