Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Raoul said:
The Russians may not have an option in the matter if the country is crumbling domestically and their forces are depleted. It would obviously only happen if Putin was sufficiently weakened from within where he doesn't have the resources to defend Crimea. Its also worth noting that the forces in the south are from Crimea, so if Ukraine takes them out, there really aren't enough Russian forces in Crimea left to defend against a takeover.
Click to expand...

Putin (or his successor) would formally declare war and go for full military call-up if needed rather than give up Crimea. It isn't going back to Ukraine ever IMO.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Putin (or his successor) would formally declare war and go for full military call-up if needed rather than give up Crimea. It isn't going back to Ukraine ever IMO.
Click to expand...
Ever is a long time. We may see the break up of Russia at the end of a failed war, where Crimea may rejoin Ukraine.
 
Apparently located at the north west edge of Izyum:

 
GlastonSpur said:
Putin (or his successor) would formally declare war and go for full military call-up if needed rather than give up Crimea. It isn't going back to Ukraine ever IMO.
Click to expand...

It is not just a matter of bodies, the main thing is equipment. If the war keeps going for a year or two, and if the Ukrainian army keeps modernizing, and if they still have the desire to keep fighting, and if they get F-16 or MQ-9 drones (yes, that's a lot of ifs!), then I think they can retake Crimea, or make it so expensive for Russia that they give it up. The difference with modern NATO equipment is that it's very precise, they will be able to eliminate Russian tanks and artillery without having to resort to extensive bombing like the Soviets.And it will get harder and harder for Russia to replace that equipment.
 
frostbite said:
It is not just a matter of bodies, the main thing is equipment. If the war keeps going for a year or two, and if the Ukrainian army keeps modernizing, and if they still have the desire to keep fighting, and if they get F-16 or MQ-9 drones (yes, that's a lot of ifs!), then I think they can retake Crimea, or make it so expensive for Russia that they give it up. The difference with modern NATO equipment is that it's very precise, they will be able to eliminate Russian tanks and artillery without having to resort to extensive bombing like the Soviets.And it will get harder and harder for Russia to replace that equipment.
Click to expand...

OK, but my understanding is that no Russian leader can (or could) hope to survive if they lose Crimea. It's an absolute red-line. This makes it incredibly hard for Ukraine to take to back.
 
I think people underestimate the importance of geography. How is Ukraine supposed to retake Crimea without aviation & fleet when its only connected to the continent by a narrow strip of land.

Not to mention that Crimea was never really Ukrainian from a cultural and historical perspective — unlike Donbas regions that were close to Russia culturally & linguistically but were still Ukrainian by any relevant metric.

I’m not a supporter of the annexation by the way & I would’ve preferred for Crimea to remain a Ukrainian territory even without knowing the consequences of the whole 2014 conflict.
 
I have little doubt that Crimea will be part of Ukraine again within next 3 years maximum. Once EU stop import of Russian gas, economy of the agressor will collapse. Chief rushist made a huge mistake and he will pay a colossal price to pay.
 
GlastonSpur said:
OK, but my understanding is that no Russian leader can (or could) hope to survive if they lose Crimea. It's an absolute red-line. This makes it incredibly hard for Ukraine to take to back.
Click to expand...
Where has that come from?
 
Unless the Crimean population actively desires to return under Ukrainian control, the region is gone for Ukraine. They'd lose international goodwill and spur new local resistance movements in Crimea that will drain on Ukraine's military, if Ukraine occupies Crimea.
 
Water Melon said:
Where has that come from?
Click to expand...
If he’s talking about political survival and not the literal one it’s hard to argue with this. The only way Russians would gave up Crimea would be if the entire population will somehow adapt the decolonization narrative and it’s, well, impossible if we’re talking about short-term future and highly unlikely if we’re talking about mid-term.

Khrushchev is still remembered, first and foremost, not as a guy who had oversaw the process of destalinisation but as a guy who gave Crimea away.
 
If we’re talking about, say, 10-15 years when Russia collapses under the weight of sanctions & internal problems, while Ukraine thrives as an EU state whose economy is supported my the Marshall’s plan 2.0, the Crimean population may change their stance. But it won’t happen in a few years.
 
harms said:
I think people underestimate the importance of geography. How is Ukraine supposed to retake Crimea without aviation & fleet when its only connected to the continent by a narrow strip of land.

Not to mention that Crimea was never really Ukrainian from a cultural and historical perspective — unlike Donbas regions that were close to Russia culturally & linguistically but were still Ukrainian by any relevant metric.

I’m not a supporter of the annexation by the way & I would’ve preferred for Crimea to remain a Ukrainian territory even without knowing the consequences of the whole 2014 conflict.
Click to expand...
An absolute majority of tatars in Crimea are absolutely pissed off with Putin's regime and feel much worse after becoming a part of Russia. Taking into account the way the war is going, I fully expect Crimea to become part of Ukraine again.
 
harms said:
I think people underestimate the importance of geography. How is Ukraine supposed to retake Crimea without aviation & fleet when its only connected to the continent by a narrow strip of land.

Not to mention that Crimea was never really Ukrainian from a cultural and historical perspective — unlike Donbas regions that were close to Russia culturally & linguistically but were still Ukrainian by any relevant metric.

I’m not a supporter of the annexation by the way & I would’ve preferred for Crimea to remain a Ukrainian territory even without knowing the consequences of the whole 2014 conflict.
Click to expand...

Ya but Crimea is connected by even less to Russian land. It would be hard for Russia to keep Crimea supplied if 1) the "land bridge" to Crimea is cutoff, which is a possibility over the next several months and 2) UKR receives the numerous anti-ship and long-range fire weapons systems from the West that they likely are to get. Russia got Crimea in the first place because UKR was under-prepared but it will be harder to hold on to the longer the war drags on.
 
Water Melon said:
Where has that come from?
Click to expand...

Vlad Vexler, who was born in Russia, is very well-connected there and knows a lot about it. I find him to be the most convincing commentator I've heard of when it comes to Russia, its people, history and political structure.
 
Water Melon said:
An absolute majority of tatars in Crimea are absolutely pissed off with Putin's regime and feel much worse after becoming a part of Russia. Taking into account the way the war is going, I fully expect Crimea to become part of Ukraine again.
Click to expand...
An absolute majority of Crimean Tatars is an (absolute) minority in Crimea — they’ve amounted to around 10% in 2014 and a lot of tatars have left Crimea since then because of Putin’s politics (that are very reminiscent of Chinese ones regarding Uyghurs, where even the idea of a non-Russian national identity is seen as a threat to the regime and dealt with accordingly).
 
harms said:
If he’s talking about political survival and not the literal one it’s hard to argue with this. The only way Russians would gave up Crimea would be if the entire population will somehow adapt the decolonization narrative and it’s, well, impossible if we’re talking about short-term future and highly unlikely if we’re talking about mid-term.

Khrushchev is still remembered, first and foremost, not as a guy who had oversaw the process of destalinisation but as a guy who gave Crimea away.
Click to expand...
At this stage it does not really matter what people think of Хрущёв. Crimea was part of Ukraine after collapse of USSR and the local population did not dream of becoming a part of Russian federation. Крым наш was a part of Putin's propaganda which sitswell with majority of population residing outside of Crimea. These days things have changed, rushizm is losing and there is no way it will be able to defeat Ukraine under western support. If the yellow blues decide to fight for Crimea they are very likely to win. Blowing up that bridge is going to happen in the next couple of years imho.
 
sport2793 said:
Ya but Crimea is connected by even less to Russian land. It would be hard for Russia to keep Crimea supplied if 1) the "land bridge" to Crimea is cutoff, which is a possibility over the next several months and 2) UKR receives the numerous anti-ship and long-range fire weapons systems from the West that they likely are to get. Russia got Crimea in the first place because UKR was under-prepared but it will be harder to hold on to the longer the war drags on.
Click to expand...
Russia has both aviation and the Black Sea fleet as well as the support of the majority of Crimean population. You can give Ukraine ships but creating a competent navy takes decades, not months. The same is true for aviation, although Ukraine at least has something to build upon.

Crimea is a very tough point that many outsiders fail to truly comprehend — specifically the weird loyalty that the majority Crimean population feels towards Russia. I remember my frustration while arguing with Crimeans on whenever it’s a good idea to join Russia or not in mid 00’s — when the possibility of that happening were basically non-existent. Most Crimeans share the same post-Soviet resentment that Russians feel, but Crimeans were also very bitter that after the collapse of the Soviet Union they were left with a less fortunate peripheral state rather than with a wealthier Russia that they were originally a part of. Don’t mind the language please as I’m trying to verbalize their point of view, not my own.
 
The main question is how the war will end. We still have no idea. Is Ukraine going to win? It is not clear yet. And how exactly do they win? Will they push Russians out of Ukraine completely? Will the Ukrainians attack Russian soil to create a "buffer" or do they just stop at the border?

There is always the possibility that Ukraine will lose or "lose the will to fight" which is the same thing.

There is also the possibility that the Russian army will collapse completely after sustaining heavy losses.

Between these two extremes, there are many possibilities. It is still early days, I am afraid.
 
Water Melon said:
At this stage it does not really matter what people think of Хрущёв. Crimea was part of Ukraine after collapse of USSR and the local population did not dream of becoming a part of Russian federation. Крым наш was a part of Putin's propaganda which sitswell with majority of population residing outside of Crimea. These days things have changed, rushizm is losing and there is no way it will be able to defeat Ukraine under western support. If the yellow blues decide to fight for Crimea they are very likely to win. Blowing up that bridge is going to happen in the next couple of years imho.
Click to expand...
I don’t really want to argue with you since arguing for Putin’s point of view makes me physically sick but you simply don’t seem to understand the real situation — at least based on what you’ve posted here so far. The idea of Crimea rejoining Russia never really died — more so, it was well more relevant in Crimea than it was in Russia up until 2014.

I’d recommend you to listen to Zelensky’s view on Crimea and the potential of Ukraine taking it back (and compare it to what he says about Donbas) — it’s hard to accuse him of following Putin’s propaganda but he says the same things that I do here.

It’s also important to juxtapose Crimea vs Donbas as you’ll see the difference more clearly. Ukraine are quite likely to retake all of their previously list Eastern territories in my opinion. But not Crimea.
 
frostbite said:
The main question is how the war will end. We still have no idea. Is Ukraine going to win? It is not clear yet. And how exactly do they win? Will they push Russians out of Ukraine completely? Will the Ukrainians attack Russian soil to create a "buffer" or do they just stop at the border?

There is always the possibility that Ukraine will lose or "lose the will to fight" which is the same thing.

There is also the possibility that the Russian army will collapse completely after sustaining heavy losses.

Between these two extremes, there are many possibilities. It is still early days, I am afraid.
Click to expand...

I think we are more so in the latter phases of this conflict than the earlier ones, mainly because the Russian side is rapidly running out of troops, weapons, morale, and domestic support. And that's before we even get to the the economic damage sanctions are doing to the economy. At some not too distant point, something will have to give, and I don't think it will be the Ukrainian side that eventually collapses.
 
harms said:
Russia has both aviation and the Black Sea fleet as well as the support of the majority of Crimean population. You can give Ukraine ships but creating a competent navy takes decades, not months. The same is true for aviation, although Ukraine at least has something to build upon.

Crimea is a very tough point that many outsiders fail to truly comprehend — specifically the weird loyalty that the majority Crimean population feels towards Russia. I remember my frustration while arguing with Crimeans on whenever it’s a good idea to join Russia or not in mid 00’s — when the possibility of that happening were basically non-existent. Most Crimeans share the same post-Soviet resentment that Russians feel, but Crimeans were also very bitter that after the collapse of the Soviet Union they were left with a less fortunate peripheral state rather than with a wealthier Russia that they were originally a part of. Don’t mind the language please as I’m trying to verbalize their point of view, not my own.
Click to expand...

I respect your points on the population but I never said that UKR needs a navy to take Crimea. If they blow up the bridges connecting to Kerch and prevent the Black Sea fleet from operating near the coast with anti-ship missiles, they can start by conducting a siege, where it will be difficult for Russia to supply Crimea. There is then enough land to attempt an attack without the use of boats, especially if they can first encircle Russian forces in Kherson and Zaphorizhia and prevent them from retreating across the Crimean border. It's not a simple operation but it's more doable than one may think.
 
harms said:
Russia has both aviation and the Black Sea fleet as well as the support of the majority of Crimean population. You can give Ukraine ships but creating a competent navy takes decades, not months. The same is true for aviation, although Ukraine at least has something to build upon.

Crimea is a very tough point that many outsiders fail to truly comprehend — specifically the weird loyalty that the majority Crimean population feels towards Russia. I remember my frustration while arguing with Crimeans on whenever it’s a good idea to join Russia or not in mid 00’s — when the possibility of that happening were basically non-existent. Most Crimeans share the same post-Soviet resentment that Russians feel, but Crimeans were also very bitter that after the collapse of the Soviet Union they were left with a less fortunate peripheral state rather than with a wealthier Russia that they were originally a part of. Don’t mind the language please as I’m trying to verbalize their point of view, not my own.
Click to expand...

While that may be so, if they are not on the up wealth wise and so on then it's harder to maintain that viewpoint. It's the same reason China's authoritarianism works, it's a bargain with the people that living standards will generally get better so long as you give up your democratic rights. As soon as the living standards stop rising, or worse fall, that bargain starts to fall apart unless it can be replaced with something else.
 
Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if UKR decides to let Crimea go as part of a peace deal but I can only see this occurring once they have at least attempted to retake all of Donbas and Luhansk.
 
sport2793 said:
Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if UKR decides to let Crimea go as part of a peace deal but I can only see this occurring once they have at least attempted to retake all of Donbas and Luhansk.
Click to expand...

I can't ever see that happening, especially after all the damage and trauma Putin has caused over the past 3 months. It would be like a reward for his efforts.
 
Interesting video with some information in the second half about the young Russian soldier currently on trial for war crimes. He apparently claimed he was ordered to commit atrocities which didn't fly with the Court. Might be of interest for the few people who were trying to defend Russian Soldiers a week or two ago with the 'they were only following orders excuse'.

 
Zelensky discloses secret missions that sustained Mariupol

Helicopters with aid, ammunition were quietly sent to Azovstal. Russia shot most down. Yet pilots continually agreed to go on these missions—despite 90% of the pilots not returning.

"A lot of things were happening that no one could officially comment on. Because there were no air corridors to Azovstal because of Russia's powerful deployed air defenses. For many weeks, helicopter pilots, knowing that 90% of them don't come back ... flew there. We lost a lot of pilots."
Click to expand...
 
VorZakone said:
Zelensky discloses secret missions that sustained Mariupol

Helicopters with aid, ammunition were quietly sent to Azovstal. Russia shot most down. Yet pilots continually agreed to go on these missions—despite 90% of the pilots not returning.

“A lot of things were happening that no one could officially comment on. Because there were no air corridors to Azovstal because of Russia's powerful deployed air defenses. For many weeks, helicopter pilots, knowing that 90% of them don't come back ... flew there. We lost a lot of pilots."
Click to expand...
Link?
 
TwoSheds said:
While that may be so, if they are not on the up wealth wise and so on then it's harder to maintain that viewpoint. It's the same reason China's authoritarianism works, it's a bargain with the people that living standards will generally get better so long as you give up your democratic rights. As soon as the living standards stop rising, or worse fall, that bargain starts to fall apart unless it can be replaced with something else.
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah, it long-term who knows, maybe they’ll change their stance — as I’ve said, Russia will only get worse in the foreseeable future while Ukraine are likely to get a lot better with a potential EU membership and world-wide economical support.
 
Raoul said:
I think we are more so in the latter phases of this conflict than the earlier ones, mainly because the Russian side is rapidly running out of troops, weapons, morale, and domestic support. And that's before we even get to the the economic damage sanctions are doing to the economy. At some not too distant point, something will have to give, and I don't think it will be the Ukrainian side that eventually collapses.
Click to expand...

I’d really like to see some accurate information regarding how long Russia can keep fighting with this intensity. To put it differently, what equipment do people think they will run out of first, and when? Could be anything from manpower to missiles, tanks to ammunition etc. I’m sure the Americans have a pretty good idea and will be advising Ukraine as to what weak links there are in the system, but they’re not being particularly specific. Anyone hazard a guess?
 
VorZakone said:
Unless the Crimean population actively desires to return under Ukrainian control, the region is gone for Ukraine. They'd lose international goodwill and spur new local resistance movements in Crimea that will drain on Ukraine's military, if Ukraine occupies Crimea.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go as far as saying they would lose international goodwill, that's a bit absurd considering the war crimes committed in Ukraine by Russia. The countries who support them now would likely continue to support them if they decide to attempt to retake Crimea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.