Ukraine, will a new resistance arise after the invasion?

Of Guido Olimpio

Ukraine is very large and cannot be controlled with 200,000 soldiers. But a NATO commitment is needed to support the resistance: Russia is an expert in dealing with all kinds of dissidents

Will a new Ukrainian resistance arise? There uneven response from experts, the topic was however launched in the US by some specialists. We know that it is easy to start a war, but complex to manage afterwards. The huge territory, 200,000 soldiers are certainly not enough to control it. Those who defend themselves have had a lot of time to prepare. It is relatively easy for Moscow to unload its firepower on defined targets, while it is more difficult to catch small formations whose aim is to wear down the opponent. likely that local forces have created arms depots, shelters. Some of their chosen units have been trained by a CIA program that started in 2015 after the events in Crimea, they know how to behave. By hitting communication routes, convoys, officers. Of course a lot depends on what the final stake will be.

If Putin is “satisfied” with taking only a part of the country, the chances of holding grow, otherwise if he extends his cloak over the whole country (expected by many). But even here he must then be able to impose his own law entrusted to a puppet regime. In Washington, some are relaunching a well-known scenario, that of the porcupine. Will the Russian bear, once devoured the prey, be able to digest it?

There are those who are convinced of themselves. Observers point out how it would be necessary external support for the anti-Russians. Resistances develop gradually, they are not immediate processes, months could pass, provided they survive repression and grip. It becomes essential to create a supply pipeline and – analysts suggest – the NATO countries bordering Ukraine should turn into the rear. This choice – provided that governments are in favor – has a double reading: 1) a goad and a form of pressure against the invader. 2) the Kremlin will consider it a hostile act, there are risks of a widening of the conflict. To what extent is the alliance willing to commit? There is no lack of skepticism on this point. David Ignatius, in the Washington Post, recalls the precedent of the 1950s when the CIA tried to help opposition groups but its action was successfully thwarted: the parachute agents killed, the networks of opponents infiltrated by the KGB and their leaders killed. (also abroad).

Moscow – retorts those who believe little in the resistance option – has developed a great experience in dealing with the insurgents. He did it in Chechnya, sweeping everything away even if at a very high price. For civilians and for the contenders themselves. Eventually the region was brutally “pacified”. Then came the Syrian crisis, a real laboratory for the Army where it tried all kinds of means and tactics. The military has been trained by fighting, and the means and tactics have been modified to face the opponents. The tsar often relied on the Wagner militiamen, more expendable than regular soldiers. If their mothers’ tears die they are almost invisible. However, someone points out that Kiev in Europe, not comparable to the theaters of Grozny or Aleppo, where the Russians have leveled the esplanade. There is also a cost in terms of image and propaganda. All true. But the tragedy of recent days has shown how Putin mind the result and not the rules. It seems to you that you risk an invasion, they said, too shrewd. Instead he did it by pushing his armored columns into the heart of Ukraine. There is time for the future.

Leave a Comment