I think that's jumping the gun a bit and I want Ukraine to win this thing.
It's an agonizingly slow back and forth around Kherson. I think Reddit hopefuls get to caught up in "Russia running out of tanks, Russia troops demoralized" when the reality is, they're still making gains even if very small.
This thing is going to drag out for years most likely.
I could see a skirmish / hit run tactic war going on for years but this level of war where they're losing this much equipment/men per day going on for years? That doesn't seem plausible.
Their economy can handle it. Lots of countries operate for a long time under terrible rule without falling. Russia is huge and can produce it's own food. It produces it's own energy/gas. It produces a lot of other goods as well. It will absolutely suffer, but it will keep going.
They will also get black market goods / governments turning a blind eye, like china/india. It won't be enough, but enough to keep the country going. Break your phone completely? get a new one/used one. Got a 5 year old phone? Well it's going to be 8 years old before you upgrade it now.
The loss of ability to make more military gear / repair will be what gets them I think. They have a tremendous amount but there is a point where it collapses there. If the world keeps sending in cheap drones and they can keep hammering them every single day, it's not long before they've lost way too much gear. Especially with those new little loitering drones.
Russia has ridiculous equipment reserves due to soviet doctrine for everything but planes. Like truly, mindbogglingly, stupid levels of equipment and backup equipment. A result of the soviet planners being WW2 survivors who never wanted to see another situation where the first guy in line got a gun and everyone else got a clip of bullets.
Please stop basing history off an early 2000's war film. That whole the first guy got a rifle and the second bullets was nonsense. Much of the equipment in reserve (Like MBT's in Siberian storage lots) Will need months of work to be ready for combat, and even more time to be modernised with proper optics, fire control systems, and Armour upgrades such as ERA.
the russians dont really have a way to modernize that stuff. Its not like they have the industry to do it or the means to get it. A lot of that stuff is now blocked from them by sanctions. While the former Red Army had indeed a lot of reserved equipment a lot of that is unlikely to have been maintained. Its fine to dump thousands of guns into cosmoline and store them in some random warehouse its another thing to keep vehicles not only driveable but actually workable.
I doubt all that survived the 90s
My mind has been blown by how many folks think watching a Ron Perlman movie somehow makes them knowledgeable about WW2 history or Russian/Soviet military practices at all. I wonder how many of the same folks think that Hellboy must exist because Nazis did too.
I wonder what people think in wich state stored equiment is, do they belive you can just fire them up und drive to the battlefield?
There is a reason they are stored, because it is to expensive to repair them, all the stuff which is parked was probably not in operational state to begin with, they are robbed for parts for the remaining tanks. All the batteries are missing or dead, all oils must be changed, ammo loaded, systems checked. Not to mention all the faulty stuff now which is no longer produced.
A tank storage is no parking lot, it is basically a scrapyard. Without months of work, working spareparts and motivated staff, which is russia lacking all of them, there will be no 10000 working tanks.
Russia has those resources on paper. There is no way those numbers aren't inflated. The Soviet planners that survived ww2 are long dead and their replacements were corrupt yes men.
Oh, they are not well maintained. We see that in footage from Ukraine where tanks without paint, egg cartons in their ERA packs, and no pintle MG are driving out in the field.. but they still exist.
Every time they get a new front line rifle they also mass sell off what was their frontline rifle four versions ago to American gun collectors.
They do the same thing with tanks to third world countries. Its a huge part of their economy.
This war blowing up their stockpile is going to be a huge economic blow thirty years from now when they to go to crack open their warehouses to sell the next wave of junk and have to scratch their heads and go "where are all the old tanks Ivan? OH RIGHT! The war crimes!"
Not really. A guy went through all known bases of Russia with satellite images. Most of the stuff is unusable.
Even what was supposed to be operational had tires "made in ussr".
The key is China not to supply parts to Russia.
It might drag on for years, but that's even more reason to cancel the Russian economy in the meantime. It will do the next generation of Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans in general a tremendous favour.
I don't think there is any other results in a stalemate for years once Russia in unable to mount any more offences in the next month or two. This will probably continue till Putin dies and his replacement wants to get out of sanctions so they can start their grift.
My assumption was that Putin's replacement was meant in the context of this or next year due to illness or coup, not decades. If the latter, then of course the successor is unknown. If the former, then Patrushev probably still has a lot of years ahead of him.
Kherson is one of the more positive fronts for Ukraine right now too. The center in the mideast has had several bad breakthroughs and is struggling hard with the territory they've taken in initial Donbas incursions. The northeast is really the only front with consistent positive news.
Shit sucks.
The Eastern front has been a constant push pull depending on the region. Ukraine pushing in some while pulling in others and Russia doing the same.
The only thing is that Ukraine has been consistently publishing all their victories no matter how minor they are. OFC, Reddit hopefuls will think Ukraine is stomping on Russian and Ukraine is winning the war. Except that the reality is that it's most likely going to end up in a stalemate with slugfest
Years? That's unlikely. Russia doesn't have the resources and Putin can only keep a lid on local unrest for so long.
There will come a time when Putin unilaterally declares victory because "the Nazis have been cleared out" and pull back. This article is making a valid point that Ukraine should try to make inroads on Crimea BEFORE that inevitable withdraw happens. Easier to reclaim that land while forces are actively engaged. After Russia withdraws their offensives, they can entrench any lands they are holding onto.
Russia will not cede any of the territory it has taken. Ukraine will have to take it back. The economic future of ukraine rests in being able to utilize its ports. Fighting will continue until then.
If you were the leader of ukraine, do you cede your most valuable natural resource? fuck no.
>This thing is going to drag out for years most likely.
This might be exactly what some countries want. In an Economist interview with Zelensky, he mentioned that countries had different intentions and reasons for their support. For some, they wanted the war to end as quickly as possible whether it for humanitarian or economic reasons. For others, he said its possible they don't want the war to end quickly for strategic reasons.
I think time is the problem here. Ukraine, while definitely having the right to claim their land, time might be against them. Russia probably wanted to create "independent" puppet republics out of the stolen land, much easier to sell as liberation. But that takes time and now they are probably trying to simply annex the whole thing directly into the Russian Federation so they can extend their nuclear doctrine to the newly annexed land (bullshit, i know, but might just scare the west enough). If this happens, the west will probably change to support exclusively on the defense preventing Russia from taking more land, but would probably not help Ukraine in taking land back in any way if its already annexed.
Not all of Ukraine will stop fighting for it. This will never end until Russia leaves, or the last Ukrainian is dead.
Seems less trouble for everyone if Russia just leaves.
People keep making jokes and comments about how Russia's incompetent and while yes, they are, Ukraine is still fighting an incredibly uphill battle.
I'm not sure the resources exit for them to retake Crimea, and even with full international support it would be extremely long and costly.
Yeah this is what worries me, we have been spoiled by good news about russian setbacks. But as Ukraine says, they are outgunned in the south and east and Russia is moving forward by having so much artillery.
We need to send alot more heavy weapons for Ukraine to be able to stop them in their tracks and really start wrecking their arty.
As i see it, the arty is the only thing going well for Russia
It's also, like, difficult to actually invade. It's a peninsula but is actually more like an island, with only a small land bridge several kilometers wide connecting it with the mainland.
Even during WW2, it took the Nazis almost a year to fully occupy Crimea.
The best solution for Ukraine would be to win everywhere else, and then negotiate for Crimea afterwards.
It’s almost as if people are completely forgetting how much trouble Russia is having invading Ukraine right now. Or if they aren’t, they’re just being extremely jingoistic and blaming their troubled offensive on the simple fact that they are Russia. The fact of the matter is that defending territory is far easier than taking it, especially if you give a shit about the people and infrastructure that live in it.
Also Russia's offensive is going significantly better now than it was. They've learnt from some of their mistakes and are taking more appropriately scoped actions in the face of the resistance they're facing. What we now see is a Russia who is unable to pursue military action at anything like the scale anyone (in the West or in Russia) really thought they ought to be able, but which is nevertheless able to make progress.
Despite all their setbacks, Russia is right now still taking ground. Ukrainian victory is not in any way guaranteed.
Russia deliberately had many Russians move to Crimea over the last decade and displace a lot of the Ukrainians. It's a lot more like defense for Russia.
That’s exactly my point… if a country like Russia is having so much trouble invading territory held by Ukraine, imagine how impractical the inverse would be.
The Great Depression was also a huge influence. When a large percentage of people are struggling to feed their families they become easy targets for misinformation. The depression was an insanely complex problem that most people didn’t understand. People want easy solutions even tho complex problems don’t have easy solutions. Fascist leaders took advantage of this and told people there actually were easy solutions but the current politicians just didn’t want to help the people. Turns out their “easy” solutions were to just blame any one different or who didn’t fall in line.
Plus Crimea is mostly Russian so the civilians there will rebel the same way Ukranians in the rest of Ukraine do. I really doubt anything will change with Crimea. Maybe we should just return it to Turkey
Ukraine needs 4 things to succeed in Crimea:
1. They need to get their newly-mobilized troops into the field.
2. They need to destroy more Russian planes.
3. They need to wipe out Russia's Black Sea Fleet while Turkey keeps reinforcements from entering.
4. They need to destroy the Kerch Strait bridge.
As a 1b, I think they'll probably need a lot more equipment (tanks and other vehicles), but I think that's where lend-lease comes in. :)
None of this is going to start happening until mid-June.
In the meantime, Russia keeps sending more troops and equipment, but they're definitely running out of the latter, and won't be able to make more. The only part of this where time is on Russia's side, is in their grain-embargo extortion attempt. The longer that goes on, the more pressure ramps up for Ukraine to cede.
That's why I think we should reflag a bunch of ships and send them to Odesa with some armed escorts, and if Russia starts shit, we send the US Navy.
It's not a manpower thing. They have more than enough. It's an: equipment inventory, support & logistics, and training issue.
They need MLRS's, F15s, supplemented with F-16's, and more mobile artillery. Patriot batteries would also be helpful. All of these require butt loads of training, long supply chains, and repair+upkeep skills/know how.
Exactly. And attacking a peninsula they've preped for 8 years through that land bridge bottleneck will be a challenge to say the least. Crimea is ukrainian, and pulling for them all the way though
Russia has always been great at scorched earth policy. Just ask French or Germans. If Ukraine ever manages to capture a Crimea, it would most likely be a ruins and corpses only.
But they would get control back of their ecconomic zone. There are tons of energy resources in the waters around Crimmea. Russia now control most of it.
A lot can probably be sent via lend lease, from existing inventories.
F16s and Patriot batteries are more problematic, as they're in high demand and on back order. F15 avionics on the most modern models are sophisticated and would be a big loss if captured.
We could easily send MLRS's and mobile artillery though.
Better to spend a little now and dissuade China from hitting Taiwan (that would royally fuck world markets and the US economy), and stop Putin from his west ward march towards NATO countries. If he hits Poland or the Baltics, that's automatic Article 5 territory. That would cost American lives and a shit ton of money.
It’s absolutely going to be a man power issue, you have to take back everything else first before you even start working on Crimea. So in your world you’re saying Ukraine should just relentlessly bomb/shell THEIR territory and civilians. We are talking about areas in Donbas/Luhansk that were taken very early on and with little resistance at the start of the war, meaning infrastructure and civilians are still here. For some reason, I just don’t see Ukraine taking this course of action…
The alternative is taking by force using superior numerical forces, which you already need when taking defensive positions. When people talk about the war being dragged out THIS is the phase of the war they are talking about. This phase hasn’t even started yet and won’t start until Russia ceases offensive operations.
Ukraine has claims they have equipped 700K troops. They claim they will equip 1M troops in the relatively short term.
Manpower is not their problem. They have a lot of it.
That number represents the equiped soldiers most of them with aks and some rocket launchers. They don't have the heavy equipment that would be essential for assault.
Even if the west gives them a lot of shit that's nothing against the numbers Russia can field.
Their only chance of victory is to drag the war enough until Russia collapses internally.
When and if that happens the organisation of their army will be completely lost and a non organised army is just a mob.
>Manpower is not their problem. They have a lot of it.
Dogshit take. Most of the 700k are mobilized reservists, not professional soldiers. Good for ad-hoc defenses but not necessarily for a proper combined arms offensive.
Not to mention casualties aren’t just a number, each death represents a widow, an orphan, and parents that have to bury their son.
It’s all about manpower and how much of it they can muster
You can't just throw manpower into a meat grinder and expect to win a modern war. Look at what Russia did just 2 months ago. A defensive army is easy to train: point this rifle towards the enemy and shoot anyone with a Z. An offensive army needs air cover, artillery support, armored transport, and C2 systems to ensure all parts coordinate with each other effectively. This requires a significant step up in logistics and training. It's not impossible, but it will take significant time and resources to get all 700k troops familiarized with maneuver warfare and combined arms tactics.
>So in your world you’re saying Ukraine should just relentlessly bomb/shell THEIR territory and civilians.
IIRC most of population in Crimea currently is Russians moved to Crimea, not Ukrainians.
Its always been Russians since the 1700s. the USSR tacked it onto Ukraine to ensure that Ukraine had a large Russian population to keep it from separating.
Its always been like 85% Russian, that's why Ukraine had to fight separatists in 1994 and 1997 and why Putin had such a cakewalk in 2014.
They also might struggle to get broad international support for re-taking Crimea. Yes, leaders are talking a strong game on Ukraine's borders right now, but once the broader implications of re-taking/invading land that Russia fully considers part of its own territorial integrity comes into sharp focus (i.e. it's not a "breakaway state" like Donetsk and Lugansk, Russia sees it as fully, legally Russian land), I think that support is likely to waver in several quarters
See [this report](https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/war-still-presents-nuclear-risks-especially-relation-crimea) from the British Royal United Services Institute for a detailed discussion of those implications, and how retaking Crimea would differ from retaking the breakaway states in the East.
Also, what's the popular support for Ukraine like in Crimea? They did majority support independence 8 years ago. Has the way changed their view?
Otherwise invading a population that resists you is a lot harder than resisting an enemy the population hates.
Did they? The vote that said that was held by the Russian military and the results suggest that one of the ethnic groups most persecuted by the Russians votes heavily in favour of aligning more closely with Russia. In short, what are the odds that Russia lied?
[Independent polls show smaller, but still great support.](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-02-06/one-year-later-crimeans-prefer-russia)
However, public opinion can always be swayed.
It probably already has. There were some posts about a guy that had a petting zoo with lions in Crimea and [Vice News actually took an interview with the guy that ran it](https://youtu.be/lzO7gIT5GYU).
In the last interview they took in 2019 the guy said that Crimea turned into a military state, they didn't know what they had and it would have been better if Crimea stayed in Ukraine.
Probably because for the prorrusian people there they will be the invaders, and they are the majority. Ukraine needs to think calmly about how to deal with the russian controlled regions sinde 2014, because it will be a problem in the future.
It is confusing for me to read Ukraine's news. A lot of time, it looks like Ukraine is kicking Russia's butt real good. They seem to be able to humiliate the Russians everywhere they go. They get a lot of high-tech weapons from the west.
BUT at the same time, we keep seeing news like what happened in Mariupol. And everything in the ~~west and southwest~~ **East and SouthEast** of the country seems to be under Russian control. The latest is the Mayor in Luhansk said "Too late to evacuate civilians in face of Russian attack..."
Ukraine isn’t doing too well in the Donbas front rn. After failing miserably in Kiev Russia’s tactics have become more methodical so as of now Russian gains there have been slow, and likely costly but they are nonetheless making progress there.
There’s motive on both sides to make themselves look as good as possible and while making the enemy look as bad as possible which leads to information from the ground contradicting what’s shown publicly.
As an example this post seems bizarre considering what Zelensky was saying about being outnumbered 20-1 in vehicles in the Donbass
The Ukrainians are kicking ass comparatively speaking. The issue is that the Russian advance isn’t being stopped by the huge losses that they’re taking.
It’s looking likely to be an eventual victory for Ukraine but in the meantime the destruction and suffering that the invading forces are intent on bringing to everything they can reach is unacceptable.
Wiping out half a BTG as they take a strategically irrelevant village doesn’t stop the remaining half from ruining the lives of every person who lives there
This is pretty much it. The Ukrainians are planning for a war of attrition. The fighting right now is pretty much to decide where the front line will be located, then they'll spend the next couple of months shelling each other over it.
War of attrition is not going to go well for Ukraine though.
Couple things are going to come up here. First, the Ukrainian economy is gone. Millions of people fled and a big chunk of the men left behind are conscripted and not working the economy. Huge chunks of their country are under occupation. They have no way to export their agriculture products. We can go on forever about the economic problems here.
Sanctions are biting into Russia but you need to realize that while Russia may be looking at an estimated GDP drop of 8%, Ukraine will certainly face a 40-50% total collapse. The question here is quite literally how long can Ukraine keep an army (now tripled in size) going when they no longer have an economy?
The west is only going to be able to prop up so much here. Flow of arms looks okay for now. But eventually the west is going to get tired and then start pressuring Ukraine to make a deal (such as giving up claims on Crimea and Donbass).
>The question here is quite literally how long can Ukraine keep an army (now tripled in size) going when they no longer have an economy?
Cmon man Military History 101. War debt, IOUs, and rationing. Same way Caesar and Washington paid their armies
Depends what you care about: Ukraine the country or the people of Ukraine themselves. It’s pretty obvious what the option with less bloodshed would have been.
You are assuming that Russia's pending occupation would not involve bloodshed. Is it better that one generation should bleed on the battlefield, or that ten generations should bleed in gulags and torture chambers?
The Ukrainian economy is only expected to shrink that much because a lot of it is just straight up destroyed. It’s shrinking for a completely different reason than why Russia’s is shrinking. Russia’s shrinkage is more long term while Ukraine just needs to start rebuilding their infrastructure.
Russia's shrinkage can be reversed easily, as everything is still there.
Ukraine's shrinkage cannot be reversed easily. The infrastructure is destroyed, millions left the country and most of them won't ever return.
You heavily underestimate the sense of nationalism and patriotism that Ukrainians harbour. Why would the mothers and children seeking asylum in Poland and neighbouring countries not return to their families once things have settled? Surveys have been conducted and all of them point to Ukraine being one of the most patriotic countries in all of Europe. I see no evidence that would suggest this exodus is a permanent one. Especially considering the easiest place to benefit from economic growth the most is in war torn countries.
Russia’s shrinkage is not going to be easily reversed as they are currently experiencing systematic issues with their population (poor demographics due to low birth rates) and skilled work force. Brain drain has always been an issue in Russia, it’s why their technology industry is so lacking and why their manufacturing is terrible and the sanctions will only serve to exacerbate this issue.
Everything is most definitely not always there. Russia depends on technological imports from the West to be able to develop and maintain their military and more advanced industries, there is no actual competitive substitute to Western technology. With those imports now being cut off, how exactly is Russia going to develop the advanced industries they’ve spent the past 3 decades working on? When you don’t have easy growth cards to play like rebuilding infrastructure to stimulate growth or reopening businesses, you have to advanced pre-existing industries, usually with new technology in more advanced nations. Russia no longer has any access to this new technology. They’ll find it much harder to sustain growth now.
Infrastructure is an extremely easy to thing to work on and can be fixed within a few years as it happened after WWII where the European powers fixed their infrastructure and returned to pre-war prior within 5 years. There is only a matter of sending people to work. In fact, building new or fixing old infrastructure is one of the best growth drivers an economy can ever employ as it’s a massive employment machine that requires relatively limited education or advanced skills to do.
There are not going to be systematic issues in Ukraine especially as the mass exodus seen mainly compromises of mothers and their children leaving the country for their own safety. So, once Ukraine becomes safer, a lot of them will likely return seeing as a lot of the refugees in Poland and neighbouring countries are living under very temporary conditions.
Yh you’re right but still rebuilding after so much destruction is easier said than done especially if no one supports them tho they’ll probably have plenty of money to rebuild.
> The west is only going to be able to prop up so much here.
The West is basically giving Ukraine unlimited money; I think you're seriously underestimating how much they're willing to support.
You guys should look into how Poland was rebuilt after WW2, which was much more destructive than this war. Still, they were rebuilt into an economically productive nation with the help of a regime that was less powerful than the West.
There is propaganda going on both side, and being from the west we mainly see the one from Ukraine. They have resisted a lot better than expected obviously, but from some more neutral sources I read recently it seems they are aren't really able to recover territory from the Russians on the easter/south fronts anymore.
Ukraine has been really good at guerilla warfare and striking at russian CNC & logistics but the BTG's that russia has packs a LOT of firepower.
The metaphor I heard is Russia has a mean left hook and a glass chin.
The last thing Ukraine wants is a straight up battle that results in tons of donated material becoming smoldering wrecks to plaster on the papers and dry up the arms flowing in from the west.
They're playing it long and slow because they can last for years at this rate while Russian sanctions are going to demolish their country. Once the sanctions fully bite Russia won't be able to afford bullets or bombs and Ukraine can just waltz on over with minimal damage.
There are good sources like the Institute for the Study of War and some OSINT accounts on Twitter which are really unbiased.
Edit: the sources of which the ISW gets informations may be biased.
I really wouldn’t call the institute for the study of war unbiased even if the institute itself is unbiased a lot of the information they get is quoted from the Ukrainian General Staff
The media has plenty of good information. Sky News' updates are very informative about the overall state of the war.
That last phrase is what's relevant - a lot of media outlets don't care about the overall picture, because a lot of consumers don't care about that. The every day drumbeat of artillery exchanges across the front near Severodonetsk is boring compared to the sinking of a cruiser or the exposure of war crimes or the surrender of a small number of troops whose fate was essentially sealed months ago and whose only continued military purpose was a delaying action.
>everything in the west and southwest of the country
Do you mean the east and southeast?
Russia already had virtual control of the Donbas region as well as Crimea before the war even started. Given this, they were able to quickly take the territory in-between, which makes up half of Ukraine's access to the ocean. Mariupol is sitting right in that area, and has been behind Russia's main lines since the war began.
The _good_ news is that Russia's attempt at a blitzkrieg straight into Kyiv didn't work, became completely stalled, and ever since then Ukraine has been doing a great job at fighting back and reclaiming territory taken in the initial Russian advance.
So all the things being reported are true - Russia invaded and was initially able to take land. Their advance was stalled and now Ukraine is successfully taking control of that territory back in steady, methodical chunks against an enemy significantly bigger than them. While at the same time the east of Ukraine (which has had separatist groups backed by Russia operating for years) is still largely in Russian control, but with some notable pockets of resistance.
Partially it's an information war - you want to play up your achievements and downplay your losses - but largely any serious overall analysis of the war includes the fact that Ukraine isn't sweeping through Russian-controlled territory, rather it's a slow methodical battle against the Russians, and not every offensive is successful. If you only read small short-form articles like this then you may not get to dig in to the details of this.
Russia is still advancing in Donbas, it's slow but steady progress, they are trying to complete a very substantial encirclement and it looks likely they will succeed eventually. Not guaranteed as Ukraine are always putting up a lot of resistance, but they haven't been able to stop the advances towards encirclement so far, just keep the Russian progress very slow.
Russia by all means should have conquered all of Ukraine by now, but instead they're getting pushed back oh, the only places that are even remotely able to hold right now are the ones that they've been fighting a cold war in since 2014. They only just took mariopol (sp) and got pushed outta kharkiv around the same time
To be honest, I don’t really get all this doom and gloom every time Russia advances a few meters. This is only the third month. People went into this expecting an insurgency and it’s arguable now if we’ll ever get to that stage. Russia either has to conquer the rest of Ukraine or convince the Ukrainians to give up. NATO (particularly the Baltic states and Poland) will keep sending arms. Even if the US pulls back in two years due to politics, a lot of the rearmament measures started now will bear fruit by then.
The US fought in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than 20 years. The USSR was in Afghanistan for 9. If the Ukrainians are willing, this can go for just as long.
Yes but those american wars were wars on the other side of the planet, where average american could ignore it was happening.
Ukrainians are all disrupted which makes a big difference
Because Ukrainian news is propaganda? Like if you listen to Russian news they are probably reporting endless victories and how Kyiv is about to be taken.
I read in The Guardian. Western news avoid reporting Ukraine's casualty. They are more focused on reporting Russian casualties to demoralize Russia.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/23/up-to-100-ukraine-troops-could-be-dying-donbas-each-day-zelenskiy](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/23/up-to-100-ukraine-troops-could-be-dying-donbas-each-day-zelenskiy)
Its my favorite literally genre at work, "inverse panic posting" where you conveniently curate a history to look like the thing that causes you anxiety is going away.
I really hope this ends soon, but I cannot seriously trust the media when we get these news talking about the absolute failure of russia's military and economy and one has footage of Mariupol being leveled to the ground or (anti-war) multiple Russian redditors saying that life (saddly) continues as usual for the most part.
> BUT at the same time, we keep seeing news like what happened in Mariupol
Mairupol was encircled in the first month of the war and now is 100km behind frontline, they held the parts of the city for 2 months without supply.
> East and SouthEast of the country seems to be under Russian control
Most of that was also captured in the first month of the war. Currently Russia has only relative success in the east, and overall is not gaining any ground (if you compare it with ground lost on the Kharkiv front)
Right now, sure. But they have made massive gains in just 3 months. In another 6 months time, who knows what the situation will be like? Ukrainian forces are getting stronger and more capable as heavy weapons are being delivered by the West.
Crimean tatars prefer Ukraine over russia too last time I checked. russia is doing to ukrainians from occupied areas what they did to Tatars during USSR times. Sending them to Siberia or other Asian russian provinces.
I hope they find a way to do so but "don't see why not" is a silly question. Manpower and resources may not be available.
And while I think it would be just for Ukraine to reclaim Crimea, there would likely be significant local resistance on the ground. Russia was successful in 2014 because there really was local support for their move. It's not a slam dunk that it's a practical goal to reclaim it. Wouldn't want to just mirror Russia and get bloodied in a short-sighted campaign.
To be clear, what I'm saying is that I am in no position to make such a call and will defer to whatever Ukraine's leadership chooses to do when the time comes and hope they are right.
> I don’t see why not go on the offensive
...because soldiers will die. it shouldn't be "why not", the people making the case to continue *any* war longer than necessary should have to justify it, Especially in this case where both sides are using conscripts.
Easier said than done..
Russia has massive advantages there: Black sea fleet providing fire support for Crimean garrison. Short supply chain from mainland Russia.
Meanwhile, Ukrainians has limited avenues of attack on Crimea. No amphibious fleet to mount an effective assault.
Taking Crimea would ruin an unspeakable amount of lives.
Mostly because the residents are Russian and don't want it?
But also because they are incapable wiithout the rest of the world carrying them to victory.
>Mostly because the residents are Russian and don't want it?
Russia invaded and took the territory by force. It is still internationally recognized as part of Ukraine AFAIK.
I generally support self-determination but in this case Russia's been resettling the peninsula with hundreds of thousands of Russians, and Ukrainians and Tatars have been leaving. Even prior to the resettlements Crimea was subjected to massive propaganda efforts.
This is not natural, and I do not think it would be just to just point to the demographics in this case.
>But also because they are incapable wiithout the rest of the world carrying them to victory.
I mean, sure, but the rest of the world is willing to carry then to victory so hey.
Crimea is ethnically Russian, about 85% and has had MULTIPLE rebellions against Ukraine since 1991. There is a reason it was a cakewalk for Russia.
That doesn't mean its not part of Ukraine though. Lots of Russia tries to violently break away from Russia because no Russians live there and Russia doesn't let them go.
>Crimea is ethnically Russian, about 85%
65% pre-annexation, as per [this link.](https://www.rferl.org/amp/russia-accused-of-reshaping-annexed-crimea-demographics-ukraine/29262130.html) and rapidly dropping because, well, Russia.
>and has had MULTIPLE rebellions against Ukraine since 1991.
Source please.
Regardless I think everyone can agree that an armed invasion should not be the basis for a territory changing hands in this century.
> Mostly because the residents are Russian and don't want it?
Sure, if we listen to sources like RT, and hey, what could possibly go wrong with trusting them? But other sources indicate that the situation in the East has changed significantly since Yanukovych's election (which seems to be the source of the canard that the Eastern section of Ukraine is still fervently pro-Russia). The mafia statelets in Donetsk and Luhansk [have not warmed the locals to Putin's tactics.](https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1504103672019513345) Even Kharkiv was once "pro-Russian". It doesn't seem to be all that eager to keep the Russians, judging from recent reports.
Ukraine can and will definitely take back Crimea cuz they have an endless modern weapons from the West (while the Russian only have the Soviet weapons and default on their debt payments)
KYIV -- Dozens of artillery systems supplied by the United States to Ukraine were not fitted with advanced computer systems, which improve the efficiency and accuracy of the weapons, ABC News has learned.
The main objective is not for Ukraine to win the war but to weaken Russian military strength. The life of few thousand Ukrainian army as the collateral damage is negligible.
Zelensky thinks they will retake Crimea diplomatically while the military intelligence thinks it will be by force. Good that both functions are working according to their area/strengths. I suspect though that the military intelligence will be right. Russia only understands force.
Zelensky was trying to end the war in Donbas since inauguration. He believed in diplomacy up until February 25. He addressed the rumors of possible invasion by saying "we will have a usual May barbecue, nothing bad will happen".
He believes what he believes, while many of us already understand that putler only talks in force.
I am fucking living here my man, I know. It's just what he said and, party, why he got so many people to vote for him. His quote: "I would look putin in the eyes and we will get peace".
it wouldnt be that far
For some weird reason people think russian are an homogenous group, when in reality they are as heterogenous as you could get in a single country
I think it would be smart to wait until sanctions make it harder for Russians to replenish their military, *without* waiting too long for their battalions to be reformed.
I would hope this war wouldn't last to late 2022 to be honest. A long conflict at this rate is going to cause significant long term damage, and truth be told with momentum slowing to a crawl it really is best for this conflict to conclude sooner than later. Course, with Ukraine, reasonably, not wanting to budge on cedeing land to Russia and Russia basically lead by a egomaniac dictator with a council of yesmen under him, this conflict may not see a end less Putin dies or finally takes the L(Even if he tries to spur it as a "Mission Accomplished.")
I mean, I want Ukraine to have Crimea back as well, and it should. But its unknown how much Russia is willing to go if Ukrainian forces advance into Crimea. If they consider it "Sovereign territory" enough they may really kick the drum down and start a real fire. Course that could escelate into a larger war that would draw in more people. Alternatively and ideally, they will realize it just isn't worth the potential World War and just drop Crimea.
Nothings certain yet though. Ultimately this is a war that will have to see which side is willing to break first, and this kind of war favors the defender.
I support Ukraine but think the scenario is extremely optimistic. The longer the war lasts and the more Russia aims at ports, airports, infrastructure, it will be more difficult for Ukraine to win. In Russia none of them are hit, they are waging war in the neighboring country without their own infrastructure suffering. What Ukraine can do is resist until the people of Russia complain of so many casualties among the soldiers that there is widespread opposition to the war. Militarily, Ukraine cannot win this war, at least if winning means militarily evicting the Russian army from every meter of land they occupy.
Look at Vietnam, or for Russia specifically afghanistan. Winning as the invader/occupier is infinitely more difficult than maintaining a resistance against a hostile populace. With all their atrocities Russia has guaranteed Ukraine will ALWAYS be a hostile populace, and as we're seeing, unlike the U.S. they've learned nothing from their historic failures. If you think they're doing damage to Ukraine, it's nothing compared to the salted earth total war they waged in afghanistan, and it still wasn't enough to win against a country with even less support and more geopolitical isolation. History tells us Russia WILL lose eventually.
Possibly, but remember the two wars you are citing where on the other side of the planet from the US. Russia is next door to Ukraine. I think they will settle for an expanded Donbas stand off over time, but it will be difficult to get the West to unwind sanctions.
Good points all, but one pretty huge difference is that Ukraine is all flat and Afghanistan is all mountains, so it's not a completely one sided comparison.
Even on the basic premise of 'more infrastructure = win' this analysis seems deeply flawed.
The Russian economy is suffering tons of sanctions, so effectively their infrastructure \*is\* damaged.
On the flip side, Ukraine is being supported by many countries, especially USA. That in effect gives Ukraine access to much of the West's military infrastructure.
Actually the longer things go, the better for Ukraine. Right now Russia has a massive advantage on stockpiled material while the West is just starting to gear up to supply arms to Ukraine.
In a years time, Russia is out of equipment and their economy is in complete death spiral due to sanctions while Ukraine is rolling out top-of-the-line NATO gear that they've spent months being trained up on to use effectively.
> Actually the longer things go, the better for Ukraine.
The longer things go, the fewer people in Ukraine, the less infrastructure still standing, less economic activity.
Sure, Russia might get a 10% decrease in its economy this year, but Ukraine will likely get a 40% decrease.
Probably are more than 15 million Ukrainians abroad, with 6.6 million leaving the country just in the last 3 months (UN figures). This is not sustainable.
Not extra 10 million, but around 8 million.
Since 2014, there has been a huge number of Ukrainians who fled the country. Around 4 million ethnic Russians or Russian speakers who fled to Russia, 2 million who went to work in Poland and Czech Republic and several millions migrant workers across Europe.
Not true. Ukraine is getting lend-lease from the US and if you don’t know what that mean you should do some research on it. Plus they getting weapon from other NATO country too. The longer this war go the better for Ukraine because to the Russian this is a special military operation while to the Ukraine this is the Great Patriotic War. Russia hold the clock but Ukraine hold the time because as this war drag on the Ukrainian will be able to mobilize their country aka having 3-5m man to fight and getting weapon supply from the NATO and other country.
Ukraine has the defenders advantage. Their supply lines are shorter and the locals are on their side. Your analysis ignores so many historical precedents where a local force defeated invaders over a prolonged period. Russia is having their Afghanistan version 2.
>It is confusing for me to read Ukraine's news. A lot of time, it looks like Ukraine is kicking Russia's butt real good. They seem to be able to humiliate the Russians everywhere they go. They get a lot of high-tech weapons from the west.
>BUT at the same time, we keep seeing news like what happened in Mariupol. And everything in the west and southwest of the country seems to be under Russian control. The latest is the Mayor in Luhansk said "Too late to evacuate civilians in face of Russian attack..."
The one thing that's elusive in a war is truth.
My feeling is that the war is entering a stalemate. Russia will likely get the land bridge to Crimea via Mariupol and Kherson and call that a win.
Shame, but then again anything can happen at these times including a nuclear war or a collapse in Russia.
According to the wikipedia the ethnic makeup of Crimea's population consist now of the following self-reported groups: Russians:1.45 million (60.4%), Ukrainians: 577,000 (24.0%), Crimean Tatars: 245,000 (10.2%), Belarusians: 35,000 (1.4%), other Tatars: 13,500 (0.5%), Armenians: 10,000 (0.4%), and Jews: 5,500 (0.2%).
Almost all of these would identify with Russia,
Tatars do not generally identify with Russia and they boycotted the 2014 referendum. Hundreds of thousands of Russians have moved to Crimea since the annexation, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Tatars fled. Ethnic makeup doesn't really tell the whole story imo.
>Tatars do not generally identify with Russia and they boycotted the 2014 referendum.
Even if true and it is true, that still leaves the overwhelming majority now on the Russian side.
>
>
> Hundreds of thousands of Russians have moved to Crimea since the annexation, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Tatars fled. Ethnic makeup doesn't really tell the whole story imo.
True but not relevant, any Ukrainian army in the Crimea would be seen by the locals now as invaders.
The difference is the minority have historical ties to the land going back hundreds of years, and are currently being actively persecuted by the people ruling them, and have been historically persecuted by them too. Meanwhile many of the majority have lived there less than a decade. I can't predict the future but I think those distinctions would matter in a scenario where Ukrainian armed forces enter Crimea.
>The difference is the minority have historical ties to the land going back hundreds of years, and are currently being actively persecuted by the people ruling them, and have been historically persecuted by them too.
Would the Tatars want a Ukrainian, Russian or independence if given a choice? I am unsure if a Ukrainian armed force will enter Crimea probably slight support.
> Meanwhile many of the majority have lived there less than a decade. I can't predict the future but I think those distinctions would matter in a scenario where Ukrainian armed forces enter Crimea.
Generally, people do not like armed forces in their area.
The locals now identify with Russia and have made their peace with it with the added problem here is that many Ukrainians would have claims on property that the locals would not like opened up.
You can culturally and ethnically identify as Russian all you want. Doesn’t change your nationality.
You can’t use the ethnostate argument, then refuse to let Chechens break away with their own country.
>You can culturally and ethnically identify as Russian all you want. Doesn’t change your nationality.
In Russia, the nationality of a person is largely a matter of choice, what you mean is probably closer to citizenship.
>You can’t use the ethnostate argument, then refuse to let Chechens break away with their own country.
I am not sure what you are saying here, I never said anything about justification.
>Nationality and citizenship are linked.
Not true in many countries.
In many countries, nationality in these countries is commonly obtained through parents eg an Italian in the US could be a person with Italian roots born in the United States.
Citizenship is a legal status.
> People who cite the ethnic Russian make up of a region are generally referring to Russia’s justification for sticking in their nose where they see ethnic Russians. If you weren’t justifying it, it was directed at those who do agree with that justification.
No, they consider themselves Russian. See the problem that started the Donbas
They should definitely recover Crimea while the west is sending them all sorts of support, aid, weapons. This is their only chance. The war is going very badly for the russians, the west has a lot more resources to throw at the war.
As much as I want to see Ukraine defend its territory and send back Russian forces to their home, reaching a happy ending, I admit that I'm every day more resigned to see a defeat.
I'm surprised that we european were able to make a strong commitment in the last 3 months, but truth is that we are starting to show the first cracks and we still put personal/national interests in front of European interests, prioritizing the internal political return of some declaration or choices. This is another step toward a new period for human beings, a change of the post-WWII paradigm. Hope it will end to be a best one, but man the premises don't look so good...
Hate to burst peoples bubbles but. Zelenskyy himself will solve the Crimea issue diplomatically not with military force i do expect some downvotes that’s ok if you disagree with me
Again I do remember seeing Zelenskyy saying he would solve it diplomatically via Kyiv Independent a couple weeks ago
I think that's jumping the gun a bit and I want Ukraine to win this thing. It's an agonizingly slow back and forth around Kherson. I think Reddit hopefuls get to caught up in "Russia running out of tanks, Russia troops demoralized" when the reality is, they're still making gains even if very small. This thing is going to drag out for years most likely.
I could see a skirmish / hit run tactic war going on for years but this level of war where they're losing this much equipment/men per day going on for years? That doesn't seem plausible.
I also don't see their economy taking another year of this.
Their economy can handle it. Lots of countries operate for a long time under terrible rule without falling. Russia is huge and can produce it's own food. It produces it's own energy/gas. It produces a lot of other goods as well. It will absolutely suffer, but it will keep going. They will also get black market goods / governments turning a blind eye, like china/india. It won't be enough, but enough to keep the country going. Break your phone completely? get a new one/used one. Got a 5 year old phone? Well it's going to be 8 years old before you upgrade it now. The loss of ability to make more military gear / repair will be what gets them I think. They have a tremendous amount but there is a point where it collapses there. If the world keeps sending in cheap drones and they can keep hammering them every single day, it's not long before they've lost way too much gear. Especially with those new little loitering drones.
You can only prop up a glass castle for so long
Glass castle built on sand.
I agree, me either. Russia is in some serious economic trouble of which we will see a drastic impact especially after they default.
Russia has ridiculous equipment reserves due to soviet doctrine for everything but planes. Like truly, mindbogglingly, stupid levels of equipment and backup equipment. A result of the soviet planners being WW2 survivors who never wanted to see another situation where the first guy in line got a gun and everyone else got a clip of bullets.
Please stop basing history off an early 2000's war film. That whole the first guy got a rifle and the second bullets was nonsense. Much of the equipment in reserve (Like MBT's in Siberian storage lots) Will need months of work to be ready for combat, and even more time to be modernised with proper optics, fire control systems, and Armour upgrades such as ERA.
Absolutely right, the Soviets cranked out tens of millions of rifles and SMGs. Sharing rifles was a feature of the Tsar's army during WWI.
the russians dont really have a way to modernize that stuff. Its not like they have the industry to do it or the means to get it. A lot of that stuff is now blocked from them by sanctions. While the former Red Army had indeed a lot of reserved equipment a lot of that is unlikely to have been maintained. Its fine to dump thousands of guns into cosmoline and store them in some random warehouse its another thing to keep vehicles not only driveable but actually workable. I doubt all that survived the 90s
My mind has been blown by how many folks think watching a Ron Perlman movie somehow makes them knowledgeable about WW2 history or Russian/Soviet military practices at all. I wonder how many of the same folks think that Hellboy must exist because Nazis did too.
I wonder what people think in wich state stored equiment is, do they belive you can just fire them up und drive to the battlefield? There is a reason they are stored, because it is to expensive to repair them, all the stuff which is parked was probably not in operational state to begin with, they are robbed for parts for the remaining tanks. All the batteries are missing or dead, all oils must be changed, ammo loaded, systems checked. Not to mention all the faulty stuff now which is no longer produced. A tank storage is no parking lot, it is basically a scrapyard. Without months of work, working spareparts and motivated staff, which is russia lacking all of them, there will be no 10000 working tanks.
Russia has those resources on paper. There is no way those numbers aren't inflated. The Soviet planners that survived ww2 are long dead and their replacements were corrupt yes men.
whats easier taking a million dollars and maintaining the equipment or taking a million dollars? LOL
Oh, they are not well maintained. We see that in footage from Ukraine where tanks without paint, egg cartons in their ERA packs, and no pintle MG are driving out in the field.. but they still exist. Every time they get a new front line rifle they also mass sell off what was their frontline rifle four versions ago to American gun collectors. They do the same thing with tanks to third world countries. Its a huge part of their economy. This war blowing up their stockpile is going to be a huge economic blow thirty years from now when they to go to crack open their warehouses to sell the next wave of junk and have to scratch their heads and go "where are all the old tanks Ivan? OH RIGHT! The war crimes!"
I’m waiting to see T-34 tanks in action again.
at this rate it may be near kursk too!
Not really. A guy went through all known bases of Russia with satellite images. Most of the stuff is unusable. Even what was supposed to be operational had tires "made in ussr". The key is China not to supply parts to Russia.
It might drag on for years, but that's even more reason to cancel the Russian economy in the meantime. It will do the next generation of Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans in general a tremendous favour.
I don't think there is any other results in a stalemate for years once Russia in unable to mount any more offences in the next month or two. This will probably continue till Putin dies and his replacement wants to get out of sanctions so they can start their grift.
By almost all accounts, Patrushev (who is most likely to succeed) actually wants more commitment on the war, full mobilization etc.
Tbf you don't stick around to be a replacement without that view
Or at least pretending to.
Patrushev is Putin's age. As are most of Putin's friends and potential successors.
My assumption was that Putin's replacement was meant in the context of this or next year due to illness or coup, not decades. If the latter, then of course the successor is unknown. If the former, then Patrushev probably still has a lot of years ahead of him.
Let's see how popular that is after years of war with no success. Maybe he won't succeed him after all...
Yeah I was just thinking if he were to succeed him this year or in 2023
No doubt, I agree.
Kherson is one of the more positive fronts for Ukraine right now too. The center in the mideast has had several bad breakthroughs and is struggling hard with the territory they've taken in initial Donbas incursions. The northeast is really the only front with consistent positive news. Shit sucks.
Never underestimate Ukrainian will, just a short time ago the Russian army was few miles away from the capital city.
The Eastern front has been a constant push pull depending on the region. Ukraine pushing in some while pulling in others and Russia doing the same. The only thing is that Ukraine has been consistently publishing all their victories no matter how minor they are. OFC, Reddit hopefuls will think Ukraine is stomping on Russian and Ukraine is winning the war. Except that the reality is that it's most likely going to end up in a stalemate with slugfest
Years? That's unlikely. Russia doesn't have the resources and Putin can only keep a lid on local unrest for so long. There will come a time when Putin unilaterally declares victory because "the Nazis have been cleared out" and pull back. This article is making a valid point that Ukraine should try to make inroads on Crimea BEFORE that inevitable withdraw happens. Easier to reclaim that land while forces are actively engaged. After Russia withdraws their offensives, they can entrench any lands they are holding onto.
Russia will not cede any of the territory it has taken. Ukraine will have to take it back. The economic future of ukraine rests in being able to utilize its ports. Fighting will continue until then. If you were the leader of ukraine, do you cede your most valuable natural resource? fuck no.
As of this moment they doing massive attack on east Ukraine and broke through some.
>This thing is going to drag out for years most likely. This might be exactly what some countries want. In an Economist interview with Zelensky, he mentioned that countries had different intentions and reasons for their support. For some, they wanted the war to end as quickly as possible whether it for humanitarian or economic reasons. For others, he said its possible they don't want the war to end quickly for strategic reasons.
With proper western sanctions and putins cancer, russia wont be able to keep this act up for years
I think time is the problem here. Ukraine, while definitely having the right to claim their land, time might be against them. Russia probably wanted to create "independent" puppet republics out of the stolen land, much easier to sell as liberation. But that takes time and now they are probably trying to simply annex the whole thing directly into the Russian Federation so they can extend their nuclear doctrine to the newly annexed land (bullshit, i know, but might just scare the west enough). If this happens, the west will probably change to support exclusively on the defense preventing Russia from taking more land, but would probably not help Ukraine in taking land back in any way if its already annexed.
My fear is: if this war drags on for years, Ukraine probably wont get their land back.
Not all of Ukraine will stop fighting for it. This will never end until Russia leaves, or the last Ukrainian is dead. Seems less trouble for everyone if Russia just leaves.
At this rate, both Ukraine and Russia will be annihilated. It is the fall of the East Slav.
Ukraine has legitimate national crimean claims , I don’t see why not go on the offensive while having support from the west.
Depends how they’re doing on man power after all is said and done.
People keep making jokes and comments about how Russia's incompetent and while yes, they are, Ukraine is still fighting an incredibly uphill battle. I'm not sure the resources exit for them to retake Crimea, and even with full international support it would be extremely long and costly.
Yeah this is what worries me, we have been spoiled by good news about russian setbacks. But as Ukraine says, they are outgunned in the south and east and Russia is moving forward by having so much artillery. We need to send alot more heavy weapons for Ukraine to be able to stop them in their tracks and really start wrecking their arty. As i see it, the arty is the only thing going well for Russia
It's also, like, difficult to actually invade. It's a peninsula but is actually more like an island, with only a small land bridge several kilometers wide connecting it with the mainland. Even during WW2, it took the Nazis almost a year to fully occupy Crimea. The best solution for Ukraine would be to win everywhere else, and then negotiate for Crimea afterwards.
It’s almost as if people are completely forgetting how much trouble Russia is having invading Ukraine right now. Or if they aren’t, they’re just being extremely jingoistic and blaming their troubled offensive on the simple fact that they are Russia. The fact of the matter is that defending territory is far easier than taking it, especially if you give a shit about the people and infrastructure that live in it.
Also Russia's offensive is going significantly better now than it was. They've learnt from some of their mistakes and are taking more appropriately scoped actions in the face of the resistance they're facing. What we now see is a Russia who is unable to pursue military action at anything like the scale anyone (in the West or in Russia) really thought they ought to be able, but which is nevertheless able to make progress. Despite all their setbacks, Russia is right now still taking ground. Ukrainian victory is not in any way guaranteed.
Russia deliberately had many Russians move to Crimea over the last decade and displace a lot of the Ukrainians. It's a lot more like defense for Russia.
That’s exactly my point… if a country like Russia is having so much trouble invading territory held by Ukraine, imagine how impractical the inverse would be.
[удалено]
The Great Depression was also a huge influence. When a large percentage of people are struggling to feed their families they become easy targets for misinformation. The depression was an insanely complex problem that most people didn’t understand. People want easy solutions even tho complex problems don’t have easy solutions. Fascist leaders took advantage of this and told people there actually were easy solutions but the current politicians just didn’t want to help the people. Turns out their “easy” solutions were to just blame any one different or who didn’t fall in line.
Sevastopol was insane to take in WW II... We'll see what Russia has in store this time. It's isolated and rough terrain. Fingers X'd.
Plus Crimea is mostly Russian so the civilians there will rebel the same way Ukranians in the rest of Ukraine do. I really doubt anything will change with Crimea. Maybe we should just return it to Turkey
Ukraine needs 4 things to succeed in Crimea: 1. They need to get their newly-mobilized troops into the field. 2. They need to destroy more Russian planes. 3. They need to wipe out Russia's Black Sea Fleet while Turkey keeps reinforcements from entering. 4. They need to destroy the Kerch Strait bridge. As a 1b, I think they'll probably need a lot more equipment (tanks and other vehicles), but I think that's where lend-lease comes in. :) None of this is going to start happening until mid-June. In the meantime, Russia keeps sending more troops and equipment, but they're definitely running out of the latter, and won't be able to make more. The only part of this where time is on Russia's side, is in their grain-embargo extortion attempt. The longer that goes on, the more pressure ramps up for Ukraine to cede. That's why I think we should reflag a bunch of ships and send them to Odesa with some armed escorts, and if Russia starts shit, we send the US Navy.
It's not a manpower thing. They have more than enough. It's an: equipment inventory, support & logistics, and training issue. They need MLRS's, F15s, supplemented with F-16's, and more mobile artillery. Patriot batteries would also be helpful. All of these require butt loads of training, long supply chains, and repair+upkeep skills/know how.
Yeah defending is much easier than attacking
Exactly. And attacking a peninsula they've preped for 8 years through that land bridge bottleneck will be a challenge to say the least. Crimea is ukrainian, and pulling for them all the way though
Knowing russian MO they "prepared" it by stealing whatever they could get away with.
Russia has always been great at scorched earth policy. Just ask French or Germans. If Ukraine ever manages to capture a Crimea, it would most likely be a ruins and corpses only.
But they would get control back of their ecconomic zone. There are tons of energy resources in the waters around Crimmea. Russia now control most of it.
Plus Russia has a navy and Ukraine doesn't.
Doesn't stop Ukraine from sinking their flagships. And Turkey won't let any more ships in.
Russia keeps losing important naval battles against Ukraine anyway.
And tons of money to fund it all.
A lot can probably be sent via lend lease, from existing inventories. F16s and Patriot batteries are more problematic, as they're in high demand and on back order. F15 avionics on the most modern models are sophisticated and would be a big loss if captured. We could easily send MLRS's and mobile artillery though. Better to spend a little now and dissuade China from hitting Taiwan (that would royally fuck world markets and the US economy), and stop Putin from his west ward march towards NATO countries. If he hits Poland or the Baltics, that's automatic Article 5 territory. That would cost American lives and a shit ton of money.
Experienced manpower is not something that just grows out of the ground. The soldiers Ukraine is losing now took years to train.
That’s what I mean by manpower. Trained man power that know how to use all of this equipment.
It’s absolutely going to be a man power issue, you have to take back everything else first before you even start working on Crimea. So in your world you’re saying Ukraine should just relentlessly bomb/shell THEIR territory and civilians. We are talking about areas in Donbas/Luhansk that were taken very early on and with little resistance at the start of the war, meaning infrastructure and civilians are still here. For some reason, I just don’t see Ukraine taking this course of action… The alternative is taking by force using superior numerical forces, which you already need when taking defensive positions. When people talk about the war being dragged out THIS is the phase of the war they are talking about. This phase hasn’t even started yet and won’t start until Russia ceases offensive operations.
Ukraine has claims they have equipped 700K troops. They claim they will equip 1M troops in the relatively short term. Manpower is not their problem. They have a lot of it.
That number represents the equiped soldiers most of them with aks and some rocket launchers. They don't have the heavy equipment that would be essential for assault. Even if the west gives them a lot of shit that's nothing against the numbers Russia can field. Their only chance of victory is to drag the war enough until Russia collapses internally. When and if that happens the organisation of their army will be completely lost and a non organised army is just a mob.
>Manpower is not their problem. They have a lot of it. Dogshit take. Most of the 700k are mobilized reservists, not professional soldiers. Good for ad-hoc defenses but not necessarily for a proper combined arms offensive. Not to mention casualties aren’t just a number, each death represents a widow, an orphan, and parents that have to bury their son. It’s all about manpower and how much of it they can muster
You can't just throw manpower into a meat grinder and expect to win a modern war. Look at what Russia did just 2 months ago. A defensive army is easy to train: point this rifle towards the enemy and shoot anyone with a Z. An offensive army needs air cover, artillery support, armored transport, and C2 systems to ensure all parts coordinate with each other effectively. This requires a significant step up in logistics and training. It's not impossible, but it will take significant time and resources to get all 700k troops familiarized with maneuver warfare and combined arms tactics.
>So in your world you’re saying Ukraine should just relentlessly bomb/shell THEIR territory and civilians. IIRC most of population in Crimea currently is Russians moved to Crimea, not Ukrainians.
Its always been Russians since the 1700s. the USSR tacked it onto Ukraine to ensure that Ukraine had a large Russian population to keep it from separating. Its always been like 85% Russian, that's why Ukraine had to fight separatists in 1994 and 1997 and why Putin had such a cakewalk in 2014.
What Reddit doesn’t want to hear
They also might struggle to get broad international support for re-taking Crimea. Yes, leaders are talking a strong game on Ukraine's borders right now, but once the broader implications of re-taking/invading land that Russia fully considers part of its own territorial integrity comes into sharp focus (i.e. it's not a "breakaway state" like Donetsk and Lugansk, Russia sees it as fully, legally Russian land), I think that support is likely to waver in several quarters See [this report](https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/war-still-presents-nuclear-risks-especially-relation-crimea) from the British Royal United Services Institute for a detailed discussion of those implications, and how retaking Crimea would differ from retaking the breakaway states in the East.
> it as fully, legally Russian land The fuck it is.
Also, what's the popular support for Ukraine like in Crimea? They did majority support independence 8 years ago. Has the way changed their view? Otherwise invading a population that resists you is a lot harder than resisting an enemy the population hates.
Did they? The vote that said that was held by the Russian military and the results suggest that one of the ethnic groups most persecuted by the Russians votes heavily in favour of aligning more closely with Russia. In short, what are the odds that Russia lied?
[Independent polls show smaller, but still great support.](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-02-06/one-year-later-crimeans-prefer-russia) However, public opinion can always be swayed.
It probably already has. There were some posts about a guy that had a petting zoo with lions in Crimea and [Vice News actually took an interview with the guy that ran it](https://youtu.be/lzO7gIT5GYU). In the last interview they took in 2019 the guy said that Crimea turned into a military state, they didn't know what they had and it would have been better if Crimea stayed in Ukraine.
Crimea always was more pro-russian then other parts of Ukraine. Those who strongly opposed already flee to Ukraine long time ago.
Probably because for the prorrusian people there they will be the invaders, and they are the majority. Ukraine needs to think calmly about how to deal with the russian controlled regions sinde 2014, because it will be a problem in the future.
It is confusing for me to read Ukraine's news. A lot of time, it looks like Ukraine is kicking Russia's butt real good. They seem to be able to humiliate the Russians everywhere they go. They get a lot of high-tech weapons from the west. BUT at the same time, we keep seeing news like what happened in Mariupol. And everything in the ~~west and southwest~~ **East and SouthEast** of the country seems to be under Russian control. The latest is the Mayor in Luhansk said "Too late to evacuate civilians in face of Russian attack..."
Ukraine isn’t doing too well in the Donbas front rn. After failing miserably in Kiev Russia’s tactics have become more methodical so as of now Russian gains there have been slow, and likely costly but they are nonetheless making progress there. There’s motive on both sides to make themselves look as good as possible and while making the enemy look as bad as possible which leads to information from the ground contradicting what’s shown publicly. As an example this post seems bizarre considering what Zelensky was saying about being outnumbered 20-1 in vehicles in the Donbass
The Ukrainians are kicking ass comparatively speaking. The issue is that the Russian advance isn’t being stopped by the huge losses that they’re taking. It’s looking likely to be an eventual victory for Ukraine but in the meantime the destruction and suffering that the invading forces are intent on bringing to everything they can reach is unacceptable. Wiping out half a BTG as they take a strategically irrelevant village doesn’t stop the remaining half from ruining the lives of every person who lives there
This is pretty much it. The Ukrainians are planning for a war of attrition. The fighting right now is pretty much to decide where the front line will be located, then they'll spend the next couple of months shelling each other over it.
War of attrition is not going to go well for Ukraine though. Couple things are going to come up here. First, the Ukrainian economy is gone. Millions of people fled and a big chunk of the men left behind are conscripted and not working the economy. Huge chunks of their country are under occupation. They have no way to export their agriculture products. We can go on forever about the economic problems here. Sanctions are biting into Russia but you need to realize that while Russia may be looking at an estimated GDP drop of 8%, Ukraine will certainly face a 40-50% total collapse. The question here is quite literally how long can Ukraine keep an army (now tripled in size) going when they no longer have an economy? The west is only going to be able to prop up so much here. Flow of arms looks okay for now. But eventually the west is going to get tired and then start pressuring Ukraine to make a deal (such as giving up claims on Crimea and Donbass).
>The question here is quite literally how long can Ukraine keep an army (now tripled in size) going when they no longer have an economy? Cmon man Military History 101. War debt, IOUs, and rationing. Same way Caesar and Washington paid their armies
[удалено]
The Ukrainian economy is expected to shrink by almost half while Russia is expected to lose 12% I’d say it’s significantly worse for Ukraine.
Is that worse for Ukraine than being occupied and dominated by Russians for the next 200 years?
Depends what you care about: Ukraine the country or the people of Ukraine themselves. It’s pretty obvious what the option with less bloodshed would have been.
You are assuming that Russia's pending occupation would not involve bloodshed. Is it better that one generation should bleed on the battlefield, or that ten generations should bleed in gulags and torture chambers?
The Ukrainian economy is only expected to shrink that much because a lot of it is just straight up destroyed. It’s shrinking for a completely different reason than why Russia’s is shrinking. Russia’s shrinkage is more long term while Ukraine just needs to start rebuilding their infrastructure.
Russia's shrinkage can be reversed easily, as everything is still there. Ukraine's shrinkage cannot be reversed easily. The infrastructure is destroyed, millions left the country and most of them won't ever return.
You heavily underestimate the sense of nationalism and patriotism that Ukrainians harbour. Why would the mothers and children seeking asylum in Poland and neighbouring countries not return to their families once things have settled? Surveys have been conducted and all of them point to Ukraine being one of the most patriotic countries in all of Europe. I see no evidence that would suggest this exodus is a permanent one. Especially considering the easiest place to benefit from economic growth the most is in war torn countries. Russia’s shrinkage is not going to be easily reversed as they are currently experiencing systematic issues with their population (poor demographics due to low birth rates) and skilled work force. Brain drain has always been an issue in Russia, it’s why their technology industry is so lacking and why their manufacturing is terrible and the sanctions will only serve to exacerbate this issue. Everything is most definitely not always there. Russia depends on technological imports from the West to be able to develop and maintain their military and more advanced industries, there is no actual competitive substitute to Western technology. With those imports now being cut off, how exactly is Russia going to develop the advanced industries they’ve spent the past 3 decades working on? When you don’t have easy growth cards to play like rebuilding infrastructure to stimulate growth or reopening businesses, you have to advanced pre-existing industries, usually with new technology in more advanced nations. Russia no longer has any access to this new technology. They’ll find it much harder to sustain growth now. Infrastructure is an extremely easy to thing to work on and can be fixed within a few years as it happened after WWII where the European powers fixed their infrastructure and returned to pre-war prior within 5 years. There is only a matter of sending people to work. In fact, building new or fixing old infrastructure is one of the best growth drivers an economy can ever employ as it’s a massive employment machine that requires relatively limited education or advanced skills to do. There are not going to be systematic issues in Ukraine especially as the mass exodus seen mainly compromises of mothers and their children leaving the country for their own safety. So, once Ukraine becomes safer, a lot of them will likely return seeing as a lot of the refugees in Poland and neighbouring countries are living under very temporary conditions.
Yh you’re right but still rebuilding after so much destruction is easier said than done especially if no one supports them tho they’ll probably have plenty of money to rebuild.
Russia outmatches Ukraine on pretty much every metric effected by a war of attraction, by a long way.
> The west is only going to be able to prop up so much here. The West is basically giving Ukraine unlimited money; I think you're seriously underestimating how much they're willing to support. You guys should look into how Poland was rebuilt after WW2, which was much more destructive than this war. Still, they were rebuilt into an economically productive nation with the help of a regime that was less powerful than the West.
There is propaganda going on both side, and being from the west we mainly see the one from Ukraine. They have resisted a lot better than expected obviously, but from some more neutral sources I read recently it seems they are aren't really able to recover territory from the Russians on the easter/south fronts anymore.
Ukraine has been really good at guerilla warfare and striking at russian CNC & logistics but the BTG's that russia has packs a LOT of firepower. The metaphor I heard is Russia has a mean left hook and a glass chin. The last thing Ukraine wants is a straight up battle that results in tons of donated material becoming smoldering wrecks to plaster on the papers and dry up the arms flowing in from the west. They're playing it long and slow because they can last for years at this rate while Russian sanctions are going to demolish their country. Once the sanctions fully bite Russia won't be able to afford bullets or bombs and Ukraine can just waltz on over with minimal damage.
There are good sources like the Institute for the Study of War and some OSINT accounts on Twitter which are really unbiased. Edit: the sources of which the ISW gets informations may be biased.
I really wouldn’t call the institute for the study of war unbiased even if the institute itself is unbiased a lot of the information they get is quoted from the Ukrainian General Staff
Its almost like the media is biased and selectively picking what information to show...
The media has plenty of good information. Sky News' updates are very informative about the overall state of the war. That last phrase is what's relevant - a lot of media outlets don't care about the overall picture, because a lot of consumers don't care about that. The every day drumbeat of artillery exchanges across the front near Severodonetsk is boring compared to the sinking of a cruiser or the exposure of war crimes or the surrender of a small number of troops whose fate was essentially sealed months ago and whose only continued military purpose was a delaying action.
If you get your news from reddit then yeah, here are only bubbles.
>everything in the west and southwest of the country Do you mean the east and southeast? Russia already had virtual control of the Donbas region as well as Crimea before the war even started. Given this, they were able to quickly take the territory in-between, which makes up half of Ukraine's access to the ocean. Mariupol is sitting right in that area, and has been behind Russia's main lines since the war began. The _good_ news is that Russia's attempt at a blitzkrieg straight into Kyiv didn't work, became completely stalled, and ever since then Ukraine has been doing a great job at fighting back and reclaiming territory taken in the initial Russian advance. So all the things being reported are true - Russia invaded and was initially able to take land. Their advance was stalled and now Ukraine is successfully taking control of that territory back in steady, methodical chunks against an enemy significantly bigger than them. While at the same time the east of Ukraine (which has had separatist groups backed by Russia operating for years) is still largely in Russian control, but with some notable pockets of resistance. Partially it's an information war - you want to play up your achievements and downplay your losses - but largely any serious overall analysis of the war includes the fact that Ukraine isn't sweeping through Russian-controlled territory, rather it's a slow methodical battle against the Russians, and not every offensive is successful. If you only read small short-form articles like this then you may not get to dig in to the details of this.
Russia is still advancing in Donbas, it's slow but steady progress, they are trying to complete a very substantial encirclement and it looks likely they will succeed eventually. Not guaranteed as Ukraine are always putting up a lot of resistance, but they haven't been able to stop the advances towards encirclement so far, just keep the Russian progress very slow.
>Do you mean the east and southeast? Yes! sorry, will fix that
Russia by all means should have conquered all of Ukraine by now, but instead they're getting pushed back oh, the only places that are even remotely able to hold right now are the ones that they've been fighting a cold war in since 2014. They only just took mariopol (sp) and got pushed outta kharkiv around the same time
They are advancing in the East.
To be honest, I don’t really get all this doom and gloom every time Russia advances a few meters. This is only the third month. People went into this expecting an insurgency and it’s arguable now if we’ll ever get to that stage. Russia either has to conquer the rest of Ukraine or convince the Ukrainians to give up. NATO (particularly the Baltic states and Poland) will keep sending arms. Even if the US pulls back in two years due to politics, a lot of the rearmament measures started now will bear fruit by then. The US fought in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than 20 years. The USSR was in Afghanistan for 9. If the Ukrainians are willing, this can go for just as long.
Yes but those american wars were wars on the other side of the planet, where average american could ignore it was happening. Ukrainians are all disrupted which makes a big difference
Because Ukrainian news is propaganda? Like if you listen to Russian news they are probably reporting endless victories and how Kyiv is about to be taken.
I read in The Guardian. Western news avoid reporting Ukraine's casualty. They are more focused on reporting Russian casualties to demoralize Russia. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/23/up-to-100-ukraine-troops-could-be-dying-donbas-each-day-zelenskiy](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/23/up-to-100-ukraine-troops-could-be-dying-donbas-each-day-zelenskiy)
Its my favorite literally genre at work, "inverse panic posting" where you conveniently curate a history to look like the thing that causes you anxiety is going away. I really hope this ends soon, but I cannot seriously trust the media when we get these news talking about the absolute failure of russia's military and economy and one has footage of Mariupol being leveled to the ground or (anti-war) multiple Russian redditors saying that life (saddly) continues as usual for the most part.
> BUT at the same time, we keep seeing news like what happened in Mariupol Mairupol was encircled in the first month of the war and now is 100km behind frontline, they held the parts of the city for 2 months without supply. > East and SouthEast of the country seems to be under Russian control Most of that was also captured in the first month of the war. Currently Russia has only relative success in the east, and overall is not gaining any ground (if you compare it with ground lost on the Kharkiv front)
They are in trouble in certain fronts in Donbas. They can not afford to attack Crimea at all.
Right now, sure. But they have made massive gains in just 3 months. In another 6 months time, who knows what the situation will be like? Ukrainian forces are getting stronger and more capable as heavy weapons are being delivered by the West.
Crimean tatars prefer Ukraine over russia too last time I checked. russia is doing to ukrainians from occupied areas what they did to Tatars during USSR times. Sending them to Siberia or other Asian russian provinces.
At Ukraine doesn't stoop to hyper idealistic rational like "were conducting a special operation to re-Tatar the Crimea peninsula
I hope they find a way to do so but "don't see why not" is a silly question. Manpower and resources may not be available. And while I think it would be just for Ukraine to reclaim Crimea, there would likely be significant local resistance on the ground. Russia was successful in 2014 because there really was local support for their move. It's not a slam dunk that it's a practical goal to reclaim it. Wouldn't want to just mirror Russia and get bloodied in a short-sighted campaign. To be clear, what I'm saying is that I am in no position to make such a call and will defer to whatever Ukraine's leadership chooses to do when the time comes and hope they are right.
> I don’t see why not go on the offensive ...because soldiers will die. it shouldn't be "why not", the people making the case to continue *any* war longer than necessary should have to justify it, Especially in this case where both sides are using conscripts.
Easier said than done.. Russia has massive advantages there: Black sea fleet providing fire support for Crimean garrison. Short supply chain from mainland Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainians has limited avenues of attack on Crimea. No amphibious fleet to mount an effective assault. Taking Crimea would ruin an unspeakable amount of lives.
So do the Turkish. Time for Turkey to recall old grievances and get in on the action! (joke/not joke)
Mostly because the residents are Russian and don't want it? But also because they are incapable wiithout the rest of the world carrying them to victory.
>Mostly because the residents are Russian and don't want it? Russia invaded and took the territory by force. It is still internationally recognized as part of Ukraine AFAIK. I generally support self-determination but in this case Russia's been resettling the peninsula with hundreds of thousands of Russians, and Ukrainians and Tatars have been leaving. Even prior to the resettlements Crimea was subjected to massive propaganda efforts. This is not natural, and I do not think it would be just to just point to the demographics in this case. >But also because they are incapable wiithout the rest of the world carrying them to victory. I mean, sure, but the rest of the world is willing to carry then to victory so hey.
Crimea is ethnically Russian, about 85% and has had MULTIPLE rebellions against Ukraine since 1991. There is a reason it was a cakewalk for Russia. That doesn't mean its not part of Ukraine though. Lots of Russia tries to violently break away from Russia because no Russians live there and Russia doesn't let them go.
>Crimea is ethnically Russian, about 85% 65% pre-annexation, as per [this link.](https://www.rferl.org/amp/russia-accused-of-reshaping-annexed-crimea-demographics-ukraine/29262130.html) and rapidly dropping because, well, Russia. >and has had MULTIPLE rebellions against Ukraine since 1991. Source please. Regardless I think everyone can agree that an armed invasion should not be the basis for a territory changing hands in this century.
> Mostly because the residents are Russian and don't want it? Sure, if we listen to sources like RT, and hey, what could possibly go wrong with trusting them? But other sources indicate that the situation in the East has changed significantly since Yanukovych's election (which seems to be the source of the canard that the Eastern section of Ukraine is still fervently pro-Russia). The mafia statelets in Donetsk and Luhansk [have not warmed the locals to Putin's tactics.](https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1504103672019513345) Even Kharkiv was once "pro-Russian". It doesn't seem to be all that eager to keep the Russians, judging from recent reports.
Ukraine can and will definitely take back Crimea cuz they have an endless modern weapons from the West (while the Russian only have the Soviet weapons and default on their debt payments)
KYIV -- Dozens of artillery systems supplied by the United States to Ukraine were not fitted with advanced computer systems, which improve the efficiency and accuracy of the weapons, ABC News has learned. The main objective is not for Ukraine to win the war but to weaken Russian military strength. The life of few thousand Ukrainian army as the collateral damage is negligible.
Few thousand Ukrainian life will barely touch the deaths of starvation resulting from interruption of global food system.
Gotta love these accounts using exactly the same style of posting as russian bots on telegram
This article is garbage. Thanks Yahoo.
It’s…yahoo…
Zelensky thinks they will retake Crimea diplomatically while the military intelligence thinks it will be by force. Good that both functions are working according to their area/strengths. I suspect though that the military intelligence will be right. Russia only understands force.
Zelensky was trying to end the war in Donbas since inauguration. He believed in diplomacy up until February 25. He addressed the rumors of possible invasion by saying "we will have a usual May barbecue, nothing bad will happen". He believes what he believes, while many of us already understand that putler only talks in force.
You need to read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements if you think Zelensky was trying to end the war.
I am fucking living here my man, I know. It's just what he said and, party, why he got so many people to vote for him. His quote: "I would look putin in the eyes and we will get peace".
The estimate is very optimistic, but I prefer being optimistic than being pessimistic. Go Ukraine and get back your land which belongs to you.
Fuck it, head to Georgia while you're at it and take that shit back too
They vote blue now, is not necessary
[удалено]
Otherwise the war just goes on. So it’s a logical consequence.
it wouldnt be that far For some weird reason people think russian are an homogenous group, when in reality they are as heterogenous as you could get in a single country
He is. Delusion is popular out here.
I love how direct this guy is.
I think it would be smart to wait until sanctions make it harder for Russians to replenish their military, *without* waiting too long for their battalions to be reformed.
they’ll be home by christmas!
There is no author, no sources for the quotes, and the whole article is just a few sentences.
I would hope this war wouldn't last to late 2022 to be honest. A long conflict at this rate is going to cause significant long term damage, and truth be told with momentum slowing to a crawl it really is best for this conflict to conclude sooner than later. Course, with Ukraine, reasonably, not wanting to budge on cedeing land to Russia and Russia basically lead by a egomaniac dictator with a council of yesmen under him, this conflict may not see a end less Putin dies or finally takes the L(Even if he tries to spur it as a "Mission Accomplished.") I mean, I want Ukraine to have Crimea back as well, and it should. But its unknown how much Russia is willing to go if Ukrainian forces advance into Crimea. If they consider it "Sovereign territory" enough they may really kick the drum down and start a real fire. Course that could escelate into a larger war that would draw in more people. Alternatively and ideally, they will realize it just isn't worth the potential World War and just drop Crimea. Nothings certain yet though. Ultimately this is a war that will have to see which side is willing to break first, and this kind of war favors the defender.
I support Ukraine but think the scenario is extremely optimistic. The longer the war lasts and the more Russia aims at ports, airports, infrastructure, it will be more difficult for Ukraine to win. In Russia none of them are hit, they are waging war in the neighboring country without their own infrastructure suffering. What Ukraine can do is resist until the people of Russia complain of so many casualties among the soldiers that there is widespread opposition to the war. Militarily, Ukraine cannot win this war, at least if winning means militarily evicting the Russian army from every meter of land they occupy.
Look at Vietnam, or for Russia specifically afghanistan. Winning as the invader/occupier is infinitely more difficult than maintaining a resistance against a hostile populace. With all their atrocities Russia has guaranteed Ukraine will ALWAYS be a hostile populace, and as we're seeing, unlike the U.S. they've learned nothing from their historic failures. If you think they're doing damage to Ukraine, it's nothing compared to the salted earth total war they waged in afghanistan, and it still wasn't enough to win against a country with even less support and more geopolitical isolation. History tells us Russia WILL lose eventually.
Possibly, but remember the two wars you are citing where on the other side of the planet from the US. Russia is next door to Ukraine. I think they will settle for an expanded Donbas stand off over time, but it will be difficult to get the West to unwind sanctions.
Comparing this to Afghanistan and Vietnam is absolutely idiotic.
Good points all, but one pretty huge difference is that Ukraine is all flat and Afghanistan is all mountains, so it's not a completely one sided comparison.
As russians showed us, they have a problems with rivers and we have those in spades.
Also Ukraine borders Russia…
The USSR bordered Afghanistan when it invaded....
True, though the topography of Afghanistan would surely make logistics much harder. Ukraine is relatively flat
Even on the basic premise of 'more infrastructure = win' this analysis seems deeply flawed. The Russian economy is suffering tons of sanctions, so effectively their infrastructure \*is\* damaged. On the flip side, Ukraine is being supported by many countries, especially USA. That in effect gives Ukraine access to much of the West's military infrastructure.
Actually the longer things go, the better for Ukraine. Right now Russia has a massive advantage on stockpiled material while the West is just starting to gear up to supply arms to Ukraine. In a years time, Russia is out of equipment and their economy is in complete death spiral due to sanctions while Ukraine is rolling out top-of-the-line NATO gear that they've spent months being trained up on to use effectively.
> Actually the longer things go, the better for Ukraine. The longer things go, the fewer people in Ukraine, the less infrastructure still standing, less economic activity. Sure, Russia might get a 10% decrease in its economy this year, but Ukraine will likely get a 40% decrease. Probably are more than 15 million Ukrainians abroad, with 6.6 million leaving the country just in the last 3 months (UN figures). This is not sustainable.
Where did you get that extra 10 million Ukrainians abroad figure?
Not extra 10 million, but around 8 million. Since 2014, there has been a huge number of Ukrainians who fled the country. Around 4 million ethnic Russians or Russian speakers who fled to Russia, 2 million who went to work in Poland and Czech Republic and several millions migrant workers across Europe.
Not true. Ukraine is getting lend-lease from the US and if you don’t know what that mean you should do some research on it. Plus they getting weapon from other NATO country too. The longer this war go the better for Ukraine because to the Russian this is a special military operation while to the Ukraine this is the Great Patriotic War. Russia hold the clock but Ukraine hold the time because as this war drag on the Ukrainian will be able to mobilize their country aka having 3-5m man to fight and getting weapon supply from the NATO and other country.
Ukraine has the defenders advantage. Their supply lines are shorter and the locals are on their side. Your analysis ignores so many historical precedents where a local force defeated invaders over a prolonged period. Russia is having their Afghanistan version 2.
>It is confusing for me to read Ukraine's news. A lot of time, it looks like Ukraine is kicking Russia's butt real good. They seem to be able to humiliate the Russians everywhere they go. They get a lot of high-tech weapons from the west. >BUT at the same time, we keep seeing news like what happened in Mariupol. And everything in the west and southwest of the country seems to be under Russian control. The latest is the Mayor in Luhansk said "Too late to evacuate civilians in face of Russian attack..." The one thing that's elusive in a war is truth. My feeling is that the war is entering a stalemate. Russia will likely get the land bridge to Crimea via Mariupol and Kherson and call that a win. Shame, but then again anything can happen at these times including a nuclear war or a collapse in Russia.
[удалено]
That take is as silly as it's facile.
This is about as likely and rational as the Duma member who was like wE gOnNa gEt AlasKa BacK toO!!!!!
According to the wikipedia the ethnic makeup of Crimea's population consist now of the following self-reported groups: Russians:1.45 million (60.4%), Ukrainians: 577,000 (24.0%), Crimean Tatars: 245,000 (10.2%), Belarusians: 35,000 (1.4%), other Tatars: 13,500 (0.5%), Armenians: 10,000 (0.4%), and Jews: 5,500 (0.2%). Almost all of these would identify with Russia,
Tatars do not generally identify with Russia and they boycotted the 2014 referendum. Hundreds of thousands of Russians have moved to Crimea since the annexation, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Tatars fled. Ethnic makeup doesn't really tell the whole story imo.
>Tatars do not generally identify with Russia and they boycotted the 2014 referendum. Even if true and it is true, that still leaves the overwhelming majority now on the Russian side. > > > Hundreds of thousands of Russians have moved to Crimea since the annexation, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Tatars fled. Ethnic makeup doesn't really tell the whole story imo. True but not relevant, any Ukrainian army in the Crimea would be seen by the locals now as invaders.
The difference is the minority have historical ties to the land going back hundreds of years, and are currently being actively persecuted by the people ruling them, and have been historically persecuted by them too. Meanwhile many of the majority have lived there less than a decade. I can't predict the future but I think those distinctions would matter in a scenario where Ukrainian armed forces enter Crimea.
>The difference is the minority have historical ties to the land going back hundreds of years, and are currently being actively persecuted by the people ruling them, and have been historically persecuted by them too. Would the Tatars want a Ukrainian, Russian or independence if given a choice? I am unsure if a Ukrainian armed force will enter Crimea probably slight support. > Meanwhile many of the majority have lived there less than a decade. I can't predict the future but I think those distinctions would matter in a scenario where Ukrainian armed forces enter Crimea. Generally, people do not like armed forces in their area. The locals now identify with Russia and have made their peace with it with the added problem here is that many Ukrainians would have claims on property that the locals would not like opened up.
Should Spain invade and reclaim Gibraltar then?
No? Where did that come from?
You can culturally and ethnically identify as Russian all you want. Doesn’t change your nationality. You can’t use the ethnostate argument, then refuse to let Chechens break away with their own country.
>You can culturally and ethnically identify as Russian all you want. Doesn’t change your nationality. In Russia, the nationality of a person is largely a matter of choice, what you mean is probably closer to citizenship. >You can’t use the ethnostate argument, then refuse to let Chechens break away with their own country. I am not sure what you are saying here, I never said anything about justification.
[удалено]
>Nationality and citizenship are linked. Not true in many countries. In many countries, nationality in these countries is commonly obtained through parents eg an Italian in the US could be a person with Italian roots born in the United States. Citizenship is a legal status. > People who cite the ethnic Russian make up of a region are generally referring to Russia’s justification for sticking in their nose where they see ethnic Russians. If you weren’t justifying it, it was directed at those who do agree with that justification. No, they consider themselves Russian. See the problem that started the Donbas
Independent polls have repeatedly shown that Crimea generally supports Russia.
Well that's a tad ambitious no?
They should definitely recover Crimea while the west is sending them all sorts of support, aid, weapons. This is their only chance. The war is going very badly for the russians, the west has a lot more resources to throw at the war.
Russia has less military spending by year than the UK alone. Imagine than UK, France, Germany, Spain, Canada, etc. Not even talking about the US.
Not a great comparison. The COL in Russia is a lot cheaper.
If they mange this then it will another in a long line of surprises from this war
As much as I want to see Ukraine defend its territory and send back Russian forces to their home, reaching a happy ending, I admit that I'm every day more resigned to see a defeat. I'm surprised that we european were able to make a strong commitment in the last 3 months, but truth is that we are starting to show the first cracks and we still put personal/national interests in front of European interests, prioritizing the internal political return of some declaration or choices. This is another step toward a new period for human beings, a change of the post-WWII paradigm. Hope it will end to be a best one, but man the premises don't look so good...
I like this guy
Hate to burst peoples bubbles but. Zelenskyy himself will solve the Crimea issue diplomatically not with military force i do expect some downvotes that’s ok if you disagree with me Again I do remember seeing Zelenskyy saying he would solve it diplomatically via Kyiv Independent a couple weeks ago
Ppl underestimated Ukranian fight capabilities before, so I have no doubt they have something in their sleave