• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

DONBAs :Ukraine and Turkey cooperation

krzepice1976

DEFCON Staff
Staff member
Ukraine is increasingly tightening its military cooperation with Turkey. However, the Turkish-Ukrainian alliance will not bring Kiev closer to NATO, but it may lead Ukraine to a catastrophe if it decides to settle the problem of Donbas and Crimea by armed forces.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky suggested a few days ago in one of the Russian TV programs that Ukraine will start a war with Russia over Crimea and Donbass, which it will lose and its army will be defeated. Then the Polish army will come to her aid, which will also be defeated, and finally the German army, which will lead to the division of Ukraine. A new state, Galicia, will emerge and Russia will absorb the rest. You can laugh at this vision because if you take it literally, it is absurd. But these words can also be treated as preparations for Russia to implement a scenario based on provoking Ukraine to war and then leading it to defeat. Of course, neither Poland nor Germany will take part in it, but they can feel its effects. The division of Ukraine may actually take place, but not between Russia and Germany, but between Russia and Turkey

Russian journalists covering the war in Arcach repeatedly mentioned in private conversations that they expected a new war in the Donbas soon. And their forecasts corresponded strongly to what Żyrinowski said: the West, pushing Kiev into an armed conflict with Russia, would be responsible for the escalation. Of course, Turkey also appeared in these talks, which my Russian interlocutors treated as the West's ally against Russia. The problem is that this is a false vision. In the sense that Turkey by no means represents the interests of the West. Moreover, it aims to push Western influence out of successive theaters of rivalry and transform them into conflict arenas, and then include them in the system of Russian-Turkish trade fairs. It is often useful to Russia, as Western influence poses a greater threat to it than Turkey's imperial aspirations. If the Ukrainian authorities do not understand this, the country may face a catastrophe.
After 2014, Russia almost completely lost its influence not only on the Ukrainian government, but also largely on the local society, especially in the western and central part of the country. Such a division of Ukraine, which would mean the possibility of absorbing at least part of it, would therefore be beneficial for the Kremlin, even in a much more modest version than the one described by Zhirinovsky, i.e. limited to a few eastern oblasts. The Kremlin's goal here is not only to implement its imperial policy, but also to solve its own demographic problem. In Russia, the number of Russians is systematically decreasing, and the number of Muslims is growing, including migrants and their descendants. This, in turn, threatens with internal cultural inconsistency in the long run. It is possible to wonder what is the bond of the Russian Federation apart from the power structures of this state? Meanwhile, Russia still needs migrants to "plug" its demographic gap. That is why Russia is interested in absorbing the Slavic population (Ukrainians, Belarusians), or at least the Christian Indo-European population (e.g. Armenians, Ossetians), in order to balance this cultural incoherence, closer to Russian culture and relatively easy to assimilate the Slavic-Christian element.

During the last Azerbaijani-Armenian war, Ukraine sided with Baku on two grounds. Firstly, the Ukrainians saw an analogy between Arcach and Donbass and Crimea. Second, they saw the war in the South Caucasus as a proxy clash between Turkey and Russia, where Azerbaijan and Armenia would represent the interests of Ankara and Moscow, respectively. This was an incorrect assessment in both respects. Reducing Arcach and Donbas to the same separatism and threat to territorial integrity is to ignore the significant differences between the two cases. Moreover, Ukraine, by tightening its relations with Turkey, is also inconsistent in this regard, for example, given the role of Turkey in the Cyprus question.

A consequence of a misjudgment of the nature of the Arcach conflict is also that the conclusions about its results are incorrect. In this context, Armenia's defeat does not mean a defeat for Russia, on the contrary. Russia has strengthened itself in the South Caucasus, eliminating Western influence with the hands of Turkey. Building there, in a strategic place for itself, its strong military presence. Turkey's entry into this region was at the expense of pushing out the Western influence that appeared there, which was the optimal solution from Moscow's perspective, as it is the West, not Ankara, that constitutes the key threat to it.
 
However, Kiev seems to see it completely differently, and wishful thinking is replacing a cold assessment of the situation. If the Ukrainian authorities believe in the narrative pushing hard by pro-Turkish circles (also in Poland) that Russia has lost the last clash in the South Caucasus, the logical consequence will be that Ukraine will apply to Donbas and Crimea what seems to be same scenario. It is, of course, about regaining the territories lost to Russia based on the alliance with Turkey and the use of Turkish Bayraktar drones, and also (which is no longer emphasized) the participation of jihadist mercenaries imported by Turkey. For this is because pro-Turkish circles that promote the thesis about the defeat of Russia bring the result of the war in Arcach.

The problem is that Arcah was not militarily controlled by Russia before the last war, which sought and gained this control only as a result of the war. It is completely different in the case of Donbas and Crimea, and if Ukraine decides to attempt to recapture these territories in the near future, the continuation of events will resemble the Georgian scenario from 2008 more than the Arcachian scenario from 2020.
Ukraine has recently purchased Turkish Bayraktar drones and wants to start producing a model of these drones together with Turkey. At the same time, there is information about the increase in armed incidents violating the ceasefire in the Donbas. Meanwhile, Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan said suddenly during the fighting in Arcach that Turkey would never recognize the annexation of Crimea and recalled the ties between this peninsula and Turkey. In addition, the Ukrainian authorities in recent weeks have been talking more and more often about "plan B", the ineffectiveness of the negotiations and the intention to regain Donbas before the end of this year. All of this may indicate the growing likelihood of an escalation in Donbas, which may quickly extend the conflict zone to the entire eastern Ukraine and may have serious consequences for the security of Europe.

Contrary to Ukraine's hopes, Turkey's goal in this conflict will not be to support Kiev's efforts to regain control of its entire territory from before 2014. The nature of Turkish-Russian relations is based on cooperation and competition in various territorial arenas, but not within the borders of both countries. Turkey is well aware that the attempt to create a new rivalry zone in Crimea or even in the Donbas (which can in principle now be considered de facto Russian territory) will mean Russia's strong support for the Kurdish guerrillas in Turkey (PKK). A sample of this already took place in 2016 and Ankara has learned its lesson, and it would be worthwhile for Kiev to understand it for its own sake.
Ankara's goal in relation to Ukraine is to divide it into a zone of Turkish and Russian influence. And it is by no means contrary to Russia's interests. Therefore, it can be expected that Kiev will be persuaded to try to regain the lost territories with promises of Turkish support, and this will be done not without the participation of Turkish and Russian agents. It is also impossible to rule out provocations that would persuade Ukrainians to make a decision that would be dire for them.

If there is a war, it can be expected that Turkey will apply almost the same steps as in relation to Azerbaijan, i.e. send its military advisers and jihadist mercenaries to Kiev. The practice so far shows that there is a high probability that the Ukrainian authorities will not oppose the transfer of jihadists to their territory. The participation of jihadists in the fighting in Donbas on the Ukrainian side took place earlier. Meanwhile, a possible strike by Ukraine will become a pretext for Russia for full military involvement, and the appearance of the jihadists will be used (and probably effectively) by Russian propaganda to destroy Ukraine's image in the eyes of Europe. All terrorist incidents in Europe will contribute to the effectiveness of this message.

In this scenario, the war will not be limited to the Donbas, but will lead to the reactivation of the Novorossiya project. Those who doubt Russia's economic ability to implement this plan should remember that the economic condition of Turkey and Ukraine is even worse. The seizure of Odessa by the Russians will also change the geopolitical aspect of the Transnistrian conflict.
 
Ukraine isn't going to start a war over Donbas. They know they won't win.

Yes, but on the other hand, Russia keeps nibbling away at their borders one region at a time. Is Russia going to stop nibbling? Or will Kiev at some point stand up and say "enough," and defend their country?
 
Why can't the West and her Allies send massive amounts of weapons such as tanks, aircraft, guns, ammo, missiles, and logistics to Ukraine.

We don't have to directly confront Russia to help Ukraine, we can just funnel huge amounts of arms to them.

The West military technology and staggering numbers of assets still anything way beyond Russia has in its arsenal. Give Ukraine a steady supply and they can hold their own against Russia.
 
Is Russia going to stop nibbling?

Nope.

Or will Kiev at some point stand up and say "enough," and defend their country?

Depends on what Russia "nibbles" at. There will come a point where Ukraine has to react. And how that turns out again comes down to what Russia is trying to take. There are some things NATO will go in for and some where Ukraine will be on its own, just like before.
 
Why can't the West and her Allies send massive amounts of weapons such as tanks, aircraft, guns, ammo, missiles, and logistics to Ukraine.

We don't have to directly confront Russia to help Ukraine, we can just funnel huge amounts of arms to them.

The West military technology and staggering numbers of assets still anything way beyond Russia has in its arsenal. Give Ukraine a steady supply and they can hold their own against Russia.
NATO ( A organization)is not interested in escalation.
However Turkey might see conflict between Russia and Ukraine it as a opportunity.
 
NATO ( A organization)is not interested in escalation.
However Turkey might see conflict between Russia and Ukraine it as a opportunity.
What kind of escalation is NATO afriad of if the West funnels literally billions perhaps trillions over time into Ukraike to help them defend against Russian agression...

We did it throughout the entire Cold War on literally dozens of locations around the global geopolitical theater.

Russia didn't directly escalate or out right attakced the West on every single geopolitical Hotspot durring the Cold War.

Is it the West has totally lost its balls to put bluntly and have no time or care to keep, defend, and uphold international law & norms?...
 
What kind of escalation is NATO afriad of if the West funnels literally billions perhaps trillions over time into Ukraike to help them defend against Russian agression...

When you say "West," you really mean "The United States," which really doesn't have the funds to do that. They are in horrible debt that is killing the country.

Plus the world has changed. Much of the US population doesn't see Russia as a threat. They see the US as the threat. So the appitite to intervene isn't there like it used to be.

Is it the West has totally lost its balls to put bluntly and have no time or care to keep, defend, and uphold international law & norms?...

See "South China Sea".
 
Top