Poor guy, getting clobbered for speaking the truth.
Getting some real anxiety about Ukraine ATM, the anticipation of the counteroffensive but nervous because so much rests on it both for Ukraine and globally.
Getting some real anxiety about Ukraine ATM, the anticipation of the counteroffensive but nervous because so much rests on it both for Ukraine and globally.
Ukraine has been underestimated before, but the high costs of tying up Wagner etc in Bakmuht will have taken its toll, Russia has a had a while to dig in, they have adapted and improved their tactics to an extent and does Ukraine have enough tanks, artillery, air support etc to make it work?
Only Zelenskyy % Co knows if the price of holding Bhakmut was/is worth it.
Getting some real anxiety about Ukraine ATM, the anticipation of the counteroffensive but nervous because so much rests on it both for Ukraine and globally.
Same, who knows what will happen, but it may turn out to be just as much of a damp squib as the Russia counteroffensive.
Ukraine has been underestimated before
Agreed, hence why I have high hopes, they've proven they can pull off some incredible feats when given the support required. But so much of this relies on pure luck.
A sudden downpour that brings back the mud, a bridge collapsing, a tank breaking down and blocking a key road and an intel slip up that tips off local Russian forces, any of these could make a real difference in where the end result sits.
On such minutiae does history turn.
The Kherson offensive was pretty slow wasn’t it, I wonder how many of those Russian troops who escaped across the river have been killed in the Russian offensive? At least that offensive (Russian) came to nothing, and at a very high cost.
Nervous too, we’ll see in a few weeks. I expect there will be a lot of Ukrainian disinformation floated first!!
I’m hopeful. If the UA can break through and get behind the Russian defenses, I think that the atrocious morale of the RF could precipitate a collapse. Rats and sinking ship springs to mind. All appendages crossed..
Yes it is worrying, but also, every European county is pretty commited to pushing Russia back to its pre- crimea invasion, for very obvious reasons.
Also the USA.
The Ukraine government is probably building up huge debts for this, but they should also get a lot of discount/leeway, as it's really not in the interest of the EU or the USA to allow Russia to gain ground, and Ukraine is on the pointy end of the stick.
From everything I have read the only way there can be a lasting peace from this is if Ukraine retakes Crimea. If they dont, then there can be no lasting peace as they will continue to be vulnerable to further Russian land and sea aggression. I hope they are successful because that then will ensure that this war will end for the foreseeable.
I'm not sure how committed European nations are with regards returning Crimea.
Crimea is joined to the mainland by a strip of land that is 5 kilometres wide, any attempt to retake it would surely result in a whole other level of carnage.
I would be very surprised if Ukraine managed to reclaim either Crimea or the land in the east the Russians held before the recent invasion.
Other European nations are probably looking on (like us), waiting to see how much land Ukraine can retake in the coming counter offensive and they will re-calculate their support accordingly. Perhaps the best Ukraine can hope for is to retake the land in the south, denying the Rusians the land bridge to Crimea.
I think the theory on Crimea is that once they get close enough they can reach it, and more importantly the bridge, with Himars etc. Isolate the land bridge, blow the Kerch bridge, start shooting and the Russians will have to pull back. The big Kherson and Kharkiv offensives happened when the battles were already won through attacks on logistics.
Also lots of aid has been marine focused to support this. Without Crimea the Russians will continue to threaten another land push to Kherson, and the Dneiper, and also threaten any sea traffic in the black sea. Ukraine has no choice on this.
I think USA and UK have always realised this but played it down. France, Germany and Turkiye now realise this which is why their rhetoric and aid quantity has changed.
Re-taking control of 250 miles of Russia-Ukraine land border in the Donbas and then defending the whole 1400 miles is a daunting task. Add the Belarus-Ukraine border into the mix and the military task becomes monumental.
200 miles of that border with Russia is sea and Ukraine would have to deal with that too
Re-taking Crimea and dropping the Kerch bridge would very publicly underline the failure of Russia's 2022 invasion by losing land that they've held since 2014.
I think that the hope has to be that Russia would turn its attention to the internal problems that are already smouldering and turn its forces around simply because it needs internal security and labour to get society moving again. Belarus will quietly go back to its pre-2022 status
I don't see this ending well sadly. Too much money, corruption, power, jeopardy and ego involved. Once you've marched all you4 troops up the hill, it’s very hard to bring them down again and maintain face/power.
I'd be interested to hear from any of those on here with military experience how it might be possible to take Crimea from a military standpoint.
Russia was 'renting' Sebastopol from the Ukranians prior to 2014, something agreed upon when the Soviet union broke up. It is a deep water port from which Russia can dominate the Black Sea and access the Mediterranean amd the Mid Atlantc.
Russia is the largest country in the world but has very limited access to the seas. Murmansk s is stuck in the Artic Circle, Sebastopol is in Ukraine and Vladivostok is essentially in Outer Manchuria, (which the Chinese consider to be part of China) and it freezes over during winter.
They will not give up Sebastopol (and by definition Crimea) without one hell of a fight and it could even be the trigger for deploying a tactical nuclear weapon. Any attempt to recapture it would inevitably involve tens of thousands of troops being packed into a five kilometre wide strip that will likely have been denuded of civilians prior to the action. The Ukranian forces would effectively be forming a bait ball.
Aside from the nuclear scenario, the Russians wouldn't exactly need accurate artillery to defend the peninsula, it could just turn the border areas into a diorama of the Somme.
I personally don't think a straightforward southern push into Crimea is very likely for the exact reasons stated above. Obviously the Ukrainians could have some cunning scheme to do just this that we don't know about yet but it would need to be very cunning indeed.
However.... the with the Kerch bridge's railroad still out of action the vast majority of the supplies for all the troops and Civilians in Crimea and Kherson south of the Dnipro is coming in from the east by Rail along the land bridge Russia seized in early 2022.
If Ukraine can push just a little way south they can bring the crucial rail junction in Tokmak within HIMARS range they can effectively cut off Crimea's bulk supplies.
If they can cut that link and keep it cut, Crimea would eventually become indefensible.
This is what I thought they'd try and do when the ground froze in Winter but the Winter was too mild and they've clearly decided to wait until the a decent chunk of the new Western hardware is in theatre before kicking it off, the timing has changed but Tokmak remains a huge glowing Russian vulnerability and I'm sure Ukranian planners are working out how best to get at it.
I don't think they necessarily need to take Crimea by direct assault, which would indeed be carnage for the attackers. If they can isolate it by cutting the land bridge from Melitopol and the Kerch bridge they can bide their time while the Russians panic without significant logistic resupply. I know there are ferry routes and air resupply options (both vulnerable to attack) but I doubt they could cope with the sheer weight of military and civilian supplies needed for the whole peninsula. Throw in some stand-off drone/HIMARS attacks on logistic hubs and SF/partisan activity into the mix too, and things would get pretty desperate for the occupiers PDQ.
I have seen another argument to do all the above, but leave the bridge to give the Russians an escape route.
Edit: Hatter beat me to it. Must learn to not get distracted and wander off halfway through typing a reply!
Saw some pics of Bradley fv in theatre so the necessary hardware is trickling in. Canada also delivering vehicles this week.
Russia was ‘renting’ Sebastopol from the Ukranians prior to 2014, something agreed upon when the Soviet union broke up.
An agreement since terminated by Putin.
"An agreement since terminated by Putin."
Absolutely, occupying Crimea made the agreement to rent Sebastopol null and void and from a moral standpoint Putin would be receiving his just deserts were he to lose that port,
It's not just about Putin though, he has dragged his whole country into this and the loss of Sebastopol would be unthinkable for most Russians. I would imagine Sebastopol is far more important to Russia than the Dombass and the stakes would rise accordingly should their presence there come under direct threat.
They will not give up Sebastopol (and by definition Crimea) without one hell of a fight and it could even be the trigger for deploying a tactical nuclear weapon.
This is my fear to, I can't see Putin surviving if he loses Crimea so might feel what else does he have to lose. Or at least some false flag bio weapon. Even if there's no well-organised plot against him (unlikely due to the control he has) it wouldn't be impossible for someone reasonably trusted to do the deed.
As others have said, Ukraine don't need to (and probably can't) attack into Crimea directly (in the short term) without taking huge losses, it's too much of a bottleneck. But destroying the bridge and cutting off the water supply + the ports being in HIMARS range means Russia would struggle to hold it long term. They'd probably evacuate civilians and destroy most of the infrastructure and just hold out in some of the key locations for several months.
Yeh, I think starving them out of Crimea is the best thing certainly short term, as it's not taking it back per-se it's a more passive action.
Maybe that's why the russians haven't fully repaired the bridge as they proably know Ukraine will just take another pot-shot at it to keep the rail link out of commision, which on the surface would be a pretty easy thing to do, so it's a bit of a mexican stand off of attrittion in that respect?
"Crimea would eventually become indefensible."
There's more than a few folk who have said that over the centuries!
Broadly agree with you though, the need to restrict and ideally cut the land bridge to Crimea is vital for Ukraine. Even though the Russians were caught out last fall, they could still relocate forces from the south to the north east in response.
The immediate benefits of taking back the land north of Crimea would be to disrupt Russian logistics and flexibility to such an extent that it would alleviate pressure on all fronts. Not to mention they could cut the water supply to the peninsula again.
Would putting the Kerch out of action be enough for the Russiansto consider the peninsula indefensible? I'm not so sure? and the 'leaving the Russians an escape route' narrative presupposes that the Ukranians only intended to blow up the road section, leaving the rail section intact so I don't put too much faith in that theory.
All we (and the Russians) know is that Ukraine can destroy the bridge if it wants. In which case, (putting the escape route theory aside) why hasn't it done so again?
Purely speculation on my part but the fact that they haven't finished the job suggests that Ukraine is using the fact that Russia knows how vulnerable the bridge is as a bargain chip in future negotiations?
The ability to destroy the bridge is the closest thing Ukraine has to a tactical nuclear weapon, (in respect of the fact that a single action can have huge and instant consequences), though cutting the water supply is also a fairly 'nuclear' option for Ukraine as well.
All we (and the Russians) know is that Ukraine can destroy the bridge if it wants.
I'm not entirely sure that's the case. I know there are conflicting theories as to how the bridge was attacked, but the most credible to me* seems to be a large Vehicle borne IED. The Russians certainly seem to think it was (and they are not ALWAYS lying)! If it was, then the Russians will have massively stepped up security and vehicle inspection making it much, much harder to carry out a repeat attack using the same MO.
*Not saying it definitely was, but seems by far the most likely. Though a good few years out of date, I have a background in counter terrorist bomb disposal and explosive damage estimation. I have stood in a good few craters following VBIEDs functioning, both on test and proof ranges during trials and on the streets for real following attacks.
Russia doesn't need Crimea because it has the warm water Port of Novorossiysk just a few hours further up the coast (not that warm, it just doesn't freeze)
Sevastopol and Crimea have massive historical connotations for the Russian Black Sea Fleet going back to its formation some 240 years ago.
President Putin opened the Kerch Bridge in 2018; it's the longest bridge in Europe, the longest bridge built by Russia and cost $3.7bn. Crimea is a projection of his power and ability and was also a holiday resort for Russian citizens.
Re-taking Crimea, whether directly or indirectly, is so obvious that Ukraine will initially do something completely different 🙂
Could Ukarine not knacker the bridge again using a drone submarine?
South american drug cartels have been using them for years to get coke into europe.
https://insightcrime.org/news/second-ever-narco-sub-europe-herald-atlantic/
If they can get them across the atlantic with a 3 ton payload, a smaller modern military spec drone 'bomb' submarine should be easy.
Could Ukarine not knacker the bridge again using a drone submarine?
Surely the bridge is protected by submarine nets or similar?
Surely the bridge is protected by submarine nets or similar?
Maybe, but assuming that, could they not send a smaller drone sub slightly ahead to blow a hole in the net to allow a bigger one through?
Have any of you done a map recce of the north of Crimea? Looking at crossing points is giving me indigestion; they're all choke points. If I was asked to formulate a plan, I'd be ordering extra body bags, as I'd be expecting a bloody fight unless J2 was telling me something very different.
I'm not up to speed on the UKR capability so couldn't give have a stab in the dark response to the question of taking it.
If I had all the toys at my disposal, it would involve simultaneous litoral and airborne assaults on the key conurbations with armour led battlegroups onto the northern crossing points and a plan in reserve for the Kerch bridge (if they look like they're going to run, leave it open to facilitate withdrawal then deny it. Or if they want to fight, deny it, maritime assault to reinforce) then fix them on three sides using the terrain to the south as a backstop.
That's a very loose plan which would be ridiculous in it's complexity and glosses over a lot of detail, I've pulled out of my arse with no real idea of the terrain, RU troops numbers, capability, morale and dispersion. The int gap is huge therefore my idea is just stupid musings on the internet to be taken with a pinch of salt and a swig of vinegar.
That’s a very loose plan which would be ridiculous in it’s complexity and glosses over a lot of detail
You really need air superiority for a mass airborne assault (or surprise but that's unlikely given the prep required). Crimea is also covered by a sophisticated Russian SAM network (including from within Russian territory). You also need to be able to resupply by land fairly quickly in order for air assault troops to be able to hold ground. Whilst it would be a likely attack scenario for a NATO force (+ seaborne assault) it's unlikely Ukraine could carry it out, they don't really need to take the risk either when starving and grinding Russian forces out of Crimea should work in their favour short-medium term
Things warming up in the south...
https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/04/20/frontline-update-ukraines-counteroffensive-has-begun/
Could be could be a false alarm, could be a feint, it'll become apparent in the next 24 hours.
What is certain is that columns of Ukranian armour were observed yesterday near the front and each had multiple vehicles sporting mine rollers and ploughs already installed.
You don't just roll around with that kit fitted for fun.
This thread on Twitter gives a lot of historical context - how Crimea has been conquered through the ages. Sounds like a tough job but it's been done multiple times, although generally at great cost.
https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1640428287200509961
Hovercraft would be useful I reckon.
Update, no 'chatter' about the offensive yet from the usual well connected suspects.
So they've either all been told to shut their traps like they were before Kharkiv or it's a false alarm designed to mess with Russian heads.
The quote from the UAF spokesman was that this is the beginning, not the culmination. Prres along the line looking for weaknesses, Recce, recce, & recce again! Pick a point, then GO!!!
You really need air superiority for a mass airborne assault (or surprise but that’s unlikely given the prep required). Crimea is also covered by a sophisticated Russian SAM network (including from within Russian territory). You also need to be able to resupply by land fairly quickly in order for air assault troops to be able to hold ground. Whilst it would be a likely attack scenario for a NATO force (+ seaborne assault) it’s unlikely Ukraine could carry it out, they don’t really need to take the risk either when starving and grinding Russian forces out of Crimea should work in their favour short-medium term
Hence why I added the very relevant caveat:
If I had all the toys at my disposal
and:
That’s a very loose plan which would be ridiculous in it’s complexity and glosses over a lot of detail, I’ve pulled out of my arse with no real idea of the terrain, RU troops numbers, capability, morale and dispersion. The int gap is huge therefore my idea is just stupid musings on the internet to be taken with a pinch of salt and a swig of vinegar.
I try not be like all the other armchair QB's, I have no real idea what the ground truth is so everything on the internet is supposition, therefore inherently inaccurate and mostly bollocks.
"I have no real idea what the ground truth is so everything on the internet is supposition, therefore inherently inaccurate and mostly bollocks."
It's actually a bit of a relief knowing that any information is as likely misinformation as it is bollocks!
Leaves you with two things you can rely on really, googling the body counts of previous invasions, successful or otherwise.
And maps.
One thing to remember with all this is there has never been an independent ukraine with anything like the current borders until the break up of the Soviet union and that Crimea only became a part of Ukraine in 1954 when it was given as a gift. Crimea also has a russian speaking / descended majority
that is not to defend the invasion at all in any way but it gives a clue to how Crimea is seen in Russia. If Putin had been happy just to take Crimea he could have got away with it I am sure for those reasons.
There are a lot of borders in Europe that got moved around post WW2 - that is one of them.
Crimea also has a russian speaking / descended majority.
Partly because of the purging and relocation of the Crimean Tatars, by Tsarist Russia and then the Soviet Union. The Tatars were the majority population of Crimea prior to this ethnic cleansing. More recently, since the RF annexation, there has been a clear policy and incentives to settle Russians from elsewhere in the RF to Crimea whilst many of those who consider themselves Ukrainian have left, further distorting the demographics.
Also - most Ukrainians speak (or spoke) Russian, even those for whom it is their first language are not necessarily pro-Russian or in favour of the Russian annexation of Crimea.
Crimea also has a russian speaking / descended majority
Largely because the Turkic-speaking Tatar/Tartar population were deported by Stalin after WW2.
100,000 died en route to various areas including Siberia.
Crimea was confirmed as Ukrainian land in 1991
X with blokeUTR
An interesting article on the Russian held referendum after the annexation in 2014.
The result of 96.7% of Crimean people voting to join Russia always looked suspect.
.
There are plenty of signs that those who were involved in the March 16 referendum knew the whole thing was a farce. Igor Girkin, a former Russian army and security services officer involved in the Crimean annexation – and subsequent war in Donbas – said that the referendum was a sham.
.
Previous polls may give some indications of Crimean feelings. From 2008 to 2011 the number of Crimean residents who saw Ukraine as their motherland rose from 32% to 71.3%, according to one report. An International Republican Institute poll in 2013 found that 53% of Crimeans wanted autonomy within Ukraine and 23% wanted to join Russia.
Video of Girkin/Strelkov (key amongst Putin's 'little green men' who carried out the annexation), admitting the referendum was a farce:
Nice map tj!
Visualizes some of the historical and political complexity of the situation.
Over the decade I've watched a few documentaries, BBC, C4 and Vice (all still on YouTube) covering the situation in both Dombass and Crimea and I'm glad I did, they tell a more complex story than the current narrative.
In particular, there was a series of Vice documentaries that caught up with the same individuals every couple of years. One was a Zoo owner who was very pro Russian, a couple of years after the annexation he was still pro Russian. A couple of years after that he wondered where all the tourists (and the water) had gone. On the last visit he said that Crimea had been turned into a police state and an arms dump and that "we didn't know a good thing when we had it".
Buyers remorse for sure but I wonder where his allegiances would lie should the war come to him? His business was particularly affected so he is perhaps a bit more reflective but other Russian supporters not running their own business?
Crimea was one of Ukraine's poorest regions and the Russians offered a lot of investment as a sweetener in the annexation. My fears would be there might be other ethnic Russians who feel a similar buyers remorse bit might be beholden to 'investment fallacy". In for a penny in for a pound so to speak.
Either way, expulsion, relocation and migratory patterns aside, I'm not sure liberation would be received in quite the same way as we've seen in imagess thus far.
Partly because of the purging and relocation of the Crimean Tatars, by Tsarist Russia and then the Soviet Union. The Tatars were the majority population of Crimea prior to this ethnic cleansing
Yup - layers and layers of complexity