Ukraine can retake Crimea within months, if we let it

These people behind the war mongering decisions for Ukraine.

Are so obsessed with Ukraine's Crimea.

They will never accept the will of the Crimean people that voted in a referendum.

In which they also claimed that referendum had being forced by Russians "Green Men"

And called the referendum illegal.

While hypocrites that they are.

It was Crimea and the Crimean people didn't wanted to be ruled by Kiev's government.




Ukraine can retake Crimea within months, if we let it

The Russian people themselves are losing the will to defend Crimea. It used to be said that even Russian leaders we liked – those, like Alexei Navalny, who stood up to Putin’s oppressive rule – believed Crimea deserved to be annexed. For a long time, Navalny refused to publicly support the immediate return of Crimea to Ukraine. Yet the failure of Putin’s full-scale invasion has changed matters. In February, the Russian dissident published a 15-point plan outlining his vision for post-war Russia. It states that Ukraine’s borders should be those “recognised and defined in 1991” – which include Crimea.

It used to be said that even Russian leaders we liked – those, like Alexei Navalny

Of course they liked Alexei Navalny just as they liked Boris Yeltsin.
Alexei Navalny doesn't get support in Russia, considering his polices.


Boris Yeltsin economic polices had put millions of Russians in poverty.

The Hawkish polticans and Generals are stuck in the 90s.

a reply to: vNex92

I see you’ve discovered commentary news. I don’t think anyone knows who Ben Hodges is, which is typically a good indicator that they don’t hold sway over foreign policy or even public thought. In The Telegraph no less.

I think we should have a specific forum called “OMFG!!!! SOMEONE SAID SOMETHING!!!!!”

Because I see many threads that would fit that criteria.

I got questions,

If Russia was concerned about Ukraine taking Crimea wouldn't it make sense that Russia blew the dam to spoil the prize?

Secondly which is more important the disputed eastern regions or the Crimea?

Wouldnt Ukraine be more upset losing the eastern oblasts than Crimea, if this is being driven by the West they would likely prefer Crimea.

a reply to: putnam6

Secondly which is more important the disputed eastern regions or the Crimea?

Eastern, Crimea is the gambling chip.

If you cut off the land bridge and hold, Russia is leveraged and the bridge over the water could completely choke them.

I’d be surprised if Ukraine actually tries to retake Crimea, unless some crazy turn of events where Russia is truly neutered.

a reply to: putnam6

Isnt the land bridge pointless without Crimea?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yes it is in the Comments section.

wouldn't it make sense that Russia blew the dam to spoil the prize?

a reply to: putnam6

There were advantages and disadvantages to both sides, but no. The expanse of water above the dam was too wide for Ukraine to attempt any kind of amphibious crossings in that area. Now, after the exposed areas dry, they will only have a much narrower river to cross.

Ukraine built and CUT OFF the supply of Fresh Water with a dam they built back when Crimea joined Russia. They ensured life would be awful for the farmers and civilians in Crimea. Farm land turned barren and all crops were ruined, why would these people ever want to be under Ukrainian rule again?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: putnam6

Secondly which is more important the disputed eastern regions or the Crimea?

Eastern, Crimea is the gambling chip.

If you cut off the land bridge and hold, Russia is leveraged and the bridge over the water could completely choke them.

I’d be surprised if Ukraine actually tries to retake Crimea, unless some crazy turn of events where Russia is truly neutered.

Ive always felt retaking Crimea by military force alone would be costly as hell, no way does Russia give up that naval base without a fight. The eastern provinces however now that they have been bombed shelled and hit with cruise missiles have Russian resettlement issues as well as cost a fortune to rebuild.

originally posted by: LittleJake

wouldn't it make sense that Russia blew the dam to spoil the prize?

a reply to: putnam6

There were advantages and disadvantages to both sides, but no. The expanse of water above the dam was too wide for Ukraine to attempt any kind of amphibious crossings in that area. Now, after the exposed areas dry, they will only have a much narrower river to cross.

I don't know the only way I can see Ukraine blowing the dam is a delaying tactic, cause it will be weeks before it dries enough and even then who knows.

a reply to: putnam6

I just don’t think the international community would back a Crimea offensive. It just wouldn’t make sense on many levels.

But they can choke Russia out of it and use it at the table.

a reply to: putnam6

It makes more sense as Russia blowing up their own North Stream Pipelines.

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: putnam6

It makes more sense as Russia blowing up their own North Stream Pipelines.

LOL, I appreciate the use of comparison and contrast in your viewpoint.

But this is about Crimea, im not certain Ukraine needs, wants to, or can take Crimea. Did you read the comments in the source of your link to the Telegraph article?

When it's an opinion piece I always take it with a grain of salt, #2 It's not unusual for Western governments to float stories in the media to gather public sentiment on potential decisions or maneuvers. #3 Aren't most retired military especially LtGens still hawkish as hell, it doesn't mean everybody agrees

a reply to: putnam6

I think they are softening a target. With the Dam blown, regardless of it being Russians or Ukrainians doing it, it softens the western front long term. First that fresh water supply supplied all of the Russian area, including Crimea. That water was used in manufacturing as well as consumption. As a result, Land dries, Manufacturing shuts down, and people go thirsty. Those of a russian mindset will leave and go to russia.

If the Ukrainian counter offensive can cross the river, and head to Crimea, it will still be another year or two before they invade. They need to fortify on the bridge area that goes to crimea. They do that, and push east, the eventually they push russia back towards russia proper.

Once they have fortified positions closer to Crimea, they can further damage and destroy the bridge from Russia, hit the fleet, and use drones and missiles on the Russians in Crimea. This will result in further russians leaving.

Now, if Ukraine can push Russia out of all seized territories, except Crimea, they can focus on Crimea, eliminate the Russian fleet, and fortify.

This doesn't account though for Russian mobilization and counter attacks, so we will see....

Camain

a reply to: vNex92

Well if you could simply explain how free and fair referendums function in active warzones where Russia doesn't even control or hold sway over the entirety of the areas in question that might be nice?

Because logistically that's an impossibility, hence any results the sham referendums returned, are simply invalid and in no way binding nor ratified.

About the "spring offensive":

The MSM shows us pics and videos all day and tells us that some towns have been recaptured. One does not know the localities after all . What does Wikipedia say, as an example we take Lobkowe:
'Lobkowe is a village in Ukraine and has about 99 inhabitants.'

Let´s do some simple math:
About 20 percent of the Ukraine are supposed to be Russian occupied, that would be 120.000 km² at 600.000 km².
90 km² are supposed to have been recaptured (in one day?), i.e. 0.08 percent of the 120,000(!). All roughly rounded (for simplification reasons), one would need at least three years with this speed, in order to conquer everything back. Similar calculations could also be made with the tanks, soldiers, weapons and ammo (losses) etc.

They now sell us every inch that is recaptured as a huge success simply because the Ukraine needs something positive, demonstrable before the next NATO meeting in Vilnius on Juli the 12th. Because they still believe they could become NATO member ignoring all the rules and laws. It´s simply impossible for them to become a NATO member as long as that wag the dog war show lasts. I don´t know why Selenskyi still believes there would be a chance to become a NATO- (and also EU-) member soon, maybe it´s his puppet masters in the UK and the USA who still make him senseless hope, for whatever reason. Maybe simply because that charade mustn´t stop soon, for Great Reset/NWO reasons. Until the last Ukrainian (who didn´t flee) is sacrificed for that BS show over there.