British expat in Ukraine - consequences of Russian invasion?

IF is a big word.

Other than that, given the UK is supplying weapons to Ukraine, I think moving very quickly would be a good idea.
By 'moving', I mean running away.

However, the only stories about Russian invasions are coming from people selling weapons to Ukraine so take them with a pinch of salt because people making massive profits commonly  tell massive lies to ensure they get their cash.
Saying that, Russia has been getting all miffed since the US led coup of some years ago removed the democratically elected, pro-Russia government.

In the unlikely event of something happening, if you live in the region that shares a border with Russia, I would leave straight away.  If you want an example of the clusterfuck that surrounds violent regime changes, just look at Afghanistan.

Athhanistan was on the hippy trail until the Russians, then the US, messed it up.

You can follow the travel advice from the UK Gov website HERE.

I'm in Kyiv. We're also wondering what we should do if anything.

I agree the liklihood of full scale invasion including Kyiv is small. A further incursion or formally taking ground currently being fought over in the E/SE part of the country is much more likely. That wouldn't affect us anything like as much.

However, we've two 4 year olds and can we afford to take even a small risk? I have noticed the flights aren't any more expensive than usual. Maybe the USD/UAH is the best indication of probabilities ?

I agree the west arming Ukraine is not helpful and indeed at least 50% of the blame lies there but I hope this thread remains practical steps and likelihoods of scenarios happening and not political crap ("isn't X country evil" etc...)

Useful, thanks.

Hi Michael. Not sure about the point of incursion.
One supposition, is that Kiev is the prize in order to overthrow the government.

Fred wrote:

However, the only stories about Russian invasions are coming from people selling weapons to Ukraine so take them with a pinch of salt because people making massive profits commonly  tell massive lies to ensure they get their cash.

So true, it also applies to the Covid hysterics

Personally, I don't think Russia would invade.  The separatist region is 5K sq. miles.  What difference does it make if Russia enlarges it to 10K or even 15K?  As long as there is a separatist region, Ukraine cannot possibly join NATO FORMALLY.   The size of it is totally irrelevant.  Taking the separatist region into Russia is actually counterproductive because a conflict-free Ukraine is more eligible for NATO!  This is why Russia hasn't taken the separatist region into Russia even though the locals have been begging to join in the past 8 years.

Russia's beef as of today is Ukraine's cooperation with NATO.  It's a backdoor partnership since it cannot formally join.  The only way to stop it is that Russia takes over entire Ukraine.  This however is an enormous undertaking.  Defeating the Ukrainian military is one thing.  Occupying it is the difficult part.  The USSR learned its hard lesson in Afghanistan.  Worst of all, Russia takes herself to NATO.  Remember, to the west of Ukraine is Poland, a country of 38 million Russian haters!  So Russia is actually back to square one by taking Ukraine even if it can stop Ukraine from engaging with NATO.

With that said, I don't think Russia will invade.  It makes no sense whatsoever.  They amass 100K troops hoping to score some points in these diplomatic negotiations.  Since that is not panning out, they would simply pursue a different strategy.

I was taught as a kid that the Cuban Missile Crisis is due to the USSR deploying missiles in Cuba, and through Kennedy's unwavering determination to confront the Russians, they finally backed down.  In recent years, I learned that was only HALF of the story.  The first half is the U.S. stationed missiles in Turkey capable of striking the USSR first!  The crisis finally ended when both sides agreed to withdraw missiles from Turkey and Cuba respectively.

Putin was on TV suggesting he would strengthen military ties with Cuba and Venezuela.   Certainly, this would not be tolerable for the U.S.  (People have the right to self-determination does NOT work both ways!)  The U.S. and Russia would have to compromise like last time, ie. Russia gets out of Cuba/ VZ and the U.S. gets out of Ukraine. 

In case my prediction is wrong, my exit strategy is to hire a taxi and head west.  Taxi is much easier to get than planes in this case, not to mention you can leave immediately.

Russia grabbed Crimea in 2014 because it's too easy to take, and Crimea has a very important strategic value in the Black Sea!  Russia's Black Sea fleet is based in Crimea even after the dissolution of the USSR!  The way it was going, Ukraine was ready to kick out the Russians when the lease expired in 2017 and turned over the naval base to the Americans.   

For any political or military strategist, that risk vs reward calculus in Crimea is simply too good to not pursue.  The Crimeans are never supportive of Kyiv anyway.  In the west, we fool ourselves by insisting the Crimeans voted to join Russia under duress.  If the 2014 referendum was the only one, I would have had the same suspicion due to the presence of the Little Green Men.  However, after learning Crimea had TWO prior referendums (conveniently dismissed in the west), I have to conclude they joined willingly.  No LGM were there for the first two!  Since the 2nd referendum was overruled by Kyiv against people's will, I suspect the LGM were there to make sure the 3rd one doesn't simply get overruled too.

Taking the rest of Ukraine doesn't offer the same risk vs reward advantage.  Ukraine after all is a poor country.  Does Russia really want to add 44 million mouths to feed without specific gains and risk devastating economic sanctions from the west? 

I don't want to get into a big discussion if people should be allowed to break away via a vote.  The UK certainly didn't let the U.S. go without a fight!  Neither did the American North allow the South to break away through a vote.

I am only differentiating the difference between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine, and why Russia took Crimea then but wouldn't take the rest of Ukraine today.

BeHealthyNPositive wrote:

Russia grabbed Crimea in 2014 because it's too easy to take, and Crimea has a very important strategic value in the Black Sea!  Russia's Black Sea fleet is based in Crimea even after the dissolution of the USSR!  The way it was going, Ukraine was ready to kick out the Russians when the lease expired in 2017 and turned over the naval base to the Americans.   

For any political or military strategist, that risk vs reward calculus in Crimea is simply too good to not pursue.  The Crimeans are never supportive of Kyiv anyway.  In the west, we fool ourselves by insisting the Crimeans voted to join Russia under duress.  If the 2014 referendum was the only one, I would have had the same suspicion due to the presence of the Little Green Men.  However, after learning Crimea had TWO prior referendums (conveniently dismissed in the west), I have to conclude they joined willingly.  No LGM were there for the first two!  Since the 2nd referendum was overruled by Kyiv against people's will, I suspect the LGM were there to make sure the 3rd one doesn't simply get overruled too.

Taking the rest of Ukraine doesn't offer the same risk vs reward advantage.  Ukraine after all is a poor country.  Does Russia really want to add 44 million mouths to feed without specific gains and risk devastating economic sanctions from the west? 

I don't want to get into a big discussion if people should be allowed to break away via a vote.  The UK certainly didn't let the U.S. go without a fight!  Neither did the American North allow the South to break away through a vote.

I am only differentiating the difference between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine, and why Russia took Crimea then but wouldn't take the rest of Ukraine today.

To play devil's advocate, Russia doesn't need to feed Belorus mouths. If it was an invasion there'd be a puppet like Lukashenko installed.

My short reply doesn't take away from your interesting and possibly accurate analysis.

You have to take history into account. This is not a political opinion.

There were a lot of rumours the US set up a revolution against pro-Russian government. There was already plenty of local trouble so that's still debatable.
The 'CIA did it' was shown as more likely when US politicians were bugged talking about their actual political goals.
Crimea has been threatening to leave Ukraine since at least 2005. They are Russian speakers and, trying to balance up the propaganda from both sides, seem to want to be part of Russia.

The EU and UK depends on Russian gas supplied in pipes that run through Ukraine.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP198.html
or maybe that's past tense.
https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/01/rus … -kyiv-says
Then add the US trying to sell their expensive shale gas to Europe
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/us … pply-boom/

How do you sell your expensive product when a far cheaper option is available?
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/2 … on-germany

This is politics. Don't think 'people', think 'money'.

Still this is more about a fear rather than a why, so the map shows Russian speaking areas that are most likely to want to join Russia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RussianUseEn.PNG

I wonder if Biden's minor incursion stuff shows an expectation of a break up of Ukraine as some pro-Russian areas want to leave. If so, and that's where the OP lives, get a grab bag ready to throw into your car.

Just in case the above comes over as pro-Russia

Forget it, both sides are just as bad.

This sort of stuff is why I stopped bothering supporting any political side - The lot are a bunch of corrupt, cash grabbing pillocks with a lot more interest in lining their wallets than how many people are hurt in their quest for cash.

BeHealthyNPositive wrote:

Personally, I don't think Russia would invade.  The separatist region is 5K sq. miles.  What difference does it make if Russia enlarges it to 10K or even 15K?  As long as there is a separatist region, Ukraine cannot possibly join NATO FORMALLY.   The size of it is totally irrelevant.  Taking the separatist region into Russia is actually counterproductive because a conflict-free Ukraine is more eligible for NATO!  This is why Russia hasn't taken the separatist region into Russia even though the locals have been begging to join in the past 8 years.

Russia's beef as of today is Ukraine's cooperation with NATO.  It's a backdoor partnership since it cannot formally join.  The only way to stop it is that Russia takes over entire Ukraine.  This however is an enormous undertaking.  Defeating the Ukrainian military is one thing.  Occupying it is the difficult part.  The USSR learned its hard lesson in Afghanistan.  Worst of all, Russia takes herself to NATO.  Remember, to the west of Ukraine is Poland, a country of 38 million Russian haters!  So Russia is actually back to square one by taking Ukraine even if it can stop Ukraine from engaging with NATO.

With that said, I don't think Russia will invade.  It makes no sense whatsoever.  They amass 100K troops hoping to score some points in these diplomatic negotiations.  Since that is not panning out, they would simply pursue a different strategy.

I was taught as a kid that the Cuban Missile Crisis is due to the USSR deploying missiles in Cuba, and through Kennedy's unwavering determination to confront the Russians, they finally backed down.  In recent years, I learned that was only HALF of the story.  The first half is the U.S. stationed missiles in Turkey capable of striking the USSR first!  The crisis finally ended when both sides agreed to withdraw missiles from Turkey and Cuba respectively.

Putin was on TV suggesting he would strengthen military ties with Cuba and Venezuela.   Certainly, this would not be tolerable for the U.S.  (People have the right to self-determination does NOT work both ways!)  The U.S. and Russia would have to compromise like last time, ie. Russia gets out of Cuba/ VZ and the U.S. gets out of Ukraine. 

In case my prediction is wrong, my exit strategy is to hire a taxi and head west.  Taxi is much easier to get than planes in this case, not to mention you can leave immediately.

Thank you for your sharp insight and clever grasp  of geo-politics. Chapeau!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60096261

The arms sales start - 200 million bucks worth of trade

The more build up, the more a grab bag is in order for the OP

This might be worth looking at HERE

Yeah, read it on Sky News, thanks.

Don't take too much from the news until you look at history, who built up troops where, when they did it, and who is on the make (gas).
I'm taking a look at this in some detail at the moment - the news doesn't fit the undisputed timeline.
If that's lies, and it is, one has to consider what else they're fibbing about.

If you're in a Russian speaking area, there seems to be some chance of shooting, but all the news about Russian troop movements comes with minimal evidence. If guns start, the US has just agreed a military agreement with Moldova so, that country being the closest, might be the direction to head.
However, there are notable US forces in Poland, Hungary (from 12 March 1999), Slovakia, and Romania (from 29 March 2004) so any of these countries (that just happen to border Ukraine) may be options if those nasty Russians who started their aggressive troop build up last year get fruity.

Remaining neutral but look at dates and who did what to whom as it makes a difference to the chances of guns going bang, and where they will go bang. The greatest chance is in ethnic Russian areas as they are likely to be seen by Moscow as in need of protection from NATO.

Thanks. Not running anywhere, staying put, digging in, riding the storm. The Russians are not the same as the Taliban.

expat8097 wrote:

Thanks. Not running anywhere, staying put, digging in, riding the storm. The Russians are not the same as the Taliban.

Russian speaking areas are the most likely to see conflict. Also, never underestimate the power of men with guns to do crackpot things.

Regardless of Russia would invade or not, if you don't have a local bank account and rely on taking money out of your overseas account at an ATM, make sure you get some cash out now while you still can! 

I had to visit 5 different banks today to finally find a machine that would accept my American bank card.  In the past 7 months, I was relying on Privat Bank's machines and never had any problems.  Well, we are now in an extraordinary time. 

No. I don't pay ATM fees.  My American bank reimburses me 100%.  This is why I never bother to open a Ukrainian account.  Perhaps I should now.

My exit signal is when France, Germany, and many other western governments are also evacuating their diplomats, then I leave.

So far the U.S. is the only one, but I can't convince myself that these other governments don't care about their diplomats.  So I'm staying put for now.

I agree that the Russians are not like the Taliban.  However, when they arrive, if there is local resistance, we don't want to get caught in the crossfire.  After all, it's not our fight!

Michael1123 wrote:

To play devil's advocate, Russia doesn't need to feed Belorus mouths. If it was an invasion there'd be a puppet like Lukashenko installed.

Russia would still have to invest significantly, or this puppet they prop up would be overthrown.  There are sizable Ukrainian nationalists here.

On a different subject, Lukashenko is a tricky one.  When Yeltsin was in power, Lukashenko was actually exceedingly into bringing Belarus back to Russia.  He knew if he ran against a drunkard like Yeltsin, he could easily win.  Unfortunately for Lukashenko, Putin came to power, ended the chaos in the Yeltsin era and became very popular in Russia.  Ever since then, he has been resisting to join Russia knowing he can't win against Putin in an election!  Now, since he is becoming unpopular even in Belarus, he actually needs Putin's support to just stay in power there.

I am curious what bank you use in the United States.  Also are you saying that your card was not working correctly because of the Russia situation? I am still using Privat Bank with no issues as of yet.

A report yesterday says British troops are fighting in the Ukrainian army. Add British government arms sales to, and political support for, Ukraine and British citizens there could well end up seen as combatants or spies if things kick off.

Yes, saw that article myself, thanks. Well it's their choice.

Cash, power hunger, and stupidity make for wars.
There's plenty of all three in that region at the moment .. on both sides.

Keep a weather eye on the situation, dear chap.

By the way, read TASS and RT's propaganda as well as that coming from the west. You'll get a fuller picture that way, but look for what's missing as much as what's there.
As a note, this situation actually started in March 1999 but started hotting up in 2013 and 2014 ready for the events of 2016.
More puppets than a Punch and Judy show and more lies than a UK prime minister when he talks about working lunches.

RE63 wrote:

I am curious what bank you use in the United States.  Also, are you saying that your card was not working correctly because of the Russia situation? I am still using Privat Bank with no issues as of yet.

1. Charles Schwab - they offer an investment checking account.  You have to be their investment customer to be eligible
2. Outside of the Russian situation, I cannot think of any other reason.  I ran into problems for the 1st time yesterday after having been here for 7 months.  All the locals were able to take cash from the same machines that rejected my card!  Eventually, I walked to the OTP Bank.  Thank God!  They still take my card.  The only way I can explain it is that OTP is foreign-owned.