One also has to take into consideration that a large swath of the Crimean population are now going to be pro-Russian given the levels of actual Russian migration into the area once Putin invaded in 2014. They were already quite pro-Russian when I was there circa 2009ish, so one can only imagine that unlike. the rest of Ukraine, taking Crimea will be much more difficult in that defeating Putin's military and the existential crisis it would send his regime into which may cause him to use WMDs is one thing, winning the hearts and minds of the local population will be another.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
One also has to take into consideration that a large swath of the Crimean population are now going to be pro-Russian given the levels of actual Russian migration into the area once Putin invaded in 2014. They were already quite pro-Russian when I was there circa 2009ish, so one can only imagine that unlike. the rest of Ukraine, taking Crimea will be much more difficult in that defeating Putin's military and the existential crisis it would send his regime into which may cause him to use WMDs is one thing, winning the hearts and minds of the local population will be another.
I think the best case scenario is a widespread mutiny and subsequent loss of morale for much of the Russian military to continue fighting, which could create a tipping point situation for the Ukrainians to attempt retaking the peninsula.
Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia. Once all are in Ukraine hands then I think that its wise for ukraine to go to the negotiation table
But why would Putin be incentivized to negotiate on such losing terms ? If anything, he would be incentivized to use more powerful weapons to regain lost territory.
I don't see Crimea "solved" anytime soon regarding its identity, I was thinking more about the military issue. If a big size of its population is pro-russian, that's something that has to be dealt with after military and/or diplomatic victory. Regarding that, I think we agree that the UA approach must be more "getting them voluntarily out" than "getting ourselves in".
I like to watch two Italian YouTube channel on the subject. One is parabellum and the other is Ivan grieco. The speakers include former nato colonels/generals, an Italo polish expert with friends in Ukraine and several journalists who had lived at both sides of the barricade
They all seem to agree on the same arguments
A- putin entered the war thinking it would be a walk in the park with Ukraine people throwing rose petals at his feet
B- time is in Russian side. They have hordes of men to act as cannon fodder and they can fire missles from russia knowing that no one would dare striking hard deep into Russian territory
C- their one true red line is Crimea. The regime cannot afford to lose it
I also watch russian commentators pro ukraine and they agree especially with c
Ukraine can't afford the war to last forever or a frozen conflict. That's because Russia will come back, they will keep on firing missles in Ukraine + no one would be stupid to invest in Ukraine in such circumstances. Thus I think that the solution would be for Russia to retain crimea on the condition that it gives its blessing for Ukraine to enter nato and the EU. That would still be a bitter pill for putin to swallow which is why he needs to lose the 4 oblasts first. Thus such concessions will be interpreted as a way out for putin while recognition to a Russian crimea could be sold as a win at home front
NATO membership is obviously going to be a loss for Putin, as would losing the four oblasts you cite given that he has controlled most of two of them for the past decade. The Ukrainians, after having been terrorized by over the past 14 months, are obviously not going to settle for anything less than a complete victory, including Crimea. Therefore, this proposal would be dead in the water because neither side would find the outcome acceptable. The only way this will end if Putin falls from within after the Ukrainians take enough territory to make it appear like a humiliating Russian loss. At that point, they would be able to retake Crimea since the Putin regime and/or whoever replaces it would be more focused on existential matters in Moscow than neo-imperialist conquest in the Black Sea.
Seems doubtful to me. I think Ukraine & Russia will find a diplomatic way to settle on Crimea. I'd be extremely surprised if Ukraine takes back Crimea through military force.
If there's no Russian military left to defend it, they may do so. But in order to get there, Putin would need to fall from within.
I seriously doubt there will be some sort of amicable diplomatic agreement on Crimea given that it is officially still a part of Ukraine (as recognized by most of the world), therefore the Ukrainians won't settle for anything less. than the complete undoing of all of Putin's invasions from 2014 to 2022.
Has anybody seen this clownish comment made yesterday by the Chinese ambassador about Ukraine and other former Soviet states? It was on French TV of all places. That's the kind of gaffe that would get any ambassador sacked.
Anyway, you can't ask for a bigger no-no if anyone hopes to see China broking anything here. Zelensky will definitely not receive a Chinese envoy any time soon.
Anyway, you can't ask for a bigger no-no if anyone hopes to see China broking anything here. Zelensky will definitely not receive a Chinese envoy any time soon.
China is increasingly weak imo. Beyond the banking crisis, the fact that Xi is going to the lengths of having fake Chinese police stations in the US is a sign of how desperate he is to squash any form of dissent.
I think what matters to Ukraine (and Europe) at the end of the day is not the land. In my opinion they have achieved survival as a country and thus their primary strategic objective, and so can rebuild after the war and be just as successful as any other EU country.
But we must make sure Russia does not start another war in 5 years time and destroy everything again because they are just pigs by nature. Nobody wins when Russia starts wars.
Whether it means bringing Ukraine into NATO, or other cast iron security guarantees (not the flimsy ones we pushed them to agree to when they gave up nuclear weapons), I don't know. But it must happen.
But of course, it's too early to talk about negotiations just yet. We need to give them as much chance as we can to physically regain as much land as possible. Then we go to the table.
But we must make sure Russia does not start another war in 5 years time and destroy everything again because they are just pigs by nature. Nobody wins when Russia starts wars.
Whether it means bringing Ukraine into NATO, or other cast iron security guarantees (not the flimsy ones we pushed them to agree to when they gave up nuclear weapons), I don't know. But it must happen.
But of course, it's too early to talk about negotiations just yet. We need to give them as much chance as we can to physically regain as much land as possible. Then we go to the table.
Last edited:
A- Crimea is Russia's red line. Its historical and military importance mean that Putin and its regime can't survive without it. Most of the time regimes aren't voted out and I doubt that Putin want to die anytime soon. A desperate Putin is a dangerous one both in terms of nukes and in terms of political decisions that he can take to avoid that (I'd come to that later). In both cases we would be in trouble. That include Ukraine btw.
B- The region is heavily fortified and most of its people are Pro Russian. So if Ukraine is determined to go in Crimea then this will end up in a proper bloodshed.
C- Ukraine is not fighting the war alone. If the West decide to pull out its military help then it would be game over in a couple of months. There's plenty of leverage in that
D- Russia is sinking deeper and deeper in China's pockets which is bad news for the West. Russia on its own is a regional power armed with nukes. A China-Russia partnership is terrifying. The former have the men and the weapons while the latter have the resources. Add Taiwan (and its precious semiconductors) and the three can easily go toe to toe with the US and the West. Such alliance is bad news for Ukraine as well especially if China start supplying Russia with arms. We need a relatively strong Russia as that means an independent Russia who still believe it can go solo against the world thus not needing the 'inferior' Chinese (that's the typical Russian mentality and not my opinion).
E- Semi conductors makes the world tick. You'll find them from the fridge you have at home right to the F35 the US utilise to control the air. Over 60% of semiconductors are done in Taiwan under huge trading secret. Thus there no way the US will allow China to invade Taiwan and if it means throwing Ukraine under the bridge to focus on Taiwan then so be it. Its within Ukraine's interest to end this war fast.
F- Russia can throw far more men into the war then Ukraine can. It can also bombard Ukraine from Russia knowing that no one is stupid enough to strike Russia hard in its own territory. This create an environment were there's a never ending war which is bad news for Ukraine. The country is in a mess, it needs heavily investment and it needs to move on. Support from the West will one day weaken or end as well. Time is indeed in Russia's side
G- Wars often end around the negotiation table especially one were its impossible to invade the invader for obvious reasons. Negotiations mean that everyone wins and lose a little.
I believe that the deal I suggested is fair to everyone. Ukraine gets NATO protection and the prosperity guaranteed by EU membership, Russia gets the political win it needs to leave the conflict with dignity and the people in Ukraine (including those in Crimea) will live in peace. Don't take me wrong I'd love to see Putin's head on a spike. However that is unlikely to happen and the consequences to that would probably be far worse then anyone in the West would want, Ukraine included.
I think the idea is that if Ukraine retakes all 4 of those regions, Putin will likely be done as he bet everything (and then some) on the outcome of this war. And the subsequent government would have to negotiate to at least take the first step on the path of redemption.
Although you never know just how strong (or seemingly strong) the autocrat’s power is until the tipping point is over and he’s gone, so maybe he’d still be able to stay in power even then. And Putin will never give up Crimea.
I don’t see how Putin spins merely keeping Crimea as a victory if Ukraine joins NATO and regains the eastern provinces. That would require a 1984 style complete disregarding of years of propaganda on the subject. To keep your Italian theme, I think this only ends with a Mussolini style stringing up from a balcony (maybe without the gymnast).
Most of Russia get their information either through the TV or through state financed propaganda in social media. Both are controlled by Putin's cronies. Which explain why the Russians believe the silly Z propaganda despite it being comical. Thus if Putin say that he won the war then most people will believe him especially if he comes with a piece of paper stating that the world had recognised Crimea as Russian.
A - their red line shifts constantly. When they annexed the 4 Ukrainian regions, they also told the west that they will regard them as Russian territory and that means defend them with any means, nuclear included. Ukraine attacked 2 of them and pushed them back, liberated Kherson. Did Putin press the red button? No, he did not. Fearing and talking constantly about Russia's red lines only helps their fear agenda. Mostly useful idiots talk today about Russia's red lines. By the way, the western red line is far more dangerous than Russia's and I never see them talking about it.
B - When the Crimean bridge exploded, there was miles of traffic jam because of people leaving the peninsula. It's safe to say, that if Ukranian forces would stand before Crimea's border, most of the Russian's would flee. Especially those, who settled there after 2014. So bloodshed is a very unlikely scenario.
C - The west will never pull out of this war, because it's no longer only Russia against Ukraine, but an authoritarian regime against western democracy. We defend ourselves by supporting Ukraine, so we will defend ourselves as long as it is necessary and Putin is no longer a threat.
D - A China - Russia partnership is long established and far from being terrifying. Nato will always be way stronger as long as the U.S continues to lead Nato and China uses Russia as a ressource colony. There is no real partnership between them other than to annoy the west. Also if your partnership is only based on a common enemy, it is shit to begin with.
E - one has nothing to do with the other. First of all, China still needs many years to build up their navy. Second of all, U.S is giving Ukraine something like 5% of their annual military budget and they don't use their navy to support Ukraine. The U.S would absolutely have no problem to support Taiwan while giving Ukraine 5% of their budget to keep Russia in line. Also no one on our, the western side, will throw someone under the bus. A very strange thought.
F - Russia can only theoretically throw in more men. In reality, it's probably even fewer. Ukraine is the one who was attacked, so most of their men are willing to fight for their country and freedom. While Putin needs to irradiate russians to order them to die in human wave attacks. They already ran out of prisoners and the first mobilisation wave wasn't as smooth as he would have liked. With every new wave, it will get harder and harder for him to find more "volunteers" and willing men to die for his imperialistic ambitions, while keeping the public quiet at the same time. They also have internet and see those gigantic cemeteries for their soldiers. And the sanctions are hitting their economy hard. The longer this goes on, the fewer funds Russia will have to finance this war. Their funds will run out way sooner than those of the west. They can't win a money war against the west, it's impossible. So no, the time is definetly not on Russia's side.
---
Many things you wrote are said in pro Russian channels. Talking about red lines, the narrative of the strong Russia and the weak west, that has to end his support soon is only used by useful idiots. I really hope you're not one of them.
Last edited:
I don't think being pragmatic about the reality is necessarily a pro Russian sentiment. Russia has placed nearly 300 k pigs, sorry I mean soldiers, in Ukraine.
Just doing some basic calculations, Ukraine will need close to a million guys to shift each and every last pig out by force. I don't think they have those forces. I could be wrong, I know NATO are constantly training new soldiers for them, but it's unlikely. I also know the modern weapons make up for a lot of the shortfall, but it's still quite a bit to do imo.
Just doing some basic calculations, Ukraine will need close to a million guys to shift each and every last pig out by force. I don't think they have those forces. I could be wrong, I know NATO are constantly training new soldiers for them, but it's unlikely. I also know the modern weapons make up for a lot of the shortfall, but it's still quite a bit to do imo.
Most of the information comes from two channels whose presenters believe that NATO should have done more (ie with soldiers on the ground). Mirko Campochiari for example is an Italo-Polish military historian with friends in Ukraine. He recently took Z sympathisers to court for defamation and he then used the money he earned from it to Ukrainian NGOs. There's also a lot of guests invited including Generale Paolo Capitini who had worked with NATO and is a known EU federalist in Italy. Then they invite various reporters who actually lived/still live in various parts of Ukraine one even in the Donbas. Just because they don't exactly toe in line with CNN doesn't mean that they are pro Russian.
Last edited:
Just discovered this thread on the caf. Really interested in this and there are some quality posts here
I’m aware of the extent of state propoganda. I just wonder how they would sell (to the elite as well) the retention of Crimea alone as a price worth paying for the last 14 months. They effectively had Crimea anyway apart from a few slap on the wrist sanctions.
The funny thing is that all the leaked documents sort of showed that everyone's estimations were way over their heads. Of course, UA can still surprise us (hopefully) like they did with last summer and fall counterattacks. Back then, when you started talking about some of the stuff that you could find in those documents, such as how the casualty numbers were nothing like what stated online or how UA were not exactly well trained or equipped enough for the fights to regain the Eastern lands, you were accused of listening to the Kremlin.
Some argued that Russians died more due to offensive operations. Well, what do you think the UA will have to do to get all the territories back? The RA has been pulling all the sh*t together (that they could) for now, and all their equipment and manpower shortages came up on the news but did not exactly show up in the field.
Last edited:
I believe Ukraine has done fantastically well so far and I think a good amount of land can be retaken by what they already have now, if they do it right. The minimum for me this counter should be to break through to the Sea of Azov coast somewhere and cut the Russian land bridge into two.
But to liberate 'all' their territories? Wow I think they they are going to need a lot of special equipment. Basically everything NATO has, especially the most modern fighter jets (but who will fly them?) and also the biggest bombs. The problem is that past the 2014 lines, the big cities like Lugansk and Donetsk are pretty much intact. Assuming the Russians don't withdraw, they will have to fight street by street. It will be like Bakhmut, except UA don't have meat or artillery to spare. Also in that area of the Donbas, it will be very hard to cut Russian logistics simply because it's too close to Russia. Maybe it's possible, I don't know. But only Commander Zalushny will know exactly how much firepower the UA has.
Crimea is a lot easier to isolate and choke as it's pretty much an island, but it will take time to do it. Russia has had 9 years now to build defence there and Ukraine has to reach the Azov coast first.
Just my two cents
Edit: But what I'll also say is that I observe the Ukrainians to be incredibly good out of the box thinkers. They don't do things the way you expect them to
Last edited:
I mostly agree. But chocking Crimea won't be easy for the UA because it takes time, and the RA will use everything to break out. There are no realistic battle fields for UA to dig in and defend there as well. If anything, they are at risk of getting encircled over there in this current situation. UA forces lack the necessary equipment (forget manpower for the time being) to do it. If they did, they would have already forced the RA soldiers out of those cities. It's fantastic that they're keeping them from completely capturing those cities for months but that's a really low bar for what we are expecting them to do and for themselves.I believe Ukraine has done fantastically well so far and I think a good amount of land can be retaken by what they already have now, if they do it right. The minimum for me this counter should be to break through to the Sea of Azov coast somewhere and cut the Russian land bridge into two.
But to liberate 'all' their territories? Wow I think they they are going to need a lot of special equipment. Basically everything NATO has, especially the most modern fighter jets (but who will fly them?) and also the biggest bombs. The problem is that past the 2014 lines, the big cities like Lugansk and Donetsk are pretty much intact. Assuming the Russians don't withdraw, they will have to fight street by street. It will be like Bakhmut, except UA don't have meat or artillery to spare. Also in that area of the Donbas, it will be very hard to cut Russian logistics simply because it's too close to Russia. Maybe it's possible, I don't know. But only Commander Zalushny will know exactly how much firepower the UA has.
Crimea is a lot easier to isolate and choke as it's pretty much an island, but it will take time to do it. Russia has had 9 years now to build defence there.
Just my two cents
Ukraine has a lot of firepower now compared to their first counter last year . They are have been stocking up on modern tanks and IFVs since winter and defending the current line with minimal resources as best they can. It's a substantial new force they are trying to generate with this tactic. Whether it's enough to get to Crimea and beyond, I don't know, but it's should be enough to cause the occupying pigs a lot of pain
It was in response on the literal question (and quoted the post):
"How often this happens in military history?...
Tell me why is not a valid answer?
It depends how depleted the Russians are. I think this is a good time to test where the Ukrainians have the resources in place for a proper counter offensive
Ukraine isn't going to join NATO, ever. Talking as if it it is possible is one of the things that's led us to where we are today. Membership requires unanimous consent of all existing members and having no outstanding territorial disputes. (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm). Mearsheimer said all this in 2015 and was ignored.
The end game is likely territorial concessions and neutrality. It's sucky but this is where we are.
O boy. Don't say those words here or mention Mearsheimer.
Slava Ukraini! Ukraine is the best! Putko is a madman!
But back on a serious note: NATO policies are very flexible and are heavily dictated by US. Ukraine could join NATO a decade from now and Russia would need to keep the war forever to prevent that.
I'm sensing that piece is incoming and that Ukraine will have to give up some territories - not sure which. Counteroffensive is unlikely. At best it is going to work at an extremely high human cost. But what then? Who is going to live in those regions? Probably old Russian people and Ukrainians who can't figure out how to move to Germany.
Who is going to live in those regions ? Likely the same Ukrainians who lived there before Putin invaded.
Ok. I'm not sure if you are serious or not, but let's say you are. Donbas and Crimea are regions where for decades, perhaps centuries majority of people identify as Russians and speak Russian. Unless Ukrainians were shelling Ukrainians in Donbas since 2014.
Speaking Russian is not the same is wanting to be a part of Russia. Most Ukrainians in the south and east (plus Crimea) identify as ethnic Russians and speak Russian as a first language, but don't want to be a part of Putin's totalitarian fascist state. Spot the difference ?
Last edited:
Oh ok. I must have fallen for Russian propaganda again. These Russians were just enjoying democracy brought to them by US financed and backed Maidan until Putin invaded.
Precisely. Ukraine is a Democratic nation that holds regular credible and transparent elections, and all ethnic Ukrainians and Russians holding Ukrainian nationality can vote who for ever they want. Unlike in Putin's Russia where elections are predetermined before a single vote has been cast, because that's how totalitarian fascists states masquerading as democracies roll.
Fascinating that a country where elections are credible and transparent had a coup lead by ultra nationalists.
Corruption and foreign influence on elections wouldn't be particular credible would it, which is why revolutions happen.