How could it happen that Ukrainian soldiers did not try to defend against the invasion?

Question

What I do not understand about the current crisis in Crimea is how this invasion could be successful without anyone firing a gun.

• Weren't there Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea? Maybe the soldiers were already all ethnic Russian or Crimean?

• If there were some, then how could it happen that they "just gave up"? Were they badly outnumbered in every single base?

• Or did they receive a surrender command from Kiev?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I naively assumed that if random armed people assault a military base, the soldiers will try to defend it.

Answer 1

When the Russian soldiers first deployed in the Crimea, Turchynov feared that any provocation would lead to a full scale war, a war he'd have very little chance of winning. He compared the situation with the Russian deployment in Abkhazia and South Ossetia (which started under the same general pretense of protecting the Russian citizens there):

"Russia has sent forces into Crimea ... they are working on scenarios which are fully analogous with Abkhazia, when having initiated a military conflict, they started to annex the territory," Turchinov said in televised comments.

The war with Georgia lasted five days and Russia remains in control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, although the United Nations and most countries regard them as still part of Georgia.

_{Source: Reuters}

Both wars ended with devastating defeats for Georgia, and it's understandable that Turchinov would want to exercise caution, and try for a diplomatic solution instead of directly antagonizing the Russians.

Furthermore the Russians didn't stop at sending troops into Crimea, they also moved troops near East Ukraine. Kiev, at that point, had a legitimate fear that any provocation could have lead to a full scale invasion.

Answer 2

The Ukranians have not surrendered. There is currently a stand-off between Russia and the Ukraine, which is attempting to be solved diplomatically.

Klitschko told The Associated Press that "of course" he is afraid of Russian aggression, but said the standoff over Crimea shouldn't be solved "on a military level."

"We must do everything so that not a single drop of blood is spilled,

Nations do not always retaliate against acts of aggression, because it will cause a full scale war. Saber rattling is quite common amongst nations as a form of "extended diplomacy." Even though the US is much stronger militarily, it has often ignored direct attacks on its troops, planes, or naval ships, so the relative strength of one's military is not always relevant. Many times the tension will simply de-escalate. The reason to attempt this should be quite obvious- that many people die in wars and they should be avoided.

I see only one example of a direct attack on a base near Sevastopol.

According to early reports, members of a pro-Russia militia used a truck to break through the gate of the base. The truck got stuck at the gate, and Russian soldiers climbed over it. Some 70 Ukrainian troops were said to still be holding out in the bunkers. The militia troops who broke through the perimeter demanded the Ukrainian soldiers surrender.

Negotiations were currently under way to resolve the situation last week.

The Ukraine and Russia have treaty agreements and had a good relationship before this incident. If the Ukrainians fired on the Russian troops, that would very likely end any hope of a good relationship between the new Kiev government and Russia. It might even cause a war and Ukraine would be very outnumbered and might lose many people in such a war. Russia has 30,000 troops in the Ukraine already.

Putin called for Russian troops to return to bases, so there might be signs that a diplomatic solution is possible.

Answer 3

There are several reasons why Ukrainian soldiers didn't fight in Crimea

1) A historical and cultural bond with the Russians

2) A lack of sufficient support from the local population

3) An uncertainty caused by Kiev’s echelon of power

4) A lack of success even if they had tried to fight

1) If you are familiar with the history of the USSR you are likely to know that the Crimea had been part of the Russian Federation until 1954. So, you see that Ukraine did nothing in this respect as Crimea was presented to Ukraine by Russia. It’s a good thing to remember that you can’t really consider something to be yours if you haven’t earned it yourself. Among Ukrainian soldiers in Crimea were ethnic Russians and simply those who didn’t consider Russian soldiers enemies. As they know it well: politicians screw things up and after that make others scape goats.

2) Local population of Crimea at least 80 percent have hated new Ukrainian Government since the first day of that gorvernment and have been calling them Kiev’s Junta as the procedure of impeachment wasn’t performed in accordance with constitution hence Turchinov commited a crime by becoming an acting-president as Viktor Yanukovich is still the President of the Ukraine even though most of the countries of the WORLD don’t admit it. It doesn’t change the truth.

3) As I said, politicians make others scape goats. That is why the militants in Crimea didn’t have clear instructions and commands on what to do as Turchinov himself wasn’t sure what to do.

4) Suppose Ukrainian militants had started bloodshed would have they succeeded in doing so? Of course not. They were wise enough to feign some patriotism and get away with it.

Answer 4

This article explains a lot of what happen with Ukraine army in Crimea and elsewhere.

To highlight some good points:

• Ukraine army is dramatically underfunded:

  How bad is it? Only 1 in 10 Ukrainian troops staring across the border at Russia are protected by body armor. The country has lost at least three helicopters trying to take a better look at the setup of pro-Russian militias and can’t afford to replace a single one.

• ...when Russian forces fanned out across Crimea in March, the military didn’t react because the military couldn’t react. The country’s tanks, trucks, jets and ships were in such bad repair that many weren’t operational.

Now, imagine if Ukraine still possessed nukes...

Answer 5

There is a good joke from that time: Russian troops in Crimea: Surrender! We surrounded your base. Crimean Ukrainian troops: Russians never surrender!

PS: Most of the Ukrainian Crimean army just switched the sides, because of very simple reason - most of the people in Crimea are Russian or Russian-speaking and they support Russian identity compared to nationalistic Ukrainian identity. (Independently of why and how it's happen).

Links (in Russian) supporting the peaceful "change" of sides by Crimean army

• about army
• about air forces

Update: I was checking the official statistics on how many Ukranian miliatry force left Crimea. So, official Ukrainian statistics: more than 50% "just switched" the sides, or I would say took the oath to serve Russia. I repeat, those are Ukrainian mass-media, Russian mass-media report that only 20% voluntarily left Crimea.

• Russian wiki with lot of links to Ukranian mass-media
• Ukrainian link confirming that only 30% of soldiers left Crimea

Answer 6

„U.S. Told Ukraine to Stand Down as Putin¹ Invaded.“

I heard this idea from many analysts in Ukraine, but it was kind of unproven opinions.
Till recently, when this article on Bloomberg appeared, explaining everything in details.

Sorry for a long quote, but it really answers the question completely. Markup is mine.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin's forces took over Ukraine's Crimean peninsula in early 2014, the interim Ukrainian government was debating whether or not to fight back against the "little green men" Russia had deployed.
But the message from the Barack Obama administration was clear: avoid military confrontation with Moscow.

The White House's message to Kyiv was advice, not an order, U.S. and Ukrainian officials have recently told us, and was based on a variety of factors.

1. There was a lack of clarity about what Russia was really doing on the ground.
2. The Ukrainian military was in no shape to confront the Russian Spetsnaz (special operations) forces that were swarming on the Crimean peninsula.

3. Moreover, the Ukrainian government in Kyiv was only an interim administration until the country would vote in elections a few months later. Ukrainian officials told us that other European governments sent Kyiv a similar message.

4. But the main concern was Russian President Vladimir Putin.

   As U.S. officials told us recently, the White House feared that if the Ukrainian military fought in Crimea, it would give Putin justification to launch greater military intervention in Ukraine, using similar logic to what Moscow employed in 2008 when Putin invaded large parts of Georgia in response to a pre-emptive attack by the Tbilisi government. Russian forces occupy two Georgian provinces to this day.

There are more proofs and direct speech of U.S. officials within the article.

---

As the article suggests, the U.S. official have feared that a horde of 125 million¹ (out of 140) would demand a greater war.

---

¹ The recent edit #3 to this answer has removed a crucial section explaining the logical fallacy of "Putin invaded" and also the origin of "125 out of 140 million" numbers. Leaving this as it is to avoid any disputes.

Answer 7

Maybe the soldiers were already all russian ethnic or crimeans?

This. Most of population of Crimea including soldiers are Russian ethnics + Russia had military bases in Crimea (like US all over the world). I'd say Ukraine controlled Crimea only on paper. And Ukraine had tensions between western pro-west and eastern pro-Russian territories and this tension increased dramatically when pro-west citizens put down pro-Russian president. Crimea had not pro-west electorate. It cannot be called pure invasion from Russia, because no much troops were invading, it is more like internal Ukrainian pro-Russian separatism (with Russian support of course) after another one pro-western Ukrainian revolution.

Answer 8

A few mitigating factors should be said in the defense of the Ukrainian National Guard:

1. The Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian forces had just fled the country, and as a result, standing orders were to remain in barracks. In the midst of an uphevel, having troops on the streets may not necessarily be calming things down.

2. The number of Russian troops entering the country was pretty significant - not something that would have been covered by standing orders. Especially in light of the chaotic situation in Kiev, line soldiers are not authorized to start major manuevers without the go-ahead from above.

Answer 9

A new info has just emerged. According the words of Turchinov (the acting president after the coup), it was the Americans (namely, John Kerry) who pressed on Ukraine not to respond and assured them that Russians will not go far (literally "it is a local problem according to our information").

По словам Турчинова, покровительствовавшие хунте американцы советовали украинской стороне «не провоцировать Россию», опасаясь введения российских войск на территорию страны. «Помню свой разговор по телефону с госсекретарем Керри. Я ему объясняю, что у нас идет оккупация территории, идет реально война. А он мне: «Подождите, давайте мы будем разбираться, экспертов пригласим. Мы вас очень просим, не стреляйте, понимаете, русские ж только и ждут провокации, русские ждут от вас любого выстрела, чтоб разыграть Абхазский или Осетинский сценарий. Мы от вас очень просим выдержки. По нашим данным, говорит, это локальная проблема», — сообщает Турчинов.

This hints that the whole thing with Crimea could be a part of a wider American plan to earn Ukraine into the ranks of their allies, create a long-standing conflict between Russia and Ukraine and possibly isolate Russia internationally. The Russian government was acting more like passive perpetrators without understanding the long-term consequences in favor of short-term gain. Russia possibly would not take Crimea without previous assurance from the US that they will press on to Ukraine not to respond with force.

Answer 10

The thing is that the majority of the Ukrainian military, police, internal troops and other law enforcement were against those neo-nazi revolutionaries who disposed the president. What they wanted from the president when he was still in power was to give them permission to use more real force and weapons against the opposition. Yanukovich enjoyed full loyalty of the troops, at all levels, from top to the very bottom. It was only his cowardry and the pressure from the West that kept him from ordering suppression of the revolt.

Consequently, after the president was overthrown, the former rebels started mass scale actions aimed at the humiliation of the troops. In western cities the soldiers were forced to stay at their knees and ask for pardon and were beaten. In some cases the nazi militias even humiliated the traffic police while taking videos of these actions. Consequently, some most loyal and disciplined troops such as special forces "Berkut" were disbanded by the new government without keeping their rank, social benefits and pension. In Crimea they refused to follow the disbanding order and declared they now on subordinated to the local authorities (thus forming the core of the Crimea's own forces).

It should be noted also that the new government made a strong emphasis on that the Yanukovich, the police and army officers are guilty in suppressing the revolt. Some people threatened the military personnel that they were fixing all their actions so to prosecute them later. Given such charges, the new government is no longer in moral position to order a suppression of another revolt.

That said, the actions of Russia in this situation more look as a stab in the back. Suppose you are a soldier in the trench. And you are attacked from the back of your lines rather than from the enemy's positions. First you will think it is a joke, then you will think it is a mistake, then you will try to negotiate and finally you will be totally demoralized between the lines of enemy in the front and former supposed ally in the back.

Putin already made use of situations when the West pressed Russia's friendly governments, like those in Belarus and Kyrgyzstan the most hard, to gain certain concessions for Russia. The stronger the West presses on those countries, the more does Russia demand also. This way for example, Russia gained control of much of the Belarus's industry.