100,000 troops stand ready on Ukraine's border
with Russia. Thousands more reservists have been called
up to active duty. Diplomatic talks with the US and NATO have
broken down. Is Russia really about to invade Ukraine,
and what will happen if it does? In 2014, despite publicly denying it, Russia
invaded and seized Crimea- formally recognized as Ukrainian territory by the international
community. Per Russia's narrative, the Crimean conflict
was a domestically inspired revolutionary movement by ethnic Russians seeking to rejoin
Russia. However, it very quickly became clear that
this was a lie, as Russian special forces- who'd earn the moniker 'little green men'
for their featureless uniforms- were confirmed to be working with Crimean rebels. Then, deep dives into Russian social media
produced even more damning evidence of regular Russian soldiers operating inside of Ukrainian
territory itself. Russia never formally admitted to utilizing
both unconventional and conventional military forces in Crimea to fight off Ukrainian forces,
and in the end Crimea declared itself independent and was quickly absorbed by Russia. Since then fighting against rebel forces has
continued across disputed Ukrainian territory, and Russia has continued to support these
rebel forces- albeit in a slightly less obvious way. Now the fear of a full-scale Russian invasion
of Ukraine seems more real than ever, as 100,000 Russian soldiers mass on the border with the
breakaway former Soviet republic. But why would Russia risk angering the world
with an invasion of a bordering nation, could it really do it, and what would the world's
response be if it did? Since the end of the Cold War Russia has largely
been in retreat from its former Soviet glory. It saw massive losses of territory, and subsequent
economic outflow, from the independence of numerous former Soviet republics. As the nation struggled through the tumultuous
post-Soviet Union years, many of these newly independent nations took the opportunity to
ensure their own survival and independence by drawing closer ties with the West. Russia made it very clear that it did not
want NATO to expand further east than Germany, and yet one by one new eastern European states
joined NATO'S ranks, pushing NATO forces closer and closer to Russian territory. Eventually NATO would stand on Russia's northern,
with NATO forces within 500 miles of Moscow itself. For a nation with as difficult a history as
Russia, this was the sum of all fears, and a strategic disaster. Rarely ever the invader, Russia itself has
been repeatedly invaded throughout its history- and each time the human and economic toll
was profound. Many of these invasions threatened the very
independence of the nation itself, such as Germany's near-defeat of the Red Army in World
War II and Napoleon’s invasion during the Napoleonic Wars. These invasions are so threatening because
Russia sits at the eastern edge of the European plain, a large swathe of relatively flat land
that is very difficult to defend. With modern, fast moving military formations
this strategic deficiency only increased, and after World War II the Soviet Union became
obsessed with pushing any potential future aggressor as far west as possible. This led the Soviet Union to extend its sphere
of influence as far west as Germany, creating the infamous Soviet bloc as a buffer zone
to any future invasion. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and
the eastern bloc, Russia's influence receded practically back to its own borders and all
the strategic gains of the last fifty years evaporated overnight. Today more eastern european nations have chosen
to draw closer to the US and its European allies than to Russia, mostly due to Russia's
authoritarian system of government and fears of becoming puppet states once more. As the new millenium dawned, Ukraine began
to seek a pathway for membership into NATO, and Russia warned that this would be tantamount
to a declaration of war between itself and NATO. Not willing to antagonize Russia, NATO postponed
the Ukraine question indefinitely, despite building cooperative ties with the nation. In 2014 Ukraine's worst fears were realized,
and now its continued independence is in question by the 100,000 strong Russian forces massing
on its border. If Russia invaded though, how would Ukraine
fair without Western aid? Ukraine has a population roughly a third the
size of Russia, and its military is ranked at the no. 22 spot according to Globalfirepower.com,
which ranks world military powers according to the strength of their militaries, their
economies, and demographics. Russia, despite slowly slipping out of it,
still retains the number 2 spot as the world's second strongest military power, and its overmatch
with Ukraine is significant. Russia's military numbers at 850,000 active
personnel, versus Ukraine's 200,000 strong military- a mismatch of 650,000 in Russia's
favor. Due to the ever-growing threat of all-out
war with Russia, both Ukraine and Russia have the same number of available reservists, 250,000,
as Ukraine has dramatically increased readiness and training of reservist units. Since 2014 it has created dozens of additional
reserve units which can be quickly activated to combat Russian troops. In the air, Russia absolutely dwarfs Ukraine,
with the second best air force in the world numbering 4,173 strong. Ukraine on the other hand only has 318 aircraft
available, with only 69 of these being fighter aircraft versus a fleet of 772 Russian fighters. Russia also enjoys a massive advantage in
attack aircraft, with 739 dedicated attack platforms versus Ukraine's 29. With the world's second largest air mobility
fleet, Russia can call upon 445 aircraft to rapidly move troops into combat areas, or
launch airborne invasions deep into Ukrainian territory. By comparison, Ukraine's tiny air mobility
fleet of 32 would struggle to move significant personnel or supplies in theater. Russia's attack helicopter fleet also vastly
outnumbers Ukraine's own, with 544 attack helicopters versus 34. On land Russia claims a tank corps over 12,000
strong- but it's widely accepted that only a few thousand of these vehicles- likely around
6,000- are capable of immediate combat operations. The rest are Cold War era leftovers which
are in mothball storage and would require weeks to reactivate and deploy. Ukraine on the other hand has a tank force
of 2,596, giving Russia a probable 2 to 1 advantage over Ukraine. Russia also maintains a sizable advantage
in number of armored vehicles used to support combat operations, with 30,122 versus Ukraine's
12,303. So what story do these numbers tell about
a possible Russian invasion? Firstly, while the numbers advantage is decidedly
on the Russian side, Ukraine wouldn't actually be facing the full force of the Russian military
even in a worst-case scenario. That's because a significant number of these
troops are required for security operations elsewhere. Russia must still maintain a strong defensive
posture along its northern border with NATO, and along its far eastern flank on the Pacific
in order to deter a possible American incursion. Realistically, only about 50% of its Western
and Southern military districts would be freed up for combat operations in Ukraine, with
some reinforcements from the rest of Russia's 3 other military districts. A probable invasion of Ukraine would involve
between 150,000 to 200,000 troops, bringing the number parity much more in line as Ukraine
would be free to use most of its forces to combat the Russian invasion. With Belarus being a strong Russian ally though,
a significant number of Ukrainian forces must be left in reserve in case of an unexpected
northern incursion, so even Ukraine can't commit its entire force to the fight. Russian reinforcements would also need to
make the lengthy trip from training camps or other military districts to Ukraine, while
Ukraine would be drawing up reservists just miles from the fighting. In a Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia would
not enjoy the vast number superiority that the raw data shows, even if- as Russia believes-
portions of the Ukrainian population would join them in a bid to rejoin Russia... a dubious
proposition indeed. In the air, even only utilizing 30-40% of
its Air Forces, Russia would still dominate the skies. Ukraine operates largely Cold War era aircraft
which are being kept operational by a domestic arms industry, while Russia's inventory is
largely modern, though not entirely so. Russia's overmatch in the skies would allow
it to establish complete air superiority, and its extensive ground-based air defense
batteries would allow it to threaten over half of Ukraine from the ground without ever
moving an air defense unit inside Ukraine's borders. Thus Ukraine would likely opt to simply move
its aircraft west and not even bother dedicating them to the fight, opting instead for ground-based
air defense. On the ground, Russia's tank forces vastly
outnumber Ukraine's- but at least some of Ukraine's tanks are actually more capable
than Russia's. In the second half of the 2010s as war with
Russia seemed ever more likely, Ukraine began a program of upgrading its Cold War era T-64s,
which are on the whole more sophisticated than Russia's vast fleet of T-72s. Domestic upgrades have made the Ukrainian
T-64BM Bulat deadlier than Russia's own T-72- but even with two factories dedicated to the
task of upgrading Ukraine's tanks, it still only has about 300 upgraded T-64s in its inventory. Sadly with complete domination of the skies,
this is likely to matter little as Russian air power systematically seeks out and destroys
Ukrainian armor. Russia's sizable numerical advantage is diminished
significantly in an invasion of Ukraine due to its defense commitments elsewhere, but
it still allows Russia to rotate combat troops out of theater with fresh forces, and to replenish
combat losses of aircraft and vehicles at a rate that Ukraine simply can't match. Further, while the Russian Air Force also
has defense commitments elsewhere, the nation would be able to dedicate a large number of
strike aircraft to the initial days of the war, launching a devastating blitzkrieg of
overwhelming force against Ukrainian troops, supply depots, and command and control nodes. Russia also enjoys very robust electronic
warfare capabilities, having made much greater investments into this area of warfighting
than most other nations in a bid to defeat American smart weapons and erode its technological
advantage. Russian electronic warfare could seriously
degrade Ukrainian defensive radar, interrupt or fully jam Ukrainian communications, and
even aid in the spread of disinformation and propaganda. This has already been seen in combat along
Ukraine's eastern front, as Russian EW units jammed Ukrainian communications and even spoofed
text messages to soldiers on the front lines with demoralizing or confusing orders. For the most part, Ukraine has no such capability. However, while the numbers heavily favor Russia,
a conquest of Ukraine would by no means be easy for it. For starters, Ukraine enjoys the home field
advantage, and after eight years of hostilities with Russia, pro-independence sentiments are
strong amongst the Ukrainian population. Dreams of being welcomed as liberators by
the locals, and even having entire guerrilla movements spring up to aid invading Russian
forces are almost certainly a Russian fantasy at this point. The Ukrainian people also have some faith
that the West would not simply abandon them to Russian aggression, given that Ukraine's
annexation back into the Russian fold would be a strategic disaster for NATO. This would help bolster morale in a brutal
and very bloody invasion. Ukrainian military forces have also proven
themselves to be far more capable than Russia believed in 2014. When the process of annexing Crimea began,
the Kremlin believed that Ukrainian forces would quickly crumble, and be incapable of
long-term significant resistance to rebellion movements sweeping across the country's eastern
border with Russia. It was believed that Ukraine would quickly
fall piece by piece to 'pro-Russian independence' movements, financed of course with weapons
and supplies by Russia itself. Yet the Ukrainian armed forces did not collapse
as expected, and while they were unable to weather the onslaught of battle against line
Russian forces disguised as rebels in Crimea, they have largely been able to contain the
separatists and Ukraine remains united. Ukrainian military units have proven surprisingly
resilient and capable even under assault by modern and more capable Russian weapon systems,
prompting the United States to send numerous observers to gather intelligence on Russian
capabilities. The world has also not stood idly by as Ukraine
was covertly invaded by Russian forces, and in anticipation of a full-scale invasion,
has taken steps to ensure that the nation is able to defend itself. The United States alone has provided a whopping
$2.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine, with an additional $200 million given in December
of 2021. This aid has largely taken the form of anti-tank
missiles, anti-air missiles, counterartillery radar systems, patrol boats, small arms, and
millions of rounds of ammunition. To date, the United States is responsible
for 90% of all aid given to Ukraine. The specific type of aid given speaks to the
US's thoughts on a Russian invasion. The vast amount of deadly Javelin anti-tank
missiles provided to Ukraine are meant to maul Russian tanks and armored vehicles, and
represent an extremely significant threat to a Russian invasion. Man-portable air defense weapons will help
Ukrainian soldiers eat into Russia's air superiority, threatening Russian aircraft and providing
a survivable air defense component that is not easily destroyed by Russian forces. Much like in Afghanistan, Russia could face
a serious threat from US air defense weapons, possibly having a significant impact on air
operations in the country. Counterartillery radar systems will help Ukraine
take on Russia's sizable artillery forces, which provide much of the Russian military's
killing power. In combat operations against rebel and Russian
forces, Ukraine's tank corps has suffered 400 casualties, and almost all of these to
Russian-made artillery. Counterartillery radar will allow Ukrainian
artillery to immediately launch counter-battery fire, destroying slow-moving Russian artillery. It's more important contribution however may
be in limiting Russian artillery operations, as they will now have to take into account
the possibility of counter-fire and thus practice shoot-and-scoot procedures which limit total
rate of fire and place non-motorized artillery units in serious risk. However, US assistance has been more hands-on
as well. The American military has provided direct
intelligence support to Ukraine in the form of detailed satellite imagery and analysis,
helping Ukrainian forces pinpoint rebel forces, track their movements, and target them for
destruction. The assistance of America's 'eyes in the sky'
has had the effect of saving hundreds of Ukrainian soldier's lives. The United States military has also assisted
Ukraine by providing medical supplies and equipment, as well as hosting numerous training
exercises in western Ukraine. US active-duty, reserve, and national guard
forces have all been deployed to Western Ukraine to help train local forces, bringing their
combat expertise in Iraq and Afghanistan and teaching Ukrainian soldiers how to properly
employ modern anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons donated by the US. While no direct combat assistance has been
provided by America to Ukraine, numerous and completely unacknowledged intelligence gathering
and recon units have been deployed into the nation's conflict zones. This has allowed US forces to gather detailed
intelligence on Russian weapon systems, as well as collect critical data on Russian electronic
warfare operations and capabilities. This intelligence has helped Ukrainian forces
directly in preparation for combat ops, but has also allowed the United States to better
prepare for its own confrontation with Russia. The CIA has also joined the conflict. Its secretive Special Activities Division
has been training Ukrainian forces in guerrilla warfare tactics for years, and helping prepare
the nation for a possible invasion. The CIA's SAD (S-A-D) has been preparing Ukrainian
active duty and reserve forces to wage an unconventional war against Russia's superior
military, incorporating lessons learned from Vietnam and both the US's and Russia's invasion
of Afghanistan. So what would a Russian invasion of Ukraine
look like, and what might happen? Russia's main thrust into Ukraine would come
from its shared border, with an intense air campaign lasting two or more days destroying
any Ukrainian air opposition and targeting command and control nodes, troop staging areas,
supply hubs, and industrial sectors. In a mirror to the US's own strategy of shock
and awe, the intent would be a swift and incomprehensibly violent campaign meant to blind the Ukrainian
military, throw it into disarray by disrupting communications, and seriously demoralize it
through extensive bombing. Ground based missiles would supplement air
operations, allowing Russian missile units deep inside its own territory to lay waste
to Ukrainian targets. The next phase of the attack would come on
the heels of the air campaign, with a massive armored thrust into eastern Ukraine. A double-pronged assault would see Russian
forces pouring into Ukraine from the northeast border and from inside the separatist controlled
area, which could afford Russia with a staging area for an invasion- albeit such an act would
give away its plans to invade long before they were put into effect. Another possibility, though a risky one for
Russia, would be a naval assault against Odessa from Crimea itself. Russia's Black Sea naval forces have seen
major reinforcements since 2014, and while still low in numbers, Russia's current fleet
in the region is capable of amphibious operations. Historically, Russia has had difficulty with
amphibious ops due to logistical issues, and these same issues would be present today. However, Russia could still amass an amphibious
assault force of 3,600 troops backed up by 70 main battle tanks and 153 amphibious armored
personnel carriers in a first strike against Odessa. These would be quickly reinforced by further
amphibious operations. The move would be risky, but if successful
would leave Russia in control of 70% of Ukraine's trade, giving it incredible leverage over
the country. Russia could also potentially launch an invasion
from Belarus into Ukraine, however to do so it would have to move a significant amount
of personnel and equipment into the nation. This would once more tip its hand early, and
allow Ukraine, and the world, more time to prepare a response. How would this really play out though? The main Russian assault across the border
and from the separatist controlled areas would be difficult for Ukraine to defend against. However, the proliferation of American Javelin
anti-tank missiles would take a heavy toll on Russian forces and severely slow their
rate of advance. At this point, Ukraine's goal would be to
slow the pace of the war as much as possible in hope of an international response and resolution,
as it could never defeat the Russian military on its own. Ukrainian forces would be dedicated to stalling
the Russian attack, and trading blood for time. Even US military aid is focused to this end-
hence why America has not provided larger weapon systems it knows would be unlikely
to survive an initial Russian assault. Man-portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons
gifted by the US to Ukraine are much more difficult to destroy and allow unconventional
forces to take a heavy toll on conventional forces. Ukraine would inevitably be forced into a
fighting retreat in the east, with the goal of buying enough time for the world to respond
to the crisis. Taking a page from the CIA's playbook for
a possible Soviet invasion of the West during the Cold War, some units might even allow
themselves to be completely overrun, going to ground and remaining hidden as Russian
forces push past them. This 'secret army' doctrine was theory-crafted
by the CIA in the 60s and 70s, and it was only until recent years that secret plans
to leave entire 'sleeper armies' behind enemy lines were revealed. The intent was simple- given that certain
military forces were unlikely to survive against a vastly superior Soviet force, they would
simply not fight and allow the enemy to push past them. Then once they were in the enemy's rear area,
they would rise up and cause mayhem and destruction behind enemy lines against much weaker rear-area
security forces. An invasion of Odessa from Crimea is possible
as well, though unlikely. Russia is very aware of the limitations of
its amphibious fleet in the Black Sea, and would likely choose against such a risky-
if high-yield- operation. Such an operation would face no truly significant
naval opposition, but could face a sizable ground defense force. Given the likely slow advance of Russian forces
in eastern Ukraine, reinforcements would have to come either by sea or by air. If by sea, Russia's sea lift capabilities
would doubtlessly dwindle over time as ships and landing craft are lost in combat operations
or equipment breakdowns. A steady flow of reinforcements would inevitably
slow to a trickle due to logistical losses. Russia would have to take and hold major port
facilities to allow for large numbers of troops and equipment to be offloaded, likely with
civilian vessels pressed into military service. It's highly unlikely that Ukraine would allow
such facilities to remain ucontested, or even operational. Another option would be to reinforce Odessa
via airlift operations, or airborne paradrops. However, the wide proliferation of American
anti-aircraft weapons make this an extremely risky proposition, and Russian airborne forces-
which would already be facing steep losses to these weapons- could be devastated attempting
a landing so deep in Ukrainian territory. Despite being a possible war-winning strategic
victory, the taking of Odessa would have to be done the hard way, with a slow but steady
advance from the east by Russian ground forces. Instead, Russian Black Sea naval forces would
use their significant land-attack capabilities to pound Ukrainian forces and military installations,
while amphibious assaults near the front could flank Ukrainian front-line units- a much better
use for them than a potentially suicidal attack against Odessa. The world's response to Russian aggression
would undoubtedly be immediate and very punishing sanctions, but Russia has grown to be very
resilient to further economic damage by global sanctions. The nation has already been severely punished
by international sanctions, wreaking havoc in its economic and even military sectors,
but there's a limit to what further sanctions could really do to the nation. Plus, thanks to its massive energy exports-
which European nations rely on to a large degree- Russia has built up a sizable war
chest to help it weather sanctions and the cost of combat operations. However, the United States has stated through
its diplomats that it is ready to impose even more damaging sanctions on Russia should it
invade Ukraine, as well as take 'unspecified actions' that the US has never taken before. What exactly these unspecified actions could
be remain a mystery, and could range from direct military intervention to massive cyber
warfare operations against Russia. What is certain is that the United States
and NATO would immediately supply Ukraine with much more offensive military aid. In a very real sense, the future of Ukraine
is the future of Europe itself in the 21st century, and given the strategic importance
of Ukraine to NATO, it seems increasingly unlikely that a Russian invasion won't eventually
be met with a US-led military campaign against Russia. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, also seems
to know this, as he recently threatened that Russia's nuclear arsenal stands ready for
combat- this no doubt because he understands that unless he can secure swift victory in
Ukraine, the Russian military is no match for the US in a longer conflict. Now go check out US vs Russia, who would win
2021 military comparison- or click this other video instead!
