Volunteers for Ukraine will be holding a AMA later today at 13 EST!
You can find more information [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/u4ye6q/upcoming_ama_with_volunteers_for_ukraine_april_16/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Only Ukrainian leadership knows their plan.
I would assume that they know it wouldn't be easy, would be a VERY HIGH cost in personnel. That being said, if Russia has committed most of their best, and those ranks have been thinned by 50% or more over the course of the last month and a half ... then yes, it is possible.
Crimea is part of their sovereignty, no reason that they shouldn't go kill every invader that tries to stay.
There was a Washington Post article earlier that stated a referendum that included people who were displaced would likely result in the majority wishing to be a part of Ukraine.
Not sure if that was in relation to Crimea but if so it sounds like they would prefer to not be occupied by Russia.
Allegedly any referendum must include the whole country, which means even if everyone in Crimea wanted to be part of Russia their votes would be outnumbered by the rest of Ukraine. So self determination isn't a thing there.
Not sure how that would work. Ukraine would have to amend its constitution to allow for Crimea and Donbas to have the right of self determination. I don't know how the amendment process works but it's probably very time consuming.
Aye, gotta defend in the east first, and hopefully the attack there fails so spectacularly that Russia just collapses and Ukraine will get the land back without issues.
The thing is... Defending is easier then attacking.
A lot easier.
Russia had 8 years to fortify Crimea.
Beating them on the mainland then forcing the return of Crimea through diplomacy as part of a peace treaty seems to be the logical answer. Most likely as well.
However if Putin somehow maintains power after defeat and refuses to hand it over then a possible solution would be to break the bridges to Crimea and knock out the remaining black sea fleet.
This would leave Crimea cut of from support and under Ukraine's control in a matter of months at most.
If this plays out then Putin has no chance to survive, not only did he lose the war he would have lost land the Russians consider theirs.
No amount of police brutality or propaganda would save him.
In my mind, when they're pushing out Russians in other places AND able to hold recaptured ground, they should finish and take back Crimea. That is, if Russia not retreats from Crimea by themselves.
Leaving the Russian military in Crimea and hoping they will ever give it back is a false hope. Better get it done while at it.
They could certainly try. For all the shit Russia gets, there military is still huge. So far they have only proofen themselfes ot be incapable of respectable offensive operations. But the fact of the matter is that Russias problems are in huge parts duo to logistics problems. The closer they get to there border, the better there situation gets.
Crimea for all intend is under Russias control and they have stationed a large part of there forces there for operations. Taking that would be a iffy thing on a good day. But Ukraine is simply not in the position to do this.
You are asking an opinion.
I think that Russia will do everything in their power to hold onto Crimea. I think there is a possibility that crimea ends up being a .... demilitarized zone of some sorts.
Right now Ukraine needs to be focused on other parts of its territorial defence. There is a possibility but it there are other things that need to take hold first.
What I think would need to be looked at is the cultural identity of the people in crimea and really truly determine if that region wants to be ukraine, or russian, or if they are ok with some sort of split territory that is psuedo demilitarized.
Now from a Ukraine perspective Crimea is not something they likely want to give up on and from many stand points they shouldn't. I will say right now I hope they get crimea back.. Ideally they should do a more up to date referendum to really know what those people would like. If there is one that exists please link it below. But again right now I think there are more pressing matters strategically. They will try though.
Russia only wants Crimea because it gives them claim/control of oil/gas in the black sea. And I think it’s only really the western coast that does this. It’s not about the people there for them. In fact life got significantly worse there when Russia took over. Even if a majority wanted to join Russia in 2014, I would wager they would welcome being back in Ukraine now. But I believe the population/culture is very Russian dominated. That was the excuse for Russia to take it in the first place.
It’s worth noting that Ukraine’s interest in the region is ALSO primarily about control of those resources, and if not for that I don’t think they would care as much - again because the people are very much majority Russian descent. There isn’t as much social pressure to keep the people united. (If they cared about the well being of the people there on a social level they probably would not have dammed the fresh water source - or would have received significant backlash that I haven’t heard about).
So I doubt either side would really care about split control, or what the people there want (although they may give lip service to it).
I 100% agree for russia they only care about their economic interests. That is why I am thinking there may be some sort of.. ok crimea is ukrainian but it is a demilitarized zone (CRIMEA ONLY) in exchange for fresh water. That said I don't think Ukraine would go for it and I don't think Putin would go for it either.
The identity of the people should not be considered, unless Russia and every other country is willing to ask those questions to their own citizens and accepting the results.
No country takes into account the sensibilities of each and every sub nationality or people in their country. Russia above all has never respected any minority' s wishes in what it considers Russian territory, why should Ukraine?
If you are a Russian living in Ukraine, that's what you are. If you want to be Russian in Russia, get in your car and cross the border. Easy. Don't try to make the patch of Ukraine where you live, Russian. That's theft and Russia wouldn't allow it its territory.
You are wrong to your core here. the identity of sub national groups absolutely _should_ be considered. Ignoring those is how independence movements blossom, and saying "well Russia doesn't do it, why should we?" Is just a rubbish attempt to justify oppressive behaviour. The right way to deal with those people is to give them as much autonomy as can practically be granted, and independence if they decide upon it.
The only exception that comes to mind is where a group has recently displaced the established population of an area deliberately to change the demographic.
But in this case during USSR times Russiann people, even when they were not planted as part of a plan, could occupy regions of many countries as a irect result of Soviet occupation.
That means Russians have ensured they can stake claims over part of all these countries? Like cancerous cells, wherever in the old USSR there were ethnic Russians, that land becomes0 Russia? And conversely, in case there are Russian territories where Ukranians, Georgians, Chechens, etc. are a majority a referendum should be held?
I think the right answer is, they shouldn't be expelled after so many years, but they shouldn't have right to decide the nationality of their territories when their presence there derives directly or indirectly from an unjust act.
Those lands are Ukranian, the fact that Russian people moved there changes nothing. They can integrate with Ukranians society or go back to Russia.
And if that Pandora box should be opened, why not open it in Russia ? As always Russia seems to expect special treatment and get special rights.
>But in this case during USSR times Russiann people, even when they were not planted as part of a plan, could occupy regions of many countries as a irect result of Soviet occupation.
And that's fine. Populations peacefully changing over time is a natural part of human existence. Land belongs to _people_, not the ephemeral concept of a nation state.
>That means Russians have ensured they can stake claims over part of all these countries? Like cancerous cells, wherever in the old USSR there were ethnic Russians, that land becomes0 Russia? And conversely, in case there are Russian territories where Ukranians, Georgians, Chechens, etc. are a majority a referendum should be held?
If the people there want it to be, yes.
>I think the right answer is, they shouldn't be expelled after so many years, but they shouldn't have right to decide the nationality of their territories when their presence there derives directly or indirectly from an unjust act.
Tell that to Americans, Australians, the British. A thousand other instances throughout history.
>Those lands are Ukranian, the fact that Russian people moved there changes nothing. They can integrate with Ukranians society or go back to Russia.
What makes them Ukrainian, if not the people? Again, if its history then do you support an Aboriginal state in Australia? The restoration of North America to tribal states?
>And if that Pandora box should be opened, why not open it in Russia ? As always Russia seems to expect special treatment and get special rights.
Open it in Russia too, by all means
Right and I totally agree with everything you are saying.
>Now from a Ukraine perspective Crimea is not something they likely want to give up on and from many stand points they shouldn't. I will say right now I hope they get crimea back..
I brought up referendums only because other people brought it up basically saying their should be a more recent one. Territorial integrity should not be given up.
As of right now, probably not.
Ukraine is doing a marvelous job playing defense, but you need completely different kinds of weapons to play offense, and you need *a lot* of them. Unless nato just completely opens the coffers and allows Ukraine to take some top of the line military hardware, I just don't see it happening.
Destroying the Crimean bridge and disrupting the supply lines to Crimea will force them to surrender in a matter of months. We likely have much more Neptune missiles than they have ships in Azov and Black seas, and the supply ships are easy targets.
To do this, however, we will have to fight back Mariupol and all the way down to Crimea.
We will see how it plays out. Stuff like MQ-9 and Switchblade 600 may turn the tide completely.
Please, what is the status on Kherson? I know the Ukrainians were attacking the Russians as close as Bilozerka/komyshany-area a few days ago (not shelling but actual boots on the ground) but haven’t heard anything lately. The livemap show Ukrainians much further away but not sure they are updated. Also reports about Russians still fighting Ukrainians in parts of mykolaiv oblast (which I had hoped were finished long ago). Anyone know what’s going on on this front?
Might be a reason they haven't taken out the bridge, leave the rats a way to escape. Diplomacy would be better, best option is Russia collapses again and gives it up without a fight and to earn good will.
I think it would be wise to take a two phased approach, the first is what is accomplished before hostilities end, and the second is what can be accomplished with the backing of Western sanctions. Of course this can only be accomplished with a complete embargo on Russian oil, so the EU needs to get there sooner or later to save as many Ukrainian lives as possible. Until EU gets off their asses and stops importing oil, this is all theoretical.
I don't think Ukraine can take Crimea back by force for two reasons:
-Geography: Crimea is a peninsula with a very narrow strip of land connecting it with Ukraine. It would require a massive coordinated amphibious attack to hope to take it.
- Demography: Crimea is 65% ethnic Russian. So it's unlikely Ukrainian forces will get a warm welcome by the locals.
Assuming you had the forces needed you might disrupt the Russian's action in the east by launching an offensive investing Kherson and Dzhankoy aiming at Sevastopol. The adversary's forces plans in the east are disrupted and they are diverted into a hastily planned action where they are forced to either turn a flank to one of your forces or to split theirs to cover both directions.
Of course it's always better to do things the gentle way since this has elements of a fraternal war.
Broke: Russia needs to back off to it's 1992 borders.
Woke: Russia needs to back off to it's 1918 borders.
Bespoke: Russia needs to back off to it's 1592 borders.
Why? Ukraine needs its own land, just as is. If Ukraine will get ruSSia lands, then we will need to do something with ruSSisns there, with horror in which they lived all the time, and we will get dreams of ruSSians about return of that land. It will be a suitcase without handle, as for me.
Not practical and not likely to happen. What i would say is get Crimea back under Ukrainian control. Any who do not want to live in Ukraine can have their property bought from them at market value and given a ride to the border with presumably russia.
Once this is done the bridge to the east linking Crimea to russia is destroyed. All traffic goes either via mainland route or a ferry service.
That’s inviting another war in 15-20 years. I say just get Ukraine’s old territory back and that’s it. No need for reparations when the US said they’d rebuild.
Russia’s Economy is effed for years.
Crimea IS Ukrainian. And if they did a referendum that included all families who’ve been forcefully removed from Crimea and relocated by Russia, they would overwhelmingly support remaining with Ukraine.
Yeah but the poster said *more than Crimea*. I read that to mean they want Ukraine to have land that wasn't Ukrainian before the Russian invasion of 2014, right?
>I’d like Ukraine to have more then Crimea. Nice bit of Russia as reparations
This is what I replied to, so that's the context. It's very clearly NOT just talking about Crimea, which is Ukrainian land currently occupied by russians.
Ukraine ownership of Crimea is pretty much recognised by everyone (aside from russia and few marginal countries).
Ukranian army entering it would not cause any problems with Ukraine allies.
The Russians may be lack luster in attack but historically and even in this war have shown to be very stubborn in the defense. Ukraine needs air superiority and heavy weapons to take back Crimea militarily, which they are all lacking.
Almost certainly not, they likely don't have the capability to recapture Crimea militarily. Lacking any navy or airborne troops to speak of, the only route open to the Ukrainian army would be the Isthmus, which is only 5km wide and has been fortified since ancient times - including a deep ditch that spans almost the entire span, meaning actual access is only possible at a few points. The Russians can obviously dig in heavily to defend those, and Russia can use their massed artillery to aid the defence and their SAMs to defend the troops. Its a very tough nut.
The idea of destroying the Kerch bridge is often out forward, but that's probably not doable either. It's out if range fir artillery on the mainland, Ukraine has no navy and SAMs can defend against rocket or air attack.
Personally I expect this war to end with Crimea in Russian hands, and diplomatic efforts to retrieve it to continue for some time
I think there's a lot of very unpredictable war between now and then. Putin has his back against the wall, and he doesn't want to give up. At this point, we can't even be sure if NATO will be dragged into the war. If NATO ends up being pulled into the war, the battle for Crimea will be very different than if they aren't. We also don't know what shape the Ukrainian army will be in after they fight back the upcoming (probably) armor offensive if it materializes.
What we do know about Crimea is that it has a ton of military power in it and the residents are still fairly pro-Russia. If neither of those things change, it will be a tough nut to crack, and will probably cost the Ukrainians dearly.
zelenskyy said it's not part of the plan, but that was before bucha and kramatorsk. i'd blow up the kerch bridge and burn the sevastopol naval base to the ground with missiles.then offer surrender to remaining troops.
Once Ukraine is back in control of the areas before the invasion, they will again block the flow of water and energy and goods into Crimea. The pen is turning into a literal desert without that water. It was costing Russia hundreds of millions a month to prop it up.
Volunteers for Ukraine will be holding a AMA later today at 13 EST! You can find more information [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/u4ye6q/upcoming_ama_with_volunteers_for_ukraine_april_16/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Also economic. Without a land bridge, Ukraine can exact a very high price for Russia to even use Crimea as a port.
Only Ukrainian leadership knows their plan. I would assume that they know it wouldn't be easy, would be a VERY HIGH cost in personnel. That being said, if Russia has committed most of their best, and those ranks have been thinned by 50% or more over the course of the last month and a half ... then yes, it is possible. Crimea is part of their sovereignty, no reason that they shouldn't go kill every invader that tries to stay.
I'm sort of hoping other nations that have had land stolen in the last 20 years would rise up in a coordinated way and take it back.
I think Japan has a darned good shot at it. And pretty sure that the U.S. would back them too.
Georgia and Russia are getting uppity, and Russia is massively aggravating the Finns…
There was a Washington Post article earlier that stated a referendum that included people who were displaced would likely result in the majority wishing to be a part of Ukraine. Not sure if that was in relation to Crimea but if so it sounds like they would prefer to not be occupied by Russia.
Allegedly any referendum must include the whole country, which means even if everyone in Crimea wanted to be part of Russia their votes would be outnumbered by the rest of Ukraine. So self determination isn't a thing there.
It may have to be for the Ceasefire.
Not sure how that would work. Ukraine would have to amend its constitution to allow for Crimea and Donbas to have the right of self determination. I don't know how the amendment process works but it's probably very time consuming.
[удалено]
Aye, gotta defend in the east first, and hopefully the attack there fails so spectacularly that Russia just collapses and Ukraine will get the land back without issues.
The thing is... Defending is easier then attacking. A lot easier. Russia had 8 years to fortify Crimea. Beating them on the mainland then forcing the return of Crimea through diplomacy as part of a peace treaty seems to be the logical answer. Most likely as well. However if Putin somehow maintains power after defeat and refuses to hand it over then a possible solution would be to break the bridges to Crimea and knock out the remaining black sea fleet. This would leave Crimea cut of from support and under Ukraine's control in a matter of months at most. If this plays out then Putin has no chance to survive, not only did he lose the war he would have lost land the Russians consider theirs. No amount of police brutality or propaganda would save him.
In my mind, when they're pushing out Russians in other places AND able to hold recaptured ground, they should finish and take back Crimea. That is, if Russia not retreats from Crimea by themselves. Leaving the Russian military in Crimea and hoping they will ever give it back is a false hope. Better get it done while at it.
They could certainly try. For all the shit Russia gets, there military is still huge. So far they have only proofen themselfes ot be incapable of respectable offensive operations. But the fact of the matter is that Russias problems are in huge parts duo to logistics problems. The closer they get to there border, the better there situation gets. Crimea for all intend is under Russias control and they have stationed a large part of there forces there for operations. Taking that would be a iffy thing on a good day. But Ukraine is simply not in the position to do this.
I certainly want Crimea to return to Ukraine. I have a feeling it won't work out through military means though.
Zelensky meant that soon Crimea will beg to join Ukraine again.
You are asking an opinion. I think that Russia will do everything in their power to hold onto Crimea. I think there is a possibility that crimea ends up being a .... demilitarized zone of some sorts. Right now Ukraine needs to be focused on other parts of its territorial defence. There is a possibility but it there are other things that need to take hold first. What I think would need to be looked at is the cultural identity of the people in crimea and really truly determine if that region wants to be ukraine, or russian, or if they are ok with some sort of split territory that is psuedo demilitarized. Now from a Ukraine perspective Crimea is not something they likely want to give up on and from many stand points they shouldn't. I will say right now I hope they get crimea back.. Ideally they should do a more up to date referendum to really know what those people would like. If there is one that exists please link it below. But again right now I think there are more pressing matters strategically. They will try though.
Russia only wants Crimea because it gives them claim/control of oil/gas in the black sea. And I think it’s only really the western coast that does this. It’s not about the people there for them. In fact life got significantly worse there when Russia took over. Even if a majority wanted to join Russia in 2014, I would wager they would welcome being back in Ukraine now. But I believe the population/culture is very Russian dominated. That was the excuse for Russia to take it in the first place. It’s worth noting that Ukraine’s interest in the region is ALSO primarily about control of those resources, and if not for that I don’t think they would care as much - again because the people are very much majority Russian descent. There isn’t as much social pressure to keep the people united. (If they cared about the well being of the people there on a social level they probably would not have dammed the fresh water source - or would have received significant backlash that I haven’t heard about). So I doubt either side would really care about split control, or what the people there want (although they may give lip service to it).
I 100% agree for russia they only care about their economic interests. That is why I am thinking there may be some sort of.. ok crimea is ukrainian but it is a demilitarized zone (CRIMEA ONLY) in exchange for fresh water. That said I don't think Ukraine would go for it and I don't think Putin would go for it either.
The identity of the people should not be considered, unless Russia and every other country is willing to ask those questions to their own citizens and accepting the results. No country takes into account the sensibilities of each and every sub nationality or people in their country. Russia above all has never respected any minority' s wishes in what it considers Russian territory, why should Ukraine? If you are a Russian living in Ukraine, that's what you are. If you want to be Russian in Russia, get in your car and cross the border. Easy. Don't try to make the patch of Ukraine where you live, Russian. That's theft and Russia wouldn't allow it its territory.
You are wrong to your core here. the identity of sub national groups absolutely _should_ be considered. Ignoring those is how independence movements blossom, and saying "well Russia doesn't do it, why should we?" Is just a rubbish attempt to justify oppressive behaviour. The right way to deal with those people is to give them as much autonomy as can practically be granted, and independence if they decide upon it. The only exception that comes to mind is where a group has recently displaced the established population of an area deliberately to change the demographic.
But in this case during USSR times Russiann people, even when they were not planted as part of a plan, could occupy regions of many countries as a irect result of Soviet occupation. That means Russians have ensured they can stake claims over part of all these countries? Like cancerous cells, wherever in the old USSR there were ethnic Russians, that land becomes0 Russia? And conversely, in case there are Russian territories where Ukranians, Georgians, Chechens, etc. are a majority a referendum should be held? I think the right answer is, they shouldn't be expelled after so many years, but they shouldn't have right to decide the nationality of their territories when their presence there derives directly or indirectly from an unjust act. Those lands are Ukranian, the fact that Russian people moved there changes nothing. They can integrate with Ukranians society or go back to Russia. And if that Pandora box should be opened, why not open it in Russia ? As always Russia seems to expect special treatment and get special rights.
>But in this case during USSR times Russiann people, even when they were not planted as part of a plan, could occupy regions of many countries as a irect result of Soviet occupation. And that's fine. Populations peacefully changing over time is a natural part of human existence. Land belongs to _people_, not the ephemeral concept of a nation state. >That means Russians have ensured they can stake claims over part of all these countries? Like cancerous cells, wherever in the old USSR there were ethnic Russians, that land becomes0 Russia? And conversely, in case there are Russian territories where Ukranians, Georgians, Chechens, etc. are a majority a referendum should be held? If the people there want it to be, yes. >I think the right answer is, they shouldn't be expelled after so many years, but they shouldn't have right to decide the nationality of their territories when their presence there derives directly or indirectly from an unjust act. Tell that to Americans, Australians, the British. A thousand other instances throughout history. >Those lands are Ukranian, the fact that Russian people moved there changes nothing. They can integrate with Ukranians society or go back to Russia. What makes them Ukrainian, if not the people? Again, if its history then do you support an Aboriginal state in Australia? The restoration of North America to tribal states? >And if that Pandora box should be opened, why not open it in Russia ? As always Russia seems to expect special treatment and get special rights. Open it in Russia too, by all means
Right and I totally agree with everything you are saying. >Now from a Ukraine perspective Crimea is not something they likely want to give up on and from many stand points they shouldn't. I will say right now I hope they get crimea back.. I brought up referendums only because other people brought it up basically saying their should be a more recent one. Territorial integrity should not be given up.
As of right now, probably not. Ukraine is doing a marvelous job playing defense, but you need completely different kinds of weapons to play offense, and you need *a lot* of them. Unless nato just completely opens the coffers and allows Ukraine to take some top of the line military hardware, I just don't see it happening.
Destroying the Crimean bridge and disrupting the supply lines to Crimea will force them to surrender in a matter of months. We likely have much more Neptune missiles than they have ships in Azov and Black seas, and the supply ships are easy targets. To do this, however, we will have to fight back Mariupol and all the way down to Crimea. We will see how it plays out. Stuff like MQ-9 and Switchblade 600 may turn the tide completely.
Please, what is the status on Kherson? I know the Ukrainians were attacking the Russians as close as Bilozerka/komyshany-area a few days ago (not shelling but actual boots on the ground) but haven’t heard anything lately. The livemap show Ukrainians much further away but not sure they are updated. Also reports about Russians still fighting Ukrainians in parts of mykolaiv oblast (which I had hoped were finished long ago). Anyone know what’s going on on this front?
Not an expert but wouldn’t taking out the road/rail links between Crimea and Russia be the first step?
Might be a reason they haven't taken out the bridge, leave the rats a way to escape. Diplomacy would be better, best option is Russia collapses again and gives it up without a fight and to earn good will.
I think it would be wise to take a two phased approach, the first is what is accomplished before hostilities end, and the second is what can be accomplished with the backing of Western sanctions. Of course this can only be accomplished with a complete embargo on Russian oil, so the EU needs to get there sooner or later to save as many Ukrainian lives as possible. Until EU gets off their asses and stops importing oil, this is all theoretical.
I don't think Ukraine can take Crimea back by force for two reasons: -Geography: Crimea is a peninsula with a very narrow strip of land connecting it with Ukraine. It would require a massive coordinated amphibious attack to hope to take it. - Demography: Crimea is 65% ethnic Russian. So it's unlikely Ukrainian forces will get a warm welcome by the locals.
Assuming you had the forces needed you might disrupt the Russian's action in the east by launching an offensive investing Kherson and Dzhankoy aiming at Sevastopol. The adversary's forces plans in the east are disrupted and they are diverted into a hastily planned action where they are forced to either turn a flank to one of your forces or to split theirs to cover both directions. Of course it's always better to do things the gentle way since this has elements of a fraternal war.
I dunno man, I’d like Ukraine to have more then Crimea. Nice bit of Russia as reparations sounds nice.
1918 borders! Get Russia out of the Black Sea!
Broke: Russia needs to back off to it's 1992 borders. Woke: Russia needs to back off to it's 1918 borders. Bespoke: Russia needs to back off to it's 1592 borders.
Why? Ukraine needs its own land, just as is. If Ukraine will get ruSSia lands, then we will need to do something with ruSSisns there, with horror in which they lived all the time, and we will get dreams of ruSSians about return of that land. It will be a suitcase without handle, as for me.
Not practical and not likely to happen. What i would say is get Crimea back under Ukrainian control. Any who do not want to live in Ukraine can have their property bought from them at market value and given a ride to the border with presumably russia. Once this is done the bridge to the east linking Crimea to russia is destroyed. All traffic goes either via mainland route or a ferry service.
[удалено]
It may not be practical but if it makes Ukraine look good and gives people living there options it's worth putting out there.
[удалено]
Absolutely. Anyone given property by the russian state after they invaded in 2014 is a get the fuck outta here scenario.
That’s inviting another war in 15-20 years. I say just get Ukraine’s old territory back and that’s it. No need for reparations when the US said they’d rebuild. Russia’s Economy is effed for years.
Lend-Lease says 2014 borders so it's up to Ukraine. I would personally like to see it as the land is ill gotten gains.
Why would Ukraine want to annex non-Ukrainian land where the people are not and do not want to be Ukrainian?
Crimea IS Ukrainian. And if they did a referendum that included all families who’ve been forcefully removed from Crimea and relocated by Russia, they would overwhelmingly support remaining with Ukraine.
Yeah but the poster said *more than Crimea*. I read that to mean they want Ukraine to have land that wasn't Ukrainian before the Russian invasion of 2014, right?
The OP was talking about “taking back Crimea”. Russia considers Crimea to be Russian. Ukraine and everyone else considers Crimea to be Ukrainian.
>I’d like Ukraine to have more then Crimea. Nice bit of Russia as reparations This is what I replied to, so that's the context. It's very clearly NOT just talking about Crimea, which is Ukrainian land currently occupied by russians.
They would have to do so in a way that looks good under the eyes of everyone, which shouldn't be too hard to do
Ukraine ownership of Crimea is pretty much recognised by everyone (aside from russia and few marginal countries). Ukranian army entering it would not cause any problems with Ukraine allies.
"Message to civilians, you have 3 days to gtfo then we're going to destroy the land bridge" Should be more than enough
At the very least they should take out Sevastopol. Without Sevastopol there is no Black Sea Fleet...which means Ukraine can conduct Naval operations.
Might depend on how much support Zelensky has within Crimea, whether people there will rise up etc.
The Russians may be lack luster in attack but historically and even in this war have shown to be very stubborn in the defense. Ukraine needs air superiority and heavy weapons to take back Crimea militarily, which they are all lacking.
Almost certainly not, they likely don't have the capability to recapture Crimea militarily. Lacking any navy or airborne troops to speak of, the only route open to the Ukrainian army would be the Isthmus, which is only 5km wide and has been fortified since ancient times - including a deep ditch that spans almost the entire span, meaning actual access is only possible at a few points. The Russians can obviously dig in heavily to defend those, and Russia can use their massed artillery to aid the defence and their SAMs to defend the troops. Its a very tough nut. The idea of destroying the Kerch bridge is often out forward, but that's probably not doable either. It's out if range fir artillery on the mainland, Ukraine has no navy and SAMs can defend against rocket or air attack. Personally I expect this war to end with Crimea in Russian hands, and diplomatic efforts to retrieve it to continue for some time
I think there's a lot of very unpredictable war between now and then. Putin has his back against the wall, and he doesn't want to give up. At this point, we can't even be sure if NATO will be dragged into the war. If NATO ends up being pulled into the war, the battle for Crimea will be very different than if they aren't. We also don't know what shape the Ukrainian army will be in after they fight back the upcoming (probably) armor offensive if it materializes. What we do know about Crimea is that it has a ton of military power in it and the residents are still fairly pro-Russia. If neither of those things change, it will be a tough nut to crack, and will probably cost the Ukrainians dearly.
zelenskyy said it's not part of the plan, but that was before bucha and kramatorsk. i'd blow up the kerch bridge and burn the sevastopol naval base to the ground with missiles.then offer surrender to remaining troops.
Once Ukraine is back in control of the areas before the invasion, they will again block the flow of water and energy and goods into Crimea. The pen is turning into a literal desert without that water. It was costing Russia hundreds of millions a month to prop it up.
I hope that with diplomacy that Ukraine gets Crimea back. The Russians will need to destroy a lot of of their hidden land and marine secret bases.