Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
Zelensky discloses secret missions that sustained Mariupol

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

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

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

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

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

I wouldn't go as far as saying they would lose international goodwill, that's a bit absurd considering the war crimes committed in Ukraine by Russia. The countries who support them now would likely continue to support them if they decide to attempt to retake Crimea.
 
NicolaSacco said:
I’d really like to see some accurate information regarding how long Russia can keep fighting with this intensity. To put it differently, what equipment do people think they will run out of first, and when? Could be anything from manpower to missiles, tanks to ammunition etc. I’m sure the Americans have a pretty good idea and will be advising Ukraine as to what weak links there are in the system, but they’re not being particularly specific. Anyone hazard a guess?
Click to expand...
I cannot speak to the second sentence about what specifically they’ll run out of first, but a common thought seems to be this push in the eastern-most part of the front will represent the culmination of their offensive force in the coming weeks. This would be followed by a complete exhaustion of strength by the end of summer.

This is just me aggregating sources I have not referenced here, so please take it with many grains of salt/don’t take my word for it/etc etc.
 
I tend to agree that Ukraine will struggle to get Crimea back. However, if they offer to concede it as part of a treaty and the West is still behind them, they should demand demilitarisation as the price of peace and the lifting of sanctions. That way they reduce the strategic prize to a holiday resort.
 
harms said:
I think people underestimate the importance of geography. How is Ukraine supposed to retake Crimea without aviation & fleet when its only connected to the continent by a narrow strip of land.

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

I’m not a supporter of the annexation by the way & I would’ve preferred for Crimea to remain a Ukrainian territory even without knowing the consequences of the whole 2014 conflict.
Click to expand...
What a middle paragraph. Crimea was part of Ukraine and therefore Ukrainian. That’s the only relevant metric.

Ukraine was entirely responsible (both as a Soviet Republic and then as an independent nation) for the development of its infrastructure to make it a liveable and arable land. Russia could never previously get it a fresh water supply, prior it to becoming part of the Ukrainian SSR, nor once it did to invade and occupy it.

Where we go from here though with the occupation and annexation of Crimea, I don’t know. Hopefully the bridge gets blown, the fresh water supply gets cut off again, and then we can start from there.
 
Probably been mentioned. It it seems the $40 billion lend-lease bill is ready to be signed off by Biden after that one senator held it up for a week. The numbers are astonishing. Ukraine’s expenditure on its armed forces was approximately $5bn per year before this conflict, though I’m sure it will have risen in 2022. But to allow them to access EIGHT times their entire military budget is an absolute game changer, especially with all the other aid coming from Europe and elsewhere. If this war is a chess game then the message to Putin is a very very strong one. It pretty much rules out (for at least a couple of years I’d think) Russia being able to win through attritional losses of the Ukraine armed forces, which I’d assume was their worst case scenario in planning, and really forces the Russians to find a way to win this. And it just doesn’t seem possible that Russia CAN win this through consistent battlefield victories. If that was going to happen it surely would have happened already. Maybe I’m being over optimistic, I don’t know.
 
Raoul said:
I think we are more so in the latter phases of this conflict than the earlier ones, mainly because the Russian side is rapidly running out of troops, weapons, morale, and domestic support. And that's before we even get to the the economic damage sanctions are doing to the economy. At some not too distant point, something will have to give, and I don't think it will be the Ukrainian side that eventually collapses.
Click to expand...

I really hope you are right. I don't have much information on the state of the Russian military at this point, so I myself ... well I can't really say or predict anything. Obviously, the longer the war the more people will die, so we all wish that Ukrainians win soon.
 
NicolaSacco said:
Probably been mentioned. It it seems the $40 billion lend-lease bill is ready to be signed off by Biden after that one senator held it up for a week. The numbers are astonishing. Ukraine’s expenditure on its armed forces was approximately $5bn per year before this conflict, though I’m sure it will have risen in 2022. But to allow them to access EIGHT times their entire military budget is an absolute game changer, especially with all the other aid coming from Europe and elsewhere. If this war is a chess game then the message to Putin is a very very strong one. It pretty much rules out (for at least a couple of years I’d think) Russia being able to win through attritional losses of the Ukraine armed forces, which I’d assume was their worst case scenario in planning, and really forces the Russians to find a way to win this. And it just doesn’t seem possible that Russia CAN win this through consistent battlefield victories. If that was going to happen it surely would have happened already. Maybe I’m being over optimistic, I don’t know.
Click to expand...

This is why I am confident the Ukrainians will soon gain the upper hand. They will have the morale, financial resources, and very high tech military hardware at a time when the Russians are sorely lacking in all three categories. The Ukrainians already have a massive stash of new weapons which now include smart bomb howitzers to compliment all the javelins and other man pads they been using. This is before the current 40b from the US is even factored in.

Therefore at some point in the not too distant future, we are likely to see a tipping point moment where the Ukrainians gain the upper hand in this conflict. This is of course assuming Putin doesn’t use WMDs or thermobaric weapons, which imo would be game changers that trigger nato involvement.
 
Raoul said:
This is why I am confident the Ukrainians will soon gain the upper hand. They will have the morale, financial resources, and very high tech military hardware at a time when the Russians are sorely lacking in all three categories. The Ukrainians already have a massive stash of new weapons which now include smart bomb howitzers to compliment all the javelins and other man pads they been using. This is before the current 40b from the US is even factored in.

Therefore at some point in the not too distant future, we are likely to see a tipping point moment where the Ukrainians gain the upper hand in this conflict. This is of course assuming Putin doesn’t use WMDs or thermobaric weapons, which imo would be game changers that trigger nato involvement.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, I guess I just struggle to see what a decisive Ukrainian victory in Donbass looks like. And that’s probably the thing that’s holding me back from predicting a total victory. We shall see, it’s surely true that even if Putin himself refuses to ‘allow’ Russian troops to withdraw in eastern Ukraine like they did around Kiev, that this could still happen regardless. Hitler refused to allow any retreats on the eastern front and yet they happened anyway.
 
NicolaSacco said:
I’d really like to see some accurate information regarding how long Russia can keep fighting with this intensity. To put it differently, what equipment do people think they will run out of first, and when? Could be anything from manpower to missiles, tanks to ammunition etc. I’m sure the Americans have a pretty good idea and will be advising Ukraine as to what weak links there are in the system, but they’re not being particularly specific. Anyone hazard a guess?
Click to expand...
I read somewhere on CNN that some officials from the US stated that Russia still had a lot of combat capacity. Obviously, the morale of the troops would be the main deciding factor.
 
The United said:
I read somewhere on CNN that some officials from the US stated that Russia still had a lot of combat capacity. Obviously, the morale of the troops would be the main deciding factor.
Click to expand...

Morale is a massive factor, as is general Russian incompetence in being able to successfully prosecute the basics of warfare. When both factors are combined it makes for a very destabilizing situation that will eventually make them crumble from within.
 
The United said:
I read somewhere on CNN that some officials from the US stated that Russia still had a lot of combat capacity. Obviously, the morale of the troops would be the main deciding factor.
Click to expand...
They deployed roughly 75% of their BTGs for the invasion / war. I would gather 40 to 50% of them are degraded to a substantial degree. They don’t have that many fresh BTGs to throw into the fight.
 
Raoul said:
Click to expand...


I would imagine this has something to do with the fact that it's mainly men from the less and least affluent sections of Russian society who get either conscripted into the military or else join because there are not that many other options job-wise.

In other words, it's a lot easier to support war when it's not you or your sons that might well get killed or maimed.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I would imagine this has something to do with the fact that it's mainly men from the less and least affluent sections of Russian society who get either conscripted into the military or else join because there are not that many other options job-wise.

In other words, it's a lot easier to support war when it's not you or your sons that might well get killed or maimed.
Click to expand...
Sounds like my country.
 
calodo2003 said:
They deployed roughly 75% of their BTGs for the invasion / war. I would gather 40 to 50% of them are degraded to a substantial degree. They don’t have that many fresh BTGs to throw into the fight.
Click to expand...
Well, I am just repeating what I saw on CNN. They could just be cautious and conservative with their assessment.
 
I seem to recall that when the jerries invaded Russia in ‘41 that the Russians did quite poorly so Stalin replaced the head military guy with Zukhov and then tide changed for them. Hopefully nothing like this happens in the UKR.
Plus a major difference is that in ‘41 the Russians were defending their homeland. Not the case this time.
 
utdalltheway said:
I seem to recall that when the jerries invaded Russia in ‘41 that the Russians did quite poorly so Stalin replaced the head military guy with Zukhov and then tide changed for them. Hopefully nothing like this happens in the UKR.
Plus a major difference is that in ‘41 the Russians were defending their homeland. Not the case this time.
Click to expand...
I think the tide changed with the Lend-and-lease act. The soviets were pretty much done concerning decisive war materials / ressources.
 
NicolaSacco said:
Probably been mentioned. It it seems the $40 billion lend-lease bill is ready to be signed off by Biden after that one senator held it up for a week. The numbers are astonishing. Ukraine’s expenditure on its armed forces was approximately $5bn per year before this conflict, though I’m sure it will have risen in 2022. But to allow them to access EIGHT times their entire military budget is an absolute game changer, especially with all the other aid coming from Europe and elsewhere. If this war is a chess game then the message to Putin is a very very strong one. It pretty much rules out (for at least a couple of years I’d think) Russia being able to win through attritional losses of the Ukraine armed forces, which I’d assume was their worst case scenario in planning, and really forces the Russians to find a way to win this. And it just doesn’t seem possible that Russia CAN win this through consistent battlefield victories. If that was going to happen it surely would have happened already. Maybe I’m being over optimistic, I don’t know.
Click to expand...
Even more astonishing when the entire Russian military budget for 2021 was $65billion (although we now know large chunks of that were being siphoned off).
 
GlastonSpur said:
I would imagine this has something to do with the fact that it's mainly men from the less and least affluent sections of Russian society who get either conscripted into the military or else join because there are not that many other options job-wise.

In other words, it's a lot easier to support war when it's not you or your sons that might well get killed or maimed.
Click to expand...

Yea I agree this is probably part of the reason. The other reason is since the war, the sanctions have probably hit the poorer people the most. Even if the rich have been hit, they are still living comfortable lives.

Imagine being in a position where your country goes to war and suddenly you can't afford food, rent, and you lose your job. This would explain why a lot of the poorer population would be opposed to the war in my opinion
 
TMDaines said:
What a middle paragraph. Crimea was part of Ukraine and therefore Ukrainian. That’s the only relevant metric.

Ukraine was entirely responsible (both as a Soviet Republic and then as an independent nation) for the development of its infrastructure to make it a liveable and arable land. Russia could never previously get it a fresh water supply, prior it to becoming part of the Ukrainian SSR, nor once it did to invade and occupy it.

Where we go from here though with the occupation and annexation of Crimea, I don’t know. Hopefully the bridge gets blown, the fresh water supply gets cut off again, and then we can start from there.
Click to expand...
There’s this line between my opinion and me trying to explain the intricacies of the situation… Crimea was Ukrainian and the annexation & the referendum were unlawful etc. So yeah, all the cultural things that I’m talking about do not in any way excuse what Putin did in 2014, nor do they legitimize the “referendum”.

But I’m not sure if it’s as simple as resetting the situation to pre-2014, considering how the majority of Crimeans felt about their identity before all that (and before Putin started the whole “Crimea is ours” propaganda trope) and how they feel about it now.

Basically I just want to highlight that I’m not arguing for Crimea to be Russian — I couldn’t give a damn and the annexation was obviously done in violation of every international law in existence — but highlighting that this dismissing sentiment that Ukraine is going to roll on and retake it without any issues is extremely far from reality. Even taking Donbas is going to be so, so difficult due to the amount of Russian propaganda that those people has been showered in for the past 8 years and Crimea is on a completely different scale compared to them.
 
Last edited:
utdalltheway said:
I seem to recall that when the jerries invaded Russia in ‘41 that the Russians did quite poorly so Stalin replaced the head military guy with Zukhov and then tide changed for them. Hopefully nothing like this happens in the UKR.
Plus a major difference is that in ‘41 the Russians were defending their homeland. Not the case this time.
Click to expand...

a lot of the initial massive losses were because of stalin's own decisions - his refusal to see the incoming invasion meant the air force was destroyed on the ground, his refusal to allow retreats meant massive encirclement and surrenders. yes, a lot of the generals thought the same way, ordering disastrous frontal assaults, etc. but that is more culpability for stalin - he had massacred most red army officers in his purges, so these officers were in their posts because of his actions. not sure there's anything comparable here.
and of course the difference here is also, as you said, a defensive war where the losing outcome was annihilation, versus a "special military operation" against a hostile population.
finally, based on some of the videos and tweets here, the problem with the russian army seems to be at every level, from common soldiers deserting to incompetent officers to out-of-favour generals. not sure a single change at the top can fix all that (and tbf, it took a lot more than zhukov for the tide to change in ww2 too)


ColoRed said:
I think the tide changed with the Lend-and-lease act. The soviets were pretty much done concerning decisive war materials / resources.
Click to expand...

lend-lease helped massively with trucks and also with food, but the vast majority of tanks, planes, rockets, guns, were all made in the ussr.
a big reason the ussr lasted was because they managed to relocate their factories behind the mountains at insane speed, dismantling entire factories, putting them on trains, and rebuilding them quickly. otherwise they were easy fodder for german bombers and advancing armies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.