[WhiskeyOutpost]

Originally Posted by dandroid ↗

With this intended late spring offensive does anyone truly think Ukraine can retake Crimea?

Ukraine needs to cut off Crimea by mounting an offensive in Zaporizhia, cutting a swath of territory to the sea of Azov and maintaining control over it, not allowing any Russian resupply to Crimea via land. The big Kerch bridge (attacked by that massive semi truck bomb in October) is so damaged that only a small fraction of supplies on the road bridge can get through compared with before. The rail bridge apparently is totally out, which is the big win.

After successfully cutting a swath into Zaporizhia, all the way to the sea of Azov, Crimea will effectively become a logistical island. And to keep the Kerch bridge out of action. Only a matter of time until Russian military starts leaving, given if they can.

[WonderMomma]

Originally Posted by spinz ↗

Just wanted to take a second to thank everyone who continues to feed us media/info from Ukraine(especially Wonder,Kelly and Whiskey) You're doing a fantastic job and it's appreciated

Thank you very much. ✌

[scorpion9]

Nazy rally spotted in Russia :D

[dandroid]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyOutpost ↗

Ukraine needs to cut off Crimea by mounting an offensive in Zaporizhia, cutting a swath of territory to the sea of Azov and maintaining control over it, not allowing any Russian resupply to Crimea via land. The big Kerch bridge (attacked by that massive semi truck bomb in October) is so damaged that only a small fraction of supplies on the road bridge can get through compared with before. The rail bridge apparently is totally out, which is the big win.

After successfully cutting a swath into Zaporizhia, all the way to the sea of Azov, Crimea will effectively become a logistical island. And to keep the Kerch bridge out of action. Only a matter of time until Russian military starts leaving, given if they can.

You think they have enough forces to do it?

[scorpion9]

Originally Posted by dandroid ↗

You think they have enough forces to do it?

Probably not, but its hard to say.
The rear is guarded by conscripts...who might just run when Ukraine starts its offensive. Their morale is quite low.

But, in terms of numbers and defenses...Russia is firmly dug in, so, I wouldn't expect any large changes to the front lines any time soon.

I think some more realistic US generals have estimated that it would take around 2 years to get Crimea back under Ukrainian control....if it's possible at all. Will see. Lets hope that Russia has bigger problems with ammunition than it seems...and that China will refuse to re-arm them.

[dystopian]

As the ‘devils advocate’ here how does the post-2014 government in Kiev have any claim to territorial integrity to Crimea and the Donbas? As far as I’m aware the people of DPR and Crimea never swore any allegiance to the post-2014 government in Kiev so how was the use of force to compel such allegiance legitimate (and if that is the case wouldn’t this make this post-2014 ‘neo-Ukraine’ the invader and Russia the one defending the people first?) Or is it ‘our CIA overthrew your government fair and square and to the victor go the spoils?’ It really seems like sleight of hand to even say it’s the same nation after such a discontinuity of government, it’s the same name, headquartered in the same city, and they *claim* the same borders, but isn’t allegiance owed to a constitution (with a requirement that any changes be made subject thereof) not to whoever is installed in a particular city?

[WhiskeyOutpost]

Originally Posted by dandroid ↗

You think they have enough forces to do it?

I don't know... I know that the ZSU (Ukrainian Armed Forces) has a whole lot of soldiers tied up in Bakhmut, Avdiivka, Ughledar and west of Kreminna.

Perhaps Russia is so afraid of this fabled Zaporizhia offensive that they're trying to fix Ukrainian forces in other areas so there's no offensive in the south. Which is a juicy target that serves overall strategic goals - the repatriation of Crimea into Ukraine, which was seized by Russia in 2014.

I think once Ukraine receives new and repairs existing heavy vehicles (main battle tanks, self propelled artillery and personnel carriers) they will attack Zaporizhia somewhere and push south to the sea. The wheels are in motion to enable another offensive, when and where that will take place? When the resources, weather and situation permit it. Note that mud is particularly bad for a force who is attacking.

To further attack into Luhansk or Donyetsk at this point to me seems too costly in resources. That's a long, expanded front line that would require huge amounts of Ukrainians defending their captured territories and would be subject to constant Russian reinforcements coming from the border to the N and E.

An attack into Zaporizhia on paper would seem to be the most "bang for the buck" effect, taking territory, killing a lot of the enemy and slowly strangling Russians in Crimea. Which is what happened in Kherson oblast, Russians were bled with precision logistic attacks until they packed their bags and took off. Ukraine seems to realize they can't afford to be reckless like Russia and that this is a marathon not a sprint. The most prudent counteroffensive is one that is well planned and consumes the least resources while achieving overall strategic goals and Crimea is a big one.

[kellyhound]

Originally Posted by dystopian ↗

As the ‘devils advocate’ here how does the post-2014 government in Kiev have any claim to territorial integrity to Crimea and the Donbas? As far as I’m aware the people of DPR and Crimea never swore any allegiance to the post-2014 government in Kiev so how was the use of force to compel such allegiance legitimate (and if that is the case wouldn’t this make this post-2014 ‘neo-Ukraine’ the invader and Russia the one defending the people first?) Or is it ‘our CIA overthrew your government fair and square and to the victor go the spoils?’ It really seems like sleight of hand to even say it’s the same nation after such a discontinuity of government, it’s the same name, headquartered in the same city, and they *claim* the same borders, but isn’t allegiance owed to a constitution (with a requirement that any changes be made subject thereof) not to whoever is installed in a particular city?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexa...ian_Federation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_C...tus_referendum
that's how russia rolls.

[dystopian]

Originally Posted by kellyhound ↗

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexa...ian_Federation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_C...tus_referendum
that's how russia rolls.

Doesn’t it sort of beg the question though? Yes, Russia annexed Crimea, purportedly with their consent (which if actually true is fine, right?) Is anyone seriously claiming that these overwhelmingly pro-Russian areas don’t overwhelmingly prefer to join Russia?

I guess what I’m trying to figure out: since allegiances are sworn to constitutional governments, when a regime change through extra-constitutional means such as a violent uprising occurs isn’t this a discontinuity in government, meaning the old one ceased to exist and a new one was created where the old one stood? Why is this new stand-in ‘Ukraine’ government owed allegiance by any of the old-Ukraine’s former provinces? It doesn’t seem they ever were, which if true means they were never part of the current ‘Ukraine’, which eviscerates any claims to ‘territorial integrity’ right?

If China fomented riots in DC, destabilized our government through violence to the point where they could through extra-constitutional means put their own preferred pro-communist guys in at the top, would, say, Texas still owe this new ‘America’ any allegiance? If they started arming up through Mexico the moment DC fell and the new pro-communist ‘American’ regime started shelling them as they fought back against forcible annexation for years, would we really blame, say, Mexico for steeping in to defend them (at the same time as their own interests?)

[WhiskeyOutpost]

Originally Posted by dystopian ↗

Doesn’t it sort of beg the question though? Yes, Russia annexed Crimea, purportedly with their consent (which if actually true is fine, right?) Is anyone seriously claiming that these overwhelmingly pro-Russian areas don’t overwhelmingly prefer to join Russia?

I guess what I’m trying to figure out: since allegiances are sworn to constitutional governments, when a regime change through extra-constitutional means such as a violent uprising occurs isn’t this a discontinuity in government, meaning the old one ceased to exist and a new one was created where the old one stood? Why is this new stand-in ‘Ukraine’ government owed allegiance by any of the old-Ukraine’s former provinces? It doesn’t seem they ever were, which if true means they were never part of the current ‘Ukraine’, which eviscerates any claims to ‘territorial integrity’ right?

If China fomented riots in DC, destabilized our government through violence to the point where they could through extra-constitutional means put their own preferred pro-communist guys in at the top, would, say, Texas still owe this new ‘America’ any allegiance? If they started arming up through Mexico the moment DC fell and the new pro-communist ‘American’ regime started shelling them as they fought back against forcible annexation for years, would we really blame, say, Mexico for steeping in to defend them (at the same time as their own interests?)

You'd be a good lawyer. Also not convinced you're playing devil's advocate?

Putin installed pro-Russian factors early into this conflict before Yanukovych was President of Ukraine, stirred up a bunch of shit and then acted surprised when Ukraine responded. He placed a sock puppet into Ukraine, said "We're being bombed help us Russia", and then on the other hand another sock puppet in Russia, "We are Russia we will come to your aid, urrrrah!"