From listening to people who know what they are talking about it would seem that the Russians would make huge gains in the first few hours or days, but that the following months/years could become Afghanistan II.
Ukraine has significant military forces. Their equipment is old so they need help in that regard –and their Navy fits in a small marina– but between the regular army and volunteers, they could make it extremely costly for the Russians in the long term, which is why the strategy of giving them top notch weaponry is actually a smart move from the West:
- No Westerners are put in danger.
- It costs very little (a relatively cheap single-use missile can down a very expensive helicopter/tank).
- I stopped counting, but the US, the UK, and several Baltic countries have sent many thousands of these (that we know of). That's much harder to defeat than ~20 aging, fragile fighter jets (or however many Ukraine has) that can only briefly stay airborne and need huge logistics behind.
- The Soviet Union/Russia already knows how much damage these things can do in a long-term guerrilla war so they will think twice.
If the Russians were to invade Ukraine - (and they would love to be able to provoke Ukraine into starting such a conflict - as had happened in Georgia in 2008) - and, even now, that is by no means definite, for it is better, perhaps, to threaten to do so in the hope of actually achieving one's aims (a permanently divided Ukraine, and a western part of Ukraine only ever able to join some sort of western political/economic (EU) or military (NATO) alliance on the condition that they recognise the separate existence and/or independence of a Russian controlled/influenced east Ukraine) - while they may conquer the country, I very much doubt that they would be able to hold western Ukraine. Not long term.
This is because they (Russia) are loathed in the west of the country (Ukraine) and their rule would never be (permanently) accepted by the population, and the price (political, military, economic, diplomatic) of insisting on this would come at a cost that Russia would not be willing to pay.
Therefore, I would envisage, instead, a strategic Russian withdrawal from the west of the country, (remember, Russia withdrew from some of the military gains they had made in Georgia in 2008, - they could have taken Tbilisi had they wished to do so - but instead withdrew to the places where - which - they really wanted), and peace talks aimed at securing a permanent - and internationally recognised and accepted (which would include recognising Donbass, Luhansk, Crimea, perhaps Kyiv, as under, or subject to, Russian influence) agreement which would formalise the permanent division of the country.
www.theguardian.com
