The Russians are concentrated in the eastern-most provinces, and also in the Crimea.
Russia has 145 million people, the Ukraine has 46 million people, so in terms of the ratio of people, Russia invading the Ukraine would be a bit like the USA invading Mexico.
Russia also has a large per-capita GDP advantage relative to the Ukraine, sort of like the USA advantage over Mexico:
Russia:
GDP (nominal) Per capita $15,717
Ukraine:
GDP (nominal) Per capita $3,862
I'm using the nominal GDP, not the PPP numbers, because when it comes to war it is the nominal numbers that matter (PPP is focused on quality of life, and the fact that your rent might be cheap, or that you can get a haircut for cheap, influences your personal standard of living, but does not effect the outcome of a war).
The USA wasted over $1 trillion in Iraq. If the USA tried to conquer Mexico the war would drag on for many years and very nearly bankrupt the USA. Likewise, I suspect a full invasion of the Ukraine would bankrupt Russia. Chechnya is much smaller, yet still caused Russia considerable pain. And also, Chechnya was isolated from Western help. The Ukraine has a border with a country that is a member of the EU. It is true that the Poles dislike the fact that famous Polish cities such as Lwów were stolen and given to the Ukraine, but if it came to war with Russia, it strikes me as likely Poland allow its border to become porous, in the sense that the border would become a way of getting supplies to the Ukraine. It seems to me likely that the West would be largely united in wanting to help the Ukraine.
The substantial expense makes me think that Putin would not want to try to conquer the whole country. If that is what he wants, then he has gone insane. What seems to me more likely is that he wants to seize those provinces that are majority-Russian. This would be a grievous violation of the sovereignty of the Ukraine, and would probably be regarded as a dangerous precedent. Also, if Putin can get away with it, then there are obvious parallels to Hitler's 1938 occupation of the Sudetenland (which was majority-German). Also remember that Neville Chamberlain's reputation was destroyed when he argued that this one concession to Hitler would lead to peace, when in fact it lead to world war. No Western politician would want to be cast as a modern day Chamberlain, so I suspect many politicians in the West would be inclined to take a strong stand against the partial annexation of the Ukraine to Russia.
I'm trying to think of any major powers that would be willing to support Russia. It has some minor friends: the Serbs, the Syrian government, Cuba, maybe Hungary, etc. But what major power would be willing to support this? Does China have any reason to support Russia in this invasion? I suspect many oil-producing Middle Eastern nations would love to see an economic blockade of Russia, as that would jack up the price of oil.
Finally, there is Putin's use of language, in particular his desire to describe this as an effort to protect the Russians living in the Ukraine. There a parallel to be drawn to the language that Mussolini used when he decided to invade Greece:
"These troops do not come as enemies of the Greek people and the Italian Government does not in any way intend that the temporary occupation of several strategic points, dictated by special necessities of a purely defensive character, should compromise Greek sovereignty and independence."
I think it's the same strategy as Georgia/Abkhazia. You go in to "defend" the ethnic Russians. You don't take it over, you simply "Keep the peace" and make them a separate country. Congrats, now you have a very important military port in a country that you control.
Remember the consequences Putin faced for Georgia in 2008? Neither does he, because there really weren't any.
I don't think Putin has a well-defined plan per se. I suspect he's simply testing the waters to see how far he can go without causing any significant blow back. First he sends some troops in unmarked uniforms to seize the Crimean goverment and parliament buildings. It goes well. He then unofficially moves in some more unmarked troops and equipment and officially requests the Russian parliament to authorize an invasion. He's now probably gauging the reaction of the international community.
Also, as history shows, he doesn't necessarily need to seize any territory - installing in situ goverments and establishing secure zones around the borders seemed to have worked to Russia's advantage in Transnestria, Abkhazia, and South Osetia. I don't see why it wouldn't work in Crimea, and - if Putin gets really lucky - in Eastern Ukraine.
My only hope is that it doesn't come to a shooting war with mass civilian casualties the way it did in all 3 of those regions.
Crimea is a complicated place. The majority of the population are ethnic Russians. But there's a very active Crimean Tatar minority (~15%) which is staunchly pro-Ukrainian (or anti-Russian, if you will). There are also two potentially hostile militaries close to each other - the Ukrainian army has its bases there and Russia keeps its Black Sea Navy units in the Crimean city of Sevastopol.
I am looking at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine
Ethnic groups (2001)
77.8% Ukrainians
17.3% Russians
4.9% others / unspecified
The Russians are concentrated in the eastern-most provinces, and also in the Crimea.
Russia has 145 million people, the Ukraine has 46 million people, so in terms of the ratio of people, Russia invading the Ukraine would be a bit like the USA invading Mexico.
Russia also has a large per-capita GDP advantage relative to the Ukraine, sort of like the USA advantage over Mexico:
Russia:
GDP (nominal) Per capita $15,717
Ukraine:
GDP (nominal) Per capita $3,862
I'm using the nominal GDP, not the PPP numbers, because when it comes to war it is the nominal numbers that matter (PPP is focused on quality of life, and the fact that your rent might be cheap, or that you can get a haircut for cheap, influences your personal standard of living, but does not effect the outcome of a war).
The USA wasted over $1 trillion in Iraq. If the USA tried to conquer Mexico the war would drag on for many years and very nearly bankrupt the USA. Likewise, I suspect a full invasion of the Ukraine would bankrupt Russia. Chechnya is much smaller, yet still caused Russia considerable pain. And also, Chechnya was isolated from Western help. The Ukraine has a border with a country that is a member of the EU. It is true that the Poles dislike the fact that famous Polish cities such as Lwów were stolen and given to the Ukraine, but if it came to war with Russia, it strikes me as likely Poland allow its border to become porous, in the sense that the border would become a way of getting supplies to the Ukraine. It seems to me likely that the West would be largely united in wanting to help the Ukraine.
The substantial expense makes me think that Putin would not want to try to conquer the whole country. If that is what he wants, then he has gone insane. What seems to me more likely is that he wants to seize those provinces that are majority-Russian. This would be a grievous violation of the sovereignty of the Ukraine, and would probably be regarded as a dangerous precedent. Also, if Putin can get away with it, then there are obvious parallels to Hitler's 1938 occupation of the Sudetenland (which was majority-German). Also remember that Neville Chamberlain's reputation was destroyed when he argued that this one concession to Hitler would lead to peace, when in fact it lead to world war. No Western politician would want to be cast as a modern day Chamberlain, so I suspect many politicians in the West would be inclined to take a strong stand against the partial annexation of the Ukraine to Russia.
I'm trying to think of any major powers that would be willing to support Russia. It has some minor friends: the Serbs, the Syrian government, Cuba, maybe Hungary, etc. But what major power would be willing to support this? Does China have any reason to support Russia in this invasion? I suspect many oil-producing Middle Eastern nations would love to see an economic blockade of Russia, as that would jack up the price of oil.
Finally, there is Putin's use of language, in particular his desire to describe this as an effort to protect the Russians living in the Ukraine. There a parallel to be drawn to the language that Mussolini used when he decided to invade Greece:
"These troops do not come as enemies of the Greek people and the Italian Government does not in any way intend that the temporary occupation of several strategic points, dictated by special necessities of a purely defensive character, should compromise Greek sovereignty and independence."
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/10/liveblogging-world-war...