How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Beleg85]

19 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

But from a purely military perspective, I'd sooner hold as much of the Azov coasline as possible, for the next decade at least....

Yep. Theoretical and even barely stable Ukrainian "touch-down!" at any point of Azov Sea makes immediatelly whole idea of Russian corridor from Rostov to Crimea meaningless anyway.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Beleg85

[Huba]

3 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Yep. Theoretical and even barely stable Ukrainian "touch-down!" at any point of Azov Sea makes immediatelly whole idea of Russian corridor from Rostov to Crimea meaningless anyway.

It also means, that with AShMs, Ukraine can effectively block the whole Volga trade - and there's a lot going through there, it would hurt Russia A LOT. Or at least could lead to unblocking of Odessa in exchange for not sinking precious RU export cargo.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Huba

[Battlefront.com]

Thank you Haiduk for correctly framing the discussion about territory and it's importance to the Ukrainian psyche.  It is not unlike some of the other instances mentioned a page or two ago, such as Alsace or Germany's eastern territories.  There's a principle at stake that isn't inherently rational, therefore trying to rationalize compromising it is doomed to failure.

I think the only practical way Ukraine can militarily take back the lost Crimean and Donbas territories is if the Russian government collapses into chaos.  Neither area can survive independent of a larger nation, so if their current patron (Russia) is unable to defend them due to having "bigger fish to fry" that opens up an opportunity for Ukraine to retake them.

The Donbas is the most likely place for Ukraine to retake.  From what I gather Russians do *not* see the Donbas as a part of Russia, so if things got really bad Russians wouldn't likely want to sacrifice more to keep it within Russia's sphere.  Crimea, on the other hand, is something I think even a chaotic Russia would be willing to defend if it was even marginally possible.

Aside from the military benefit of waiting for a time when Russia can't afford to defend these two areas, there is the advantages with reintegrating the local population.  Currently they are able to dream of things being better under Russian domination (wrong, but that's what they think), but if Russia falls into 1990s style chaos then maybe they wouldn't be all that upset to be back under Ukrainian control.  Then they'd be like the Baltic Russians who grumble a lot but in the end don't take up arms to advance Russia's interests.

Until then, don't cede sovereignty for either Donbas or Crimea.  Concentrate on the Feb 23 borders and wait for an opportunity to go beyond them.  Attempting to push into Donbas or Crimea without optimal conditions could result in disaster.  Ukraine has a lot of big issues to deal with even with the Feb 23 territory re-secured.  Patience is difficult, but over extension is likely far more difficult than that.

Steve

[Zeleban]

The renunciation of territories in exchange for ending the war in terms of the severity of the consequences is approximately equal to the defeat from Russia. As a result of such concessions, a civil war with the subsequent cessation of the existence of Ukraine as a state is quite possible. Therefore, there is no difference between the direct surrender of Ukraine and the abandonment of part of its territories in exchange for "peace."

[Beleg85]

14 minutes ago, Huba said:

It also means, that with AShMs, Ukraine can effectively block the whole Volga trade - and there's a lot going through there, it would hurt Russia A LOT. Or at least could lead to unblocking of Odessa in exchange for not sinking precious RU export cargo.

That would be great, but I don't think Ukraine still has enough ballistic missiles left. Or ever had, considering short range of Tochkas.

 

Also, mind you gentlemen that there seems a growing tendency in Russia for last 6 weeks to frame this conflict as civilizational rather than purely just geostrategic. This is ultimate Russian resource.

I don't think that Putin will mobilize soon, but chances are probably growing along Russian military defeats. In that case Ukrainias will will hold, but Western one not necessarly. Especially when married with food crisis. Pressure on Zelensky to stop it somehow will be enormous.

Let's hope somebody at Kremlin will come to his senses. Perhaps some humiliated poop-bearing FSO agent...

Edited June 13, 2022 by Beleg85

[Huba]

1 minute ago, Beleg85 said:

That would be great, but I don't think Ukraine still has enough ballistic missiles left. Or ever had, considering short range of Tochkas.

I meant the Danish Harpoons

Edit:

Orcrist was Thorin Oakenshield's sword in "The Hobbit"

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Huba

[Zeleban]

In the minds of Westerners, the Russian propaganda narrative that pro-Russian sentiments are very strong in the Donbas and Crimea is firmly rooted. There is nothing surprising in this, because Russia has spent significant funds to form such an opinion. In fact, the people there are distinguished by national infantilism, they absolutely do not care whose flag will fly over their city hall - Russian, Ukrainian, Portuguese or Jolly Roger. Therefore, one should not expect any resistance from them if Ukrainian troops enter their settlement.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I can make no sense out of the Russian plan here. 

And yet, I think you did a good job of making sense of it

Russia has been waging this entire war from a short-term-thinking standpoint.  The latest evidence of this is mobilizing the 3rd battalions without it being part of a longer range mobilization plan.  So, we should view Russia's efforts to take Severodonetsk in this way.

I think it's pretty clear that Severodonetsk has no practical military value to Russia, despite some of the guys out there claiming it does.  And even if it was something of military significance, it would be even easier for Russia to take it by reinforcing Popasna and grinding its way north.  Probably less casualties and, in the end, more territory as well as probably a big bunch of Ukrainian POWs.  Yet Russia has instead taken forces from Popasna and stuck them into the frontal assault for Severodonetsk.

Assuming for a sec that Russian leadership (Putin in particular) is inherently rational, then why bleed yourself white taking something that theoretically could be had much easier with some patience?  The logical element here is time.

To me this indicates that Putin/leadership needs to chalk up some sort of high profile win and no other option available to it will achieve that goal soon enough to satisfy whatever purpose it is intended to serve.  This might not make sense to us sitting here, but it does appear to make sense to the Kremlin as it is consistent with Russia's short-term execution of this war thus far.

Steve

[FancyCat]

The longer you wait to retake territory, the harder it is to justify it. Ukraine, assuming it can retake her pre-invasion borders, would be foolish to not move further and attempt to take back Crimea and Donbas. Ukraine has moral legitimacy, Ukraine has the backing of the West, this opportunity to settle and regain her borders without Russia seriously penalizing in response will not come again (what more could Russia do now that it has not already done?)

As Haiduk put it, the west will eventually decide to equalize the relationship with Russia. Best to retake it now while the West is forced to side with Ukraine. And again, Crimea will remain a dire threat to preventing Ukrainian ports from operating, (not to mention flood Southern Ukraine in a invasion) more so than if Crimea is retaken. While yes, Ukraine can threaten Russia, I think it's best to assume Ukraine will always be disadvantaged vs Russia if nothing else due to risk of nuclear escalation on Russia's part so better to do this now than later.

 

[Beleg85]

6 minutes ago, Huba said:

I meant the Danish Harpoons

Edit:

Orcrist was Thorin Oakenshield's sword in "The Hobbit"

Yep, oldie but goldie.

Haha I just saw this Orcist...good riddance, Lithuania.

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Zeleban said:

In the minds of Westerners, the Russian propaganda narrative that pro-Russian sentiments are very strong in the Donbas and Crimea is firmly rooted. There is nothing surprising in this, because Russia has spent significant funds to form such an opinion. In fact, the people there are distinguished by national infantilism, they absolutely do not care whose flag will fly over their city hall - Russian, Ukrainian, Portuguese or Jolly Roger. Therefore, one should not expect any resistance from them if Ukrainian troops enter their settlement.

Oh, I for one don't think there would be any sort of partisan activity against Ukraine if it retook the territories.  Quite the contrary, in fact.  The point we've been discussing (I think!) is about the degree of acceptance of Ukrainian government control at a more emotional level.

A friend of mine in Ukraine put it to me like this.  Over the past 8 years the people of Donbas and Crimea that really believe in the Ukrainian state have moved to government controlled Ukrainian territory and have rebuilt their lives there.  There are no doubt some people that remain that are pro-Ukrainian, but it is not likely a large percentage.

Crimea is more complicated because Russia moved in so many of its nationals, therefore a big chunk of the Crimean population is born and raised Russian citizens.  Crimea also has been directly administered by Russia for 8 years and has not been the subject of a grinding war like the Donbas has.  This raises different challenges as resentment of Ukrainian control is likely to be higher.  Still not armed resistance level, but still emotionally hostile or, at best, distant from a desire to be Ukrainian.

In the past this sort of Russian loyalty has caused Ukraine all kinds of problems.  Many of these problems would be greatly reduced if Russia were in serious and obvious internal crisis, such as a civil war or 1990s style banditry.

Steve

[Centurian52]

On 6/9/2022 at 9:16 AM, Battlefront.com said:

Oh, for sure I've seen plenty of pro-Russian statements about why NATO is a threat.  Easily found.  What I said I was looking for was a "properly constructed argument".  I've never seen one and I certainly have been looking for one.  What you just posted is in the standard argument that makes absolutely no sense, therefore by definition it isn't a "properly constructed argument".  Making sense is a kinda important component

And we get to the primary flaw in the pro-Russian logic.  NATO is a defensive pact and as such it is structured to be defensive.  It's painful to have to make a statement like that, but this is exactly what the Russians absolutely refuse to take into consideration.  No threat to NATO, no threat from NATO.  Period.

Add to this that individual NATO members are notoriously fickle about cooperating even when their interests are directly threatened (we see this going on right now, in fact).  Unlike Russia, where one guy gets to make the call, in NATO it's a complicated mass of competing interests, points of view, and domestic realities.  There is no rational argument that can be put forward that would explain NATO proactively deciding to go to war against Russia "just because".  None.

The nuke threat is on top of all this and Europe, in particular, was ultra-paranoid about this.  Nobody, not even the US, believes that anti-missile technology is enough to neutralize this threat.  One of the reasons why is Russia has the ability to toss nukes by artillery and bombers.  No chance of defeating all those threats at one time, which means if things progressed into full nuclear war there'd be a lot of Europe made radioactive.  The Europeans knew this very well then and still do now.

Er, except the Warsaw Pact was an extension of the Soviet Union's authoritarian power structure which, inherently, had an expansionist foreign policy.  So yeah, practically speaking the Warsaw Pact was like so many other things Soviet... it had the appearance of one thing, but in reality was another.

So I will say again, pro-Russians have never made a REAL argument that explains why NATO is a threat to a peaceful Russia.  On the other hand, there is a rather obvious argument to make that NATO is a threat to a war mongering Russia.  Since Russia is, obviously, a war mongering state the threat to it posed by NATO is in fact real.  But that's not what pro-Russians argue

Steve

We really need the ability to like your comments Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, FancyCat said:

The longer you wait to retake territory, the harder it is to justify it.

I disagree.  Ukraine has an active claim to return these territories to their control, but Russia has only given it a military option and Ukraine isn't strong enough to exercise it.  It is not through neglect by Ukraine that the status quo remains the way it is.  Therefore, I think they have an indefinite claim to take the territories back under their authority.

What is true is the longer they are not a part of Ukraine the harder it will be to reintegrate the population.

Steve

[FancyCat]

Also the idea that Donbas or Crimea is inherently pro-Russian is ignorant of the displaced internal movements of Ukrainians in response to Russia's seizure of the areas. Of course only the pro-Russian population remains inside Russian controlled areas, the pro-ukrainian population fled in response to repression and violence! The same applies to Crimea.

Asking for consideration of the people living in the occupied regions is just ignoring the many people who left the occupied regions.

edit: look at this response  , as i am being overly broad and incorrect regarding the situation in Donbas and Crimea.

Edited June 13, 2022 by FancyCat
im wrong!

[Zeleban]

2 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Чем дольше вы ждете, чтобы вернуть территорию, тем труднее это оправдать. Украина, если предположить, что она сможет вернуть свои границы до вторжения, было бы глупо не двигаться дальше и не пытаться вернуть себе Крым и Донбасс. У Украины есть моральная легитимность, у Украины есть поддержка Запада, эта возможность урегулировать и восстановить свои границы без серьезного наказания России в ответ больше не представится (что еще Россия может сделать сейчас, чего она еще не сделала?)

Как выразился Гайдук, Запад в конце концов решит выровнять отношения с Россией. Лучше вернуть его сейчас, пока Запад вынужден встать на сторону Украины. И опять же, Крым останется серьезной угрозой для предотвращения работы украинских портов (не говоря уже о затоплении юга Украины во время вторжения) в большей степени, чем если бы Крым был возвращен. Хотя да, Украина может угрожать России, я думаю, лучше предположить, что Украина всегда будет в невыгодном положении по сравнению с Россией, по крайней мере, из-за риска ядерной эскалации со стороны России, поэтому лучше сделать это сейчас, чем потом.

 

I think the state of affairs in this war is much more radical. Now the question is who will remain on the map of Europe - Ukraine or Russia. Recently, the opinion has taken root in Ukrainian society that the coexistence of Ukraine and Russia in its present form is impossible. Or Ukraine will remain, then Russia will break up into separate countries. Or Russia will remain, then our country will be absorbed by it, if not this year, then in a few years. In this case, in the subsequent great war in Europe, Russia will increase by 40 million people. Of course, one can discuss the combat readiness of forcibly mobilized Ukrainians for a long time, but nevertheless, conscripts from the DPR and LPR are used in the war with some success.

[akd]

I don’t think I’ve previously seen BTR-3DAs with “Barrier” ATGMs mounted at the front before:

 

[panzermartin]

In the end, I think it's not Ukraine who will decide when this war ends but the main western powers and NATO that Ukraine is depending on its life supply. If NATO decides its time to sit on the table, no more weapons or ammunition will be shipped I guess. The question is, what end goal will be good enough for NATO. 

 

[G.I. Joe]

8 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

We really need the ability to like your comments Steve

Agreed, but only if we get more reactions to give...

[Zeleban]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

О, я, например, не думаю, что будет какая-то партизанская деятельность против Украины, если она вернет себе территории. Наоборот, на самом деле. Вопрос, который мы обсуждали (я думаю!) касается степени принятия украинского государственного контроля на более эмоциональном уровне.

Так сказал мне мой друг в Украине. За последние 8 лет люди Донбасса и Крыма, которые действительно верят в украинское государство, переселились на подконтрольную правительству территорию Украины и обустроили там свою жизнь. Несомненно, некоторые люди, которые настроены проукраински, остались, но вряд ли это большой процент.

С Крымом сложнее, потому что Россия въехала в него очень много своих граждан, поэтому большая часть крымчан рождена и воспитана гражданами России. Крым также находится под непосредственным управлением России в течение 8 лет и не был предметом жестокой войны, как на Донбассе. Это порождает различные проблемы, поскольку недовольство украинским контролем, вероятно, будет выше. Еще не уровень вооруженного сопротивления, но все же эмоционально враждебный или, в лучшем случае, далекий от желания быть украинцем.

В прошлом такого рода лояльность России доставляла Украине всевозможные проблемы. Многие из этих проблем были бы значительно уменьшены, если бы Россия находилась в серьезном и очевидном внутреннем кризисе, таком как гражданская война или бандитизм в стиле 1990-х годов.

Стив

Regarding Crimea, the mood in the Crimean public is very indicative, when fakes about the shelling of Crimean cities spread. Many Russian citizens who moved to the peninsula after 2014 are seriously considering fleeing to Russia. I imagine the level of migration if Ukrainian troops come close to Crimea

[Zeleban]

8 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

В конце концов, я думаю, что не Украина будет решать, когда закончится эта война, а главные западные державы и НАТО, от которых зависит жизнеобеспечение Украины. Если НАТО решит, что пришло время сесть за стол переговоров, я полагаю, больше не будет поставляться ни оружия, ни боеприпасов. Вопрос в том, какая конечная цель будет достаточно хороша для НАТО. 

 

I think in this case, from the Ukrainian side, no one will sit down at the negotiating table. The Zelensky government has been folded, and the real power in this case will be in the hands of a few military leaders fighting among themselves. In a similar way, events developed in 1917-1918, when the UNR collapsed.

[Huba]

I just discovered this Twitter profile, it concerns itself mostly with statistical data about UA, really interesting stuff!

Edited June 13, 2022 by Huba

[Beleg85]

24 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Assuming for a sec that Russian leadership (Putin in particular) is inherently rational, then why bleed yourself white taking something that theoretically could be had much easier with some patience?  The logical element here is time.

To me this indicates that Putin/leadership needs to chalk up some sort of high profile win and no other option available to it will achieve that goal soon enough to satisfy whatever purpose it is intended to serve.  This might not make sense to us sitting here, but it does appear to make sense to the Kremlin as it is consistent with Russia's short-term execution of this war thus far.

Possibly some of reasons may be:

1. It seems it is not Russians, but mainly separs bleeding there. They can tank casualties without special danger to Putin; in fact, in the eyes of Kremlin, they can win their "bloody crucible of courage" and become true Russians by this feat. That would make sense for the future: conquer the city, prove you are worthy and perhaps we will incorporate you. Sick, but not improbable.

Also, we don't know the exact state of their lossess for now, they are surely heavy but perhaps inflated somewhat by Ukrainian side.

2.It may be more about the river as defensive barrier for future wound-licking phase of conflict than city itself. Of course Popasna and Izium salients do not fit this narrative, but at least at the North Russians may retreay when they will be ready.

 

[G.I. Joe]

17 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

I think the state of affairs in this war is much more radical. Now the question is who will remain on the map of Europe - Ukraine or Russia. Recently, the opinion has taken root in Ukrainian society that the coexistence of Ukraine and Russia in its present form is impossible. Or Ukraine will remain, then Russia will break up into separate countries. Or Russia will remain, then our country will be absorbed by it, if not this year, then in a few years. In this case, in the subsequent great war in Europe, Russia will increase by 40 million people. Of course, one can discuss the combat readiness of forcibly mobilized Ukrainians for a long time, but nevertheless, conscripts from the DPR and LPR are used in the war with some success.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to the fact that Russia has never stopped being an empire. Of course all sovereign states are "empires" on some level...I might have to stretch that to include -for example- Liechtenstein or Tuvalu, of course, but everyone has some kind of minority region or colonial historical baggage. And of course Canada, the USA, Australia etc. have the complicated relationship of existing as a result of colonization but having separated from the original imperial power. Russia, however, is something of an outlier in this regard. The Empire never ended, it just rebranded...twice.

(And as a Star Trek fan, I don't think they deserve to use "Federation" at all, certainly not under the current regime... )

Edited June 13, 2022 by G.I. Joe

[Huba]

Just now, G.I. Joe said:

Ultimately, I think it comes down to the fact that Russia has never stopped being an empire. Of course all sovereign states are "empires" on some level...I might have to stretch that to include -for example- Liechtenstein or Tuvalu, of course, but everyone has some kind of minority region or colonial historical baggage. And of course Canada, the USA, Australia etc. have the complicated relationship of existing as a result of colonization but having separated from the original imperial power. Russia, however, is something of an outlier in this regard. The Empire never ended, it just rebranded...twice.

(And as a Star Trek fan, I don't think they deserve to use "Federation" at all, certainly not under the current regime... )

Thing is, we didn't see fall of continuous land-power empire since Austro-Hungary was dissolved. Colonial empires of UK and FR were relatively easy to get rid of, all things compared. If West has enough will to carry this thing home (there's no doubt in Ukraine's will), we will be about to witness a truly world changing event - and it's quite scary...

[FancyCat]

Not only are people who are pro-ukrainian basically pushed out, It is long standing policy to russify a region, or to "get rid of" uncooperative elements in the regions Russia wants and import friendlier replacements. The Crimean Tatars are a prime example, they got eradicated from Crimea in the middle of the war! Their population has since been never able to reach the percentage of the Crimean population since then. So obviously there will be fearful civilians in Donbas, Crimea and the occupied regions who dread the return of Ukraine, everyone who remained who is pro-Ukrainian either managed to lay low or got "filtered" and we know from what happened in the previously occupied regions of Ukraine what happens to those getting filtered, (and that **** started after merely a few days and weeks of occupation!! Imagine the suffering in the longer held regions!) and certainly the mass graves in Kherson do not bring good hope.

Basically, don't talk about the security and well-being of civilians when Ukraine retakes the territory without acknowledging the ethnic cleansing going on under Russian control. Russia will and is relying on ignorance of it's actions in the occupied regions of Ukraine to assert that Ukraine will be undertaking hostile and unbecoming actions towards civilians and that instances of return of Ukrainian sovereignty will result in repression and therefore Russia has justification for holding on to "pro-Russian" territory in Ukraine and in the event of the war turning, the West should seek a ceasefire rather risk a hostile Ukraine extracting vengeance on these pro-Russian Ukrainians. (Things like the bombing of civilian areas in Donesk, allegedly by Ukraine we saw recently, those are not merely to accuse Ukraine of warcrimes, but to assert that the West risks putting innocent civilians under repression and death should Ukraine retake the occupied regions)