Western powers have been shamelessly pressuring Kiev to order its unprepared and unwilling troops to launch an offensive against their own neighbors and fellow citizens. I would go so far as to say the bulk of the blame lies with the West, and in particular with our own military/industrial complex which sees a civil war in Ukraine as its next big chance to make huge profits for war material and assistance of every kind imaginable.

I suspect the breakup started with the over throw of Yanukovych. In the week before he was overthrown, Yanukovych replaced the head of his Army with the head of the Ukrainian Navy. Such a change in a time of crisis implies concerns about the troops. I suspect Yanukovych had asked his Army Commander to remove the protesters. When the Head of the Army said it could not be done, he was replaced by the head of the Navy. I notice NO actual military in the overthrow, thus the Ukrainian Army stayed in its barracks. I suspect that the reason they said in their barracks they were divided as to who to support. Such division leads to inaction and that is what happened,

When the Crimea was seized by Russia, the Ukrainian Navy did some passive resistance, but no actually shooting (the same for the troops taking over the Crimea). Again that tends to show a break down in command, i.e. the troops were NOT obeying orders unless they agreed with them and the only agreement the troops could come to was to do nothing.

The recent re-start of the National Guard, mostly from the Western Ukraine, implies the regular army is still to divided to do anything. Worse, I suspect the Commanders are keeping them in Tight Control to prevent massive desertions (Desertions not only to the Russian Side but the National Guard for the National Guard has shown a much higher willingness to commit atrocities, much higher then is the Norm for well Disciplined and trained troops).

This was a National Guard overrun by troops from the Eastern Ukraine, not a regular Ukrainian Army unit. Such troops are NEVER your first line of defense of anything you want to hold. They have been in "active" service less then a month. This lead to two different but not 100% exclusive possibilities (i.e. BOTH may be true):

1. The unit was separated from its supply base. As a regular rule, no regular unit would fall back except on its own supply base, thus you can get food and ammo. Somehow that was NOT done here. Indicates bad leadership and ill-trained troops. Thus either the attacking force either forced the National Guard away from their supply base, or the National Guardsmen retreated but NOT onto their supply base (again bad leadership and ill trained troops). This is the best explanation for running out of ammunition but also leaving ammunition to the other side.

2. If you have to abandon your supply base, you do NOT leave it behind. This is because then those supplies become the supplies of your enemies. Given that both sides are using basically the same weapons (all designed in Soviet days), this is worse then if both sides were using different weapons and ammunition. Thus most forces will go out of their way to at least making an attempt to destroy it, yet it appears no such effort was ever made. Another sign of bad leadership and ill trained troops.

Just a comment that this is more evidence that we are seeing two Militias fighting it out in the Eastern Ukraine. No regular troops are either available or trusted. If that is the case, this war will linger on for years as both sides build up their forces. People forget that the US Civil War started in 1861, but it was a mess of confusion that first year as the sides formed up and built up their armies. Yes, battles occurred in 1861, but they were either inconclusive (The First Battle of Bull Run, a Southern Victory that produced nothing in the long term) or secured areas for one side or the other (McClellan's "Conquest" of what is now West Virginia, but it was an area already loyal to the North and thus easy to take over). The real fighting during the US Civil War started in 1862 as the South Adopted a policy of terrorizing the North to recognize Southern Independence and the North adopted ways to conquer the South (Which included taking New Orleans and the Peninsula Campaign in Virginia, and then stopping the Army of Northern Virginia's invasion of the North at Antietam).

Is they still time for a negotiated peace? Yes, but both sides have to be willing to give. The people in the Eastern Ukraine do not trust the people of the Western Ukraine, but both sides clearly what to stay one nation. The the push for Putin's option of a Federation for the Ukraine. I suspect any negotiated peace will revolve around that proposal. On the other hand if both sides are not willing to give (or one side does not want to give) then it will become a clash of arms. Putin does not want this, but I suspect he will support the pro-Russian group of the Eastern Ukraine. If the fighting gets to bloody, he will be forced by popular opinion inside Russia to intervene.

I have no idea of what Obama is doing withe the Ukraine. It is one of the worse places for US troops to fight in, and could be made worse if Europe decides NOT to support any US intervention. For Putin this is in his back yard, any take over of the Ukraine by any Government that is NOT to his liking Putin and Russia will oppose. For that reason alone a bloody repression of the Eastern Ukraine is unacceptable to Putin.

I have to say, until I read an article in Counter Point I could NOT figure out why all the US rhetoric about the Ukraine. In short as far as the US is concerned who cares who rules the Ukraine, then I read the Article and it makes a good case that the US is unset about the Crimea not the Ukraine. The reason is simple, if the Black Sea has any oil (and that is a good possibility) with the Crimea part of Russia, the Ukraine gets no part of the deep oil that may be in the Black Sea. Under the Treaty of the Sea, economic borders of any country extends out to 200 miles UNLESS it overlaps another Countries 200 miles economic zone, then to the half way point between the two nations.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/23/crimea-an-eu-us-exxon-screwup/



Thus the US may want part of the old Ukrainian Claim to deep sea Black Sea oil and all of the talk is to achieve something along that line. In many ways I hope that is the situation, not that they are upset that they plans for the Black Sea was destroyed by Putin when he took the Crimea and having a fit about it (i.e. going to war with Putin for taking their oil way after they paid for it by supporting the overthrow of Yanukovych). I hope it is an effort to get some of that oil, not a hissey fit about Putin taking their oil away from them.

It is probably useless to try to figure out what the US government is doing, it tends to all be about domestic posturing and butt-covering, once the shit starts to hit the fan. And before that too. It's all about how things look.

I agree with your analysis.

and most other European countries. (1.1% in Sweden, 1.2% in Germany, 1.4% in Denmark) And, of course, Ukraine's GDP is relatively small.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine

By comparison, the US and Russia spend between 4% and 5% of their much larger GDP's on their militaries.

In terms of military budgets and income equality Ukraine is much more "European" than the US or Russia but at times like this having a relatively poorly funded military must be a pain.

Depending on where one thinks the bulk of the fighters and weapons are coming from, the military is being asked to either attack their fellow Ukrainians (something, as you point out that they may have been reluctant to do under Yanukovich) who have stumbled upon and quickly learned how to use sophisticated weapons or go up against an extremely well-armed fighters backed by a very powerful military.

The US was spending even less on its Military in 1859, but when John Brown took Harper's Ferry the US was able to send several Companies of Marines to discharge him. In the battle of Blair Mountain in 1921, it was noted that had either side had a company of Infantry instead of 20,000 individuals they would have won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

Thus the Regular Ukrainian Army is large enough to put down this revolt in the east IF IT WAS UNITED. From the reports I am reading it is not and thus useless. That would be true if the Ukraine was spending 100% of its GNP on the Army given what appears to be divisions within the Army. The problem is NOT how much money is being spent but the army is to divided to be effective.

As I said:

I doubt that Assad would have survived without it. So have the Syrian rebels too. There are lots of foreigners on both sides. It would have been a different war had it stayed local. That is most likely to be the case in Ukraine too. You can already see it happening.

-

“We are an international battalion,” said Aleksandr Khodakovsky, the rebel commander, who led the government’s Alfa special forces unit in the Donetsk region until he resigned after the February revolution in Kiev. Mr. Khodakovsky said that Russian citizens were among his fighters, but that the “overwhelming majority” of his force of more than 500 came from eastern Ukraine. He denied any link to Russia.

As the threat of a Russian invasion into eastern Ukraine has declined and appeals for annexation by rebel politicians have gone unanswered, the pace of fighting has picked up in eastern Ukraine with both the Kiev government and the separatists trying to seize momentum. Whether eastern Ukraine’s counterrevolution succeeds or crumbles depends increasingly on battle commanders like Mr. Khodakovsky and the fighters they command, whose resolve could extend the fighting here for weeks or even months to come.

---

Across a well-tramped field, recruits were receiving instructions on how to use surface-to-air missiles, a 30-millimeter automatic grenade launcher, heavy machine guns and antitank weapons that Mr. Khodakovsky said he had taken from military bases in Ukraine.

The offensive by the Ukrainian military, which officials in Kiev have called an “antiterrorist operation,” continued on Tuesday, as armored personnel carriers and helicopters attacked rebel checkpoints near Slovyansk, a rebel stronghold. Arsen Avakov, the country’s acting police chief, said in a message on his Facebook page that the military had taken control of Semyonovka, a village to the south of Slovyansk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/world/europe/in-ukraine-separatist-militia-with-russian-fighters-holds-a-key.html

(Reuters) - Russia said on Thursday its ambassador to Kiev would attend the inauguration of Ukrainian president-elect Petro Poroshenko in spite of Moscow's harsh criticism of Ukraine's attempts to crush pro-Russian separatists.

Scores of separatist fighters and Ukrainian troops have been killed in heavy fighting in eastern Ukraine as Kiev has intensified its "anti-terrorist operation" since Poroshenko was elected on May 25.

"Russian ambassador to Ukraine Mikhail Zurabov will take part in the inauguration ceremony of Ukraine's elected president," Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich told a briefing.

"He is returning to Kiev to continue with his duties," Lukashevich added, more than three months after the envoy was recalled to Moscow in response to the ouster of pro-Russian Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich in mass protests.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/06/05/ukraine-crisis-russia-diplomacy-idINL6N0OM3H120140605

United Nations, June 5:

Ukraine has said that it faces no humanitarian crisis, as Russia claims, and the UN aid chief appears to agree.

When asked whether Ukraine has a humanitarian aid crisis, Valerie Amos had replied yesterday, “Not as far as I’m aware.”

Russia had on Monday surprised diplomats by introducing a Security Council resolution that called for humanitarian aid corridors in troubled eastern Ukraine. Some diplomats were privately dismayed that Russia asked for this while opposing the creation of humanitarian corridors in Syria, its close ally.

The United States immediately denounced the resolution as “hypocritical’’.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/international/article6084816.ece?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication