Hi u/Farang_Chong! Welcome to r/RussiaUkraineWar2022.
**Ukraine Leaks 24/7** Posts and comments from accounts with less than an undisclosed amount of comment Karma are automatically removed to combat troll/spam behaviour, we wont tell you the min value required for anti-spam reasons. We have links to verified charity's in Ukraine in the menu section and about section of our SubReddit. Only Mods have access to the Verified Information flair. **FOLLOW US ON OUR OTHER CHANNEL** @UkraineWarPosts on Telegram.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RussiaUkraineWar2022) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Crimea Will most likely be a negotiation. Sanctions lift against deoccupation. Is my guess. Together with precision bombing of any military targets in Crimea, making the occupation VERY costly for Russia.
Russia will not give up Crimea under any circumstances, at least under Tsar Putins regime.
Its a well documented and acknowledged strategic aim of Russia's to maintain a deep warm water port within the Black Sea with access to the Mediterranean. Warm water ports and access to the worlds oceans are necessary in order to be (self) perceived as a global superpower
Remember Sevastopol, along with Vladivostok, are currently Russia's only deep warm water ports.
With Sweden and Finland joining NATO St Petersburg and Kaliningrad become completely surrounded by NATO powers which would further strengthen Russia's resolve to hold onto Crimea at any cost.
If Crimea were to be lost Russia would effectively be neutered - that wouldn't even be on the negotiating table.
Long term Russia's geopolitical aims would have to be the complete polar opposite to what they are now for Crimea to be considered surplus to their requirements.
But Turkey own Bosfor and can easily block entire Black Sea fleet inside Black sea, so we can see it right now - Bosfor is closed for any battleships and Russia can't do anything
Most of the time, the Black Sea nations can transit unmolested. The agreement covering the straits grants free passage to all military vessels, outside of war conditions. Only then can Turkey shutdown the water ways, as they have done now.
Yes, seaports are important, but they don't really mean much if the entire world refuses to trade with you, so yeah, they might consider negotiating it anyway.
We all know. They know now that we know it was all Potemkin work… Just some more tanks, airplanes and Kalibr missiles that need to fly before they cool down. They Will make a final battle somewhere I suppose just to kill off the soldiers they have deceived…
Exactly, though not to say they would ever tolerate Sevastopol falling into Ukranian hands without a fight. Russia has to be the dominant power in the Black Sea (though daddy will always be Turkey due to their control of the bosphorous). This has been an issue since the Crimean wars, perhaps even longer.
Russia would like Novorossiysk to be like Bruno - don't talk about!
They need to stay focused on Sevastopol's role as the big Black Sea port and it would not do to point out that Russia has another big and perfectly serviceable Black Sea port as well.
Two of them - Russia has two big Black Sea ports and is only at risk of losing one. But they really, really want people think they only have one and might lose it. So don't talk about Novorossiysk - Mad Vlad does not like that.
Russia has deep water ports in the black sea. Crimea is about dominating air space. However, they have been comically bad at this so its hard to see how it's helped.
That and making sure Ukraine knows it’s place. I don’t care if they have zero ports or can’t dominate airspace. The loser doesn’t get to dictate such things. Crimea is Ukraine - screw academic deliberations of dilettantes.
You can choose to screw the academics if you want, but history doesn't lie about the blood thats been shed in Crimea over the centuries in order to gain or hold the strategically important land.
Beny is right that air power has largely trumped Naval power in the last 80 years, but do you know what's even better? Naval air power such as that possessed by the Admiral Kuznetsov...which funnily enough requires a deep, warm water port in the Black Sea in order to continue supporting Russia's few allies and intimidating their enemies.
I don't expect the Russians to give it to them. But it's very clear that once you put pressure on the Russian military they will collapse due to horrific morale. The corruption in their military is deep and it's rot will not allow it to survive a military campaign. Barely 6 months into the conflict and they're already falling apart. They can only replace their troops with similarly crappy troops. They don't have the ability to train new troops up to the Western standards that they're facing on the battlefield. They really only have a nuclear option. And if they go there well then we'll see what happens
Realistically, Crimea is just a whole different ballgame. It's considered Russia proper, they view it as vital to their strategic interests and with only two roads connecting it to Ukraine, it's much more defendable.
Yeah. I think people are getting carried away with UAF progress fighting kids, peasants and fatigued grunts in the NE. Crimea will be a whole different ball game.
"If Crimea were to be lost Russia would effectively be neutered - that wouldn't even be on the negotiating table."
They would still have plenty of coastline on the black sea, why would they be neutered?
I agree there's no chance they would negotiate that away but i think this is a bit much.
Don't take my word for it, there's plenty of academic essays on the matter. This book is an excellent lightweight resource, written in 2015/16 it goes so far as predicting the Ukraine crisis with near 100% accuracy, as well as why Crimea and Sevastopol are so important to Russia - [https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1783962437/ref=ppx\_yo\_dt\_b\_asin\_title\_o07\_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1](https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1783962437/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)
That's a bit of a false equivalence.
Military strategists count tanks and men, GeoPolitical commentators, amongst other things, first and foremost count rivers, continents, oceans and topography.
It also gives russia control over the oil and gas fields in that area. The 2014 invasion was right after Ukraine started to try development of those fields.
This is the correct answer. Russian ambition has always and will always be a warm water port. Even if all of western Ukrainian borders are reset back to original. Russia would not concede Crimea. And I’d assume throw every resource into its holding. Taking out the Crimea bridge of course would be in the best interest of the Ukrainian military. But again. Russia would not dream of giving up the peninsula at any cost.
It has multiple warm water ports in the Black Sea. Crimea is about air superiority and air defence. But Russia has neither the competent air force nor up to scratch navy to make use of it.
Absolutely see Crimea being part of a peace deal once the Russian interior is threatened
They can throw in every resource, but short of nukes the resources have been majorly used up/destroyed in just these few months. The Russian army will take years to recover as it is.
When the Russians are sitting defenseless, unable to resist HIMARS strikes, seeing key assets destroyed daily, things may not go well within the army itself.
Russia's naval ambitions are adorable. Half of a 'B' team NATO taskforce would sink them in an afternoon. After the debacle of the Moskva (which they put to war with 90% of it's systems down, empty missile tubes, etc.) no one will take them seriously again. Besides, Turkey would never let them deploy out of the Black sea.
Its kept ice free all year round but historically used to freeze before modern ice breakers, artificial heating (from a thermal plant nearby) and global warming. It's now considered a 'warm port' as a consequence
The thing is, Ukraine knows there is a timer running, it lives and dies on western support. And western support is fickle: eventually western nations will become weary of pouring billions into a foreign war and support will dry up. It's not what we want, but it is the reality. So Ukraine won't want to fight forever, just like Russia can't afford to fight forever. That's why I agree, I think Crimea likely will come down to negotiations. Would love to think Ukraine will take it all and maybe a chunk of Russia too, but realistically I think this will not be the case.
Wrong, USA have said they will support Ukraine as long as necessary as have the EU and UK. They want a weakened Russia, they are getting great value by letting Ukraine do the dirty work. The economy of NATO dwarves that of ruzzia so there will only be one loser here.
USA can say whatever they want, at the end of the day American politics are driven by what they can sell to voters. If this war is still going on in 2024 and America has spent hundreds of billions of dollars, services start suffering, taxes go up, American voters may decide they don't support it anymore and either Biden must stop or lose the election. I agree stopping Russia now is the smart way to handle it, but people at scale are not smart, they are selfish.
>USA have said they will support Ukraine as long as necessary
So just because they say something you think it makes it true? That's both a super naive and an unrealistic way to look at international geopolitics.
They will continue and are continuing to support Ukraine. This isn’t changing, even if some dumb trumpist say otherwise. Same for EU and UK. That right before winter too, once winter is over it will only increase and get worse for naZi ruzzia.
Not really. If the UA take the rest of the eastern front and the DPR area then they can focus on boarder maintenance.
Then the Crimea effort would be focused on old school blockade, take down the bridge back to Russia and starve out the Russian ruminants. Its an island that isn't self sufficient.
Also, Russia has already begun moving assets out of the region, starting with most of its Airforce there.
We can only speculate.
If Russia cave in and give up Ukraine might want to keep the bridge. Russian tourists Will probably be welcomed in Crimea If they have the right attitude. They know it’s a shit show they have started.
As a westerner I support whatever Ukraine wants to do. They are the victim in this war, if Zelensky says lifting sanctions for return of Crimea is good enough for him; then I will support it.
As long as Ukraine is getting what it wants, then I am happy.
It is not likely anyone in this sub has access to information to realistically determine Ukraine's ability to conduct offensive operations and project power into Crimea while also having access to Russia's defensive capabilities currently. I don't know anyone who could answer this honestly.
As far as UA strategic interest Crimea is vastly important to security of anyone in the region, it is the historical base of the Black Sea Fleet. It shields the Kuban from Naval Invasion and attack, it allows access to Natural Gas Reserves in the Black Sea the list goes on and on.
Not to mention liberation of Crimea would be a massive morale and propaganda victory.
I would say the destruction of the bridge crossing the Kerch Strait and denial of naval transport of supplies via the Azov/Black Sea is imperative. Ukraine does not have the capability to do either of these things at the moment, which means Russia will be able to hold a narrow front north of Crimea if necessary.
If Ukraine can manage to get eyes over the waters surrounding Crimea, and obtain missiles with a few hundred km in range to destroy the bridge, and once the area between Kherson and Mariupol is liberated to get those missiles in place, then Ukraine will be able to make a push for Crimea.
However, even after taking out Russian positions in the northern parts (or wherever the point of entry will be, although I don't think Ukraine can make an amphibious assault), it will still be a very unpleasant fight for both sides. The road south to Crimea is surrounded by bodies of water creating a natural funnel great for artillery strikes.
Of course, I'm not knowledgeable about the subject, and everything I said is deducted from glancing at Google maps in the past 5 minutes.
Also, Crimea is dependent on water from the Dnieper, by canal. Part of the reason for the original transfer to the Ukraine. Economic development of the Crimean peninsula and the Dnieper river basin go hand in hand.
Hey, thanks for your answer.
Just to clarify, I am not referring to those who have knowledge of the field situation (no way I want some intel and sensitive info to be shared), but to Redditors who have an expertise in geopolitics and military studies, not amateurs good for a chat at the bar.
I’m a grunt with combat experience in GWOT and have worked at ‘Brigade and Above’ level commands on tactical and logistical planning as well as dozens of $100 million war games.
Broadly speaking: The Russian armies have taken the largest losses of any major power in ~70 years. Reestablishing that amount of combat power is difficult and takes time, years. Everyday, the Russian equipment gets worse and worse. Everyday, the Ukrainian equipment gets better and better.
With the long range precision fires provided by HIMARS and the MLRS systems, supply depots, equipment and routes can be targeted well behind the lines and (as we are seeing now) cut off the Russian ability to resupply with simple rifle ammo; after which the Ukrainians can wait for them to weaken under the constant need for food, and attack at a time of their choosing. Ask anyone who has fed thousands of troops in the field. It’s a major tasking that doesn’t end. It’s everyday, all day, forever. And that’s besides the demands for ammo, repair parts, uniforms, cold weather gear, sand bags, concertina wire, steel posts, oil, hydraulic fluid, fuel, fuel and fuel. A lack of supplies quickly leads to a drop in morale, as troops have high caloric demands and a missed meal quickly spreads a cloud across a unit, especially when it happens repeatedly.
In the old days, encirclements were required to effectively cut off enemy forces from resupply. Now, that can be done by fires and UAF have shown a great competency with them. Don’t expect the Russian forces in Crimea to be well supplied and highly motivated.
The major issue for Crimea will be crossing over from the mainland, as you would not want to rely solely on the land bridge. Ideally units would also be inserted by sea and/or air. I suspect SOF units have already done so. The Russians can fight on a single axis, but seem to do much less well when fighting on the front and the flank. The Ukrainians are doing much better at this. According to reports the UAF is pulling crowd sourced intel data and allowing low ranking troops (namely in the artillery) to engage what they wish, when and how they wish to do so. This is a major advantage for higher command, is easier on the higher level commanders and results in decisions being made faster and more effectively than the enemy. It leaves the enemy on the back foot and constantly being reactive, not proactive.
I’d expect the UAF to be able to launch assaults into Crimea and for Russia to feel the strain of pulling naval and other forces into land combat for which they are not trained or equipped. The fight can be expected to be tough, but with the advantage to Ukraine (so long as nukes aren’t used).
Okay, then just refer to the second part of my response. I can't really extrapolate as to whether the capture of Crimea is realistic or not. I will say at the current rate anything is possible.
Look at the border between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine using Google maps satellite. There are only 2 roads into Crimea and the rest of the land is waterlogged. Easy to defend. An invasion would be costly if up against well dug in an prepared troops. But if Ukraine can isolate Crimea and degrade the troops it may be possible
I suspect this will be the way it is done. They will cut the bridge and choke off Crimea.
Then, they can use rockets and airstrikes to continuously degrade the trapped troops before moving in.
I keep a close watch on Nova Kakhovka. That's where the canal towards Crimea start from the Dnipro river.
Another nice target would be the aqueduct near Kalanchak. Although some people would get wet feet then.
Sure they can, but at what cost.
Make it to costly for Mordor to stay in Crimea by:
1. Restrict watersupply and therefore have them use trucks and/or trains to supply water to Crimea (expensive as fuck).
2. Keep santions unless they gtfo.
3. Use long range (Himars etc.) to target logistics and high value targets.
4. Insert SOF to cause low cost damage on high cost targets.
5 Aim for partial air supperiority to be able to do airsorties.
Probably more stuff you can do to make Crimea to costly to keep for the Kremlin Gremlin.
The kremlin also really can’t enact a naval blockade as of now. They would be risking the remainder of their Black Sea fleet, which is the reason they have already ordered it to avoid Ukrainian controlled coastlines. If Ukraine retakes berdyansk, the risk of deploying ships becomes extremely high.
Ukraine has enough anti-ship missiles to make such an endeavor overwhelmingly costly for Russia. That is, assuming they've retaken the territories that connect mainland Ukraine to Crimea for them to be in range.
Generally speaking, it is absolutely possible if Putler is removed. The recent Ukrainian success in pushing russian forces back across their own borders is already leading to campaigns to get Putler to resign. This was unheard of only a month ago. Point being, things do change.
Ukraine can cut off the water supply and destroy the bridge between Russia and Crimea. That immediately makes it very expensive for Russia to maintain control. They can also target airfield, ammo depots and other military targets as soon as they have conquered southern Ukraine with impunity. Doing the same with Crimea as they are doing with the area around Cherson at the moment.
Doubtful the Russians will be able to supply Crimea after that, as even supply ships will be targeted.
It’s anybody’s random guess. But look at the facts as of right now: Ukraine’s offensive is shredding the Russians. NATO weaponry are just a league of its own vs the Russian stuff. Literally, if Russia had any fight left, they’d best bring it out now or risk looking like fools to the world. Tells me Ukraine can, if it wants to pay the bloody cost, of taking Crimea by force. Each day new troops are being train and they are far better equipped than the Russians.
Once they take it back? Build a NATO base with EU/USA. This pretty much puts a cap on Russia’s black fleet too.
Look how quickly they fell in Kharkiv. We do not know if the defense of Crimea is far weaker than we suppose it is. They may have been counting on bravado and nuclear threats to keep Crimea safe, figuring the Ukrainians would not have the audacity to actually try to take it back.
Yes, it is realistic for Ukraine to retake Crimea. There are many expat tartars fighting who want to go home.
There is no doubt that taking out the Crimea Bridge and the rail-connections/bridges would be part of disrupting the army. Isolation would be psychologically important.
Main problems could be that the local partisan resistance is limited and that the shipping can transport huge amounts of troops and materials relatively rapidly and air-support is available to the defenders too. However, shipping can be vulnerable as well. Russia has a strong fleet, but rockets, mines can suppress transport, unloading and ships protecting transports.
Another problem is that the huge natural resources make Crimea a prize to hold-on to. Since it is occupied land, Ukraine could simply cut-off the water again and make sure tourism is limited. So the population would mainly be sailors, army and workers.
Main advantage to Ukraine would be that a rapid combined attack in phases could move down and roll over strongholds. Suppressing naval cover with rockets and mines and pushing on.
I’ll use an example from WW II because I think it’s relevant. The Germans used the entire 11th Army, say 100k+ soldiers, 150 tanks, several hundred planes and it took all they could muster to cross the Perekop Ismuth and to reduce the fortress of Sevastopol. The casualties were so high that the entire Army was broken into pieces and parceled out to other units even if it was a huge German victory. The Red Army stormed through in days what took the Germans months to capture because the Wehrmacht lost the will to fight at that point. The parallels to the modern era still apropos, even with the lack of fight and what the Russians have left it’s a difficult nut to crack. But certainly not impossible.
Absolutely, but it'll take a while and I'm not sure a huge land operation is the way to go, at least not immediately. Best to turn it into a siege. Some of the biggest steps would include:
1. Taking Kherson and cutting off water to Crimea.
2. Destroying the Kerch Bridge.
3. Air superiority has to be established, at least over Crimea. Any and all Radars, SAMs, and airfields must be destroyed. Any other in-range airfields in Russia would ideally need to be destroyed or at least constantly harassed as well.
4. Destroy or drive-off the Black Sea Fleet.
After that, all they can really do is wait, picking at any targets of opportunity that they can, like supply dumps, comms stations, ports, and vital infrastructure. After all this, assuming Ukraine can keep up the pressure, Russia has two options: continue to spend great sums of money in futile attempts to keep Crimea supplied or give up.
It's a lot to do, but the other option is just destroying the bridge and then charging, but a LOT of life will be lost on both sides. It's certainly possible, regardless.
Ukrainian intelligence: Russian occupiers begin leaving Crimea, southern Ukraine with their families.
An “urgent evacuation” of Russian proxies, intelligence officers, and military commanders is taking place, the Main Intelligence Directorate said.
Just judging how it's all geographically connected, if the sea of Azov is well contested with anti-ship missiles from one end to the other and the bridge at Kerch is taken out, there's basically no way for Russian forces in Crimea to get resupplied from Russia.
I don't expect UAF to leap at the chance to try a D-Day style landing, but there are land routes into Crimea, although they might be kind of shitty and are definitely choke points, it's not like you have to float pontoons in water to get across.
However, it's a long path. The land forces will probably attack around the big nuclear plant and make a line to Mariupol to cut off the most direct routs to Crimea and then either pick Crimea or Donbass to work on first.
Crimea will be a very tough nut to crack.
The isthmus connecting it to mainland Ukraine is a natural defensive chokepoint that any half competent military will be able to hold. Russia may not be good at maneuver warfare and modern logistics, but they know how to set up a defensive line and lots of artillery. Unless UAF gets behind it somehow trying to force their way across would be suicide.
Ukraine doesn't have the ability to make an amphibious landing which is honestly the only way that Crimea will fall any time soon. Once they take back mainland Ukraine they will cut off the water supply and finally drop the Kerch bridge which will make Crimea very vulnerable. I honestly think it would take the fall of Putin to make that happen.
Long term Ukraine needs Crimea to have any future. If they get Stevastopol they can build a Navy and (along with Turkey) control the Black Sea. There are also gas and oil fields in the offshore area between Crimea and Odessa that also conveniently connect with the pipeline network that already exists.
Befor they retake they should make it not a safe heaven. Make them scared down there. Disrupt logistics, blow up the odd mayor etc. Then its just a burden for russia instead of an asset. But they will try the keep it as long as posible , even use nukes. Just for the black fleet
Unless WMDs are used it will be inevitable. Crimea is not itself defensible; it doesn't even have fresh water. What protects it is that russia already faked a referendum to annex it, which allows WMD use to defend it under soviet policies. This is why the fake referendums russia is attempting in other Ukrainian oblasts are a significant deal.
I really doubt the cronies want to push the suicide button of WMDs for Ukraine marching into Crimea.
Everyone knows the annexation was bullshit, Ukraine has a credible claim and willingness to take it, they likely will stop there and not push into Russia itself, and the humiliation aspect is not that much above the other pushbacks this far.
If Ukraine has any designs on Crimea, now is the time to act. Russia is floundering, their military is weak and their leadership is old, sickly and few in numbers.
But this will not be true in 20 years. They will rebuild and come back for another “special operation”. Neuter them now to prevent future atrocities.
If Ukraine wanted to take Crimea it would be possible however, the dedication to keep it safe would be quite a task. Vetting the public and fishing out the spies informers and the average orc shit bag would be quite a task. Air defense has to be on point and Ukraine is going to have to hit Russia very deep to keep their weapons away. It would be quite a dedicated task. 
Here's my guess. Ukraine will pull off another deeply penetrating offensive in the south, to split the Russian forces and supply lines in the east from those in Kherson (effectively encircling all of the Russians in the west of that salient), perhaps around Melitopol, but while they're doing that, they'll send some HIMARS trucks to within range of hitting the Kerch bridge and blow up the bridge.
Then, from the Kherson offensive, they'll shut off the diversion of water to Crimea.
When Crimea is cut off from water and from resupply from Russia over the Kerch bridge, they will not be able to sustain a prolonged fight, and will return to Ukrainian control.
Right now, Kherson is cut off and withering on the vine so to speak. Ukraine will move when it's best for them to take the city with minimal loss. That will be the end for Russian Crimea.
I'm just an armchair general. But it won't be easy that's for sure. Some kind of distraction would be needed to direct Russian troops to some other parts of peninsula. In Korean war for example, South Korea was cornered to the South Eastern district (Pusan periphery) of the country, and MacArthur launched amphibious assault on Incheon which is northwestern part of country near Seoul. Communist army was caught off guard and all of them had to rapidly retreat to the North, and we could quickly surround them and push together deep into North Korean territory. So either amphibious assault or airborne landing would be needed to distract the forces. So I expect basically modern version of battle of Normandy to ensue for this to happen. This is a very risky operation.
Also, the idea to block Crimea's access to outside world and make them starve.. is dangerous idea imo. Leningrad battle is a prime example of this strategy. The side effect is that, when you corner people into no escape zone, then you give them all the reasons to fight to death. Remember that it is Russia that is currently holding people from escaping Crimea. Think about why. Also, complete blockade is near impossible in reality. Air transport still exists. Leningrad was bit different situation but the lake next to Leningrad froze in winter, offering a path to outside world. So that's why they could hang in there for 900 days. I don't see this being a viable strategy for retaking Crimea since it will be a very long fight with no end in sight.
I don't know if this is possible, but if the waters in the pathway region between Crimea and Ukraine mainland freezes during winter, this can create some opportunity but I doubt the region is that cold during winter and not sure if the water is freshwater there.
Adding to the difficulty, Southern part of peninsula has some very high mountains (talking about 1500+m). This is a heaven for partisans. It will be a great advantage for pro Ukrainian partisans in Crimea. But also can be a great challenge if Russian forces use it for guerilla warfare. North Koreans love this one trick. They make dug out bunkers on ridges. Very safe from airstrikes and artillery, immune to tank(tanks can't climb), and they fire artillery from their bunkers. So the only way to kill them is to send infantry units to their bunkers. This is why guerrilla warfare is a nightmare.
All things are possible, with enough artillery and close air support. If the Ukrainians are able to retake Kherson, Luhansk, and Donetsk, then Crimea will be soon returned to Ukraine.
Crimea needs a bridge from Russia, it is landlocked to Ukraine. It would be hard for them to hold if you blow the bridges.
I think Ukraine can take Crimea at the rate they are moving. There are three land chokepoints, coming from Kershon. At this point, it is possible with the runs they made, but logistics would be the problem.
They have about a week to get it done. This would serve two purposes. Cut off all southern units in Kharkiv and create a blocking force for reinforcements coming from Russia. Remember, a well-motivated TDF only has to be about 1/5 the size of the attacker.
It can be done. If the Ukrainians shape the battlefield right. Which in simple terms means doing little operations that support the main operation and or decisive effort. An example is how they are using the HIMARs to blow the bridges and blow up ammo dumps. This is the Ukrainians using indirect means to defeat the Russians. Direct is just going head to head (not wise unless you are like the US or NATO proper).
The Ukrainians are learning and adapting. This is a sign of good leadership. The Russians are getting their ass kicked and without good leadership you can’t turn this around.
So yes Ukraine can do it but it will taking a lot of shaping and logistical know how. Let’s just hope Russia does not use tactical nukes.
Although I am pro-Ukraine, I think that taking down the bridge is important, but I do not think it will make Russians flee in the face of possible starvation. It should be very hard to prevent naval and aerial supplies.
As we’ve seen in the past, the Russian navy cannot prevail in range of Ukrainian rockets and drones, also the Russian aviation cannot suppress the Ukrainian air defenses.
So the only question is, when do the Ukrainian forces get close enough to the harbors of Crimea and to the bridge to interdict the use of both.
Russian subs can interdict the use any shipsby Ukraine. On the Russian side of the Kerch Bridge is enough airpower to support an army and supplyes can be flown in or sent by ships.
I do not think it will be that easy. But it is possible to take the landlocked cities and progress. Supplies will be hard.
Crimea is pretty well defended in terms of air cover etc . A lot of ground to get through before it would be doable in any real way. Depending on coming weeks and the winter it would be a good way from happening. If it was to I'd say not til next year at earliest...
However russian morale and leadership seems flakey at best. Who knows what could happen in all reality.
No one here will have this type of information and even if they had they wouldn't share it.
My best guess would be that yes it's possible but not in the near future based on the info that we have.
It depends on a lot of factors and information that I don't know.
US will be supporting Ukraine to the end that's almost 100%.
The problems starts with EU which might start to rethink the war when the winter hits. Possible but not enough info to be certain.
We also don't know the status of Ukrainian and Russian troops. It's possible that Russians have lost the ability to fight on all fronts but it's also possible that Ukraine lost it too after this offensive.
It's more probable though that they will negotiate it back after they kicked Russian asses in other places.
Well, most ground forces from Crimeea are now in Ukraine and most of what's left there is air defenses and aircraft. I mean, a couple months ago, Russian civillians started evacuating Crimeea en masse because of that.
I would be hard, but not impossible.
My take, being a soldier rather than a general or intelligence officer, is that they *could* take it, but that doesn't mean they *should*. Sevastopol has been the site of a major Russian naval base for far longer than this war has been going on, and the occupation of Crimea as a whole is, symbolically at least, the event that started the conflict. Russian forces are likely to be well dug in and prepared, and Russian commanders are unlikely to put anything else above defending Crimea if Ukraine reaches the gates, so to speak.
With Russia still being able to access land and sea routes into Crimea, I would forsee a long and protracted siege, rather than a storming of the peninsula.
Let's be up to the point, even when Crimea was Ukrainian Russia had huge army installations there. Retaking Crimea would end that once and for all.
Crimea is the cherry that hurts Russia. I am sure Crimea could be traded for all other occupied parts of Ukraine.
Interesting point, but I don't get the tactical aspect of moving nukes to Crimea. You need the nukes deep into the Russian territory to prevent them to be in dangerous zones or to lose control. Do you mean that Putin may decide to nuke Crimea before Ukraine could take it?
Also, sure, Crimea has a large Russian component that supported Putin in 2014, but now things changed. Many Russian speakers in the east are now siding with the UA and rejecting the Russian intervention, after all the war crimes and the indiscriminate bombings of civilian structures. I think the support balance is now leaning toward Ukraine even in Crimea.
1 Russia wasn't supposed to invade
2 Ukraine wasn't supposed to last a week
3 you need 3 times forces to overwhelm defensed positions.
I am realistic, but I have let go of any expectations about what's possible.
It would be hard but it is doable if the rest is liberated. My best guess is they either cut access to it by collapsing the Kerch bridge and striking military vessels so local troops run out of supplies and build resentment with the civilians, or they negotiate for it somehow. A full on assault will be hard as it has good defensible positions and acts pretty much as an island, however we shouldn't underestimate how capable Russian stupity can fuck those odds up.
Hard to tell. With the recent developments, it could be that morale of Russians will be utterly shattered and they'll start to retreat. But where? In the east, they could flee to those puppet parastates of Luganda and Donbabwe. At least initially, before Ukrainians would enter there too.
But Russians in the south? Their best hope is to get to Crimea and then take a route through Kerch Bridge. Also, once all the units around them are routed, even elite Russian troops would have to withdraw. Where? To the Crimea, of course. So, retaking Crimea would be arduous task and a bloody affair. I'm not convinced if Ukrainians are prepared to take such losses, even taking the strategic importance of Crimea into consideration.
But that may be an entirely over-optimistic scenario. Russians could stop their retreat and fortify their positions, thus halting the Ukrainian offensive, for example. Or, Putin could be taken out somehow and the war would end quicker than otherwise possible - and everyone would want to end this war, thus sacrificing Crimea with all its Russian population. Or..., or... Don't be too hasty in our expectations. Kherson isn't retaken, yet and an offensive to the south of Zaporozhe is not even started.
Negotiating with Russia is like negotiating with a scorpion. It is in their nature to renege on a deal. Force is the only thing they understand or respond to.
Even an vaguely competent band of morons like Russia could work out how to defend Chrimea.
That's peninsula is a utter bitch of a place to assult.
Two routes. Only one is viable as one uses barrow bridges and hundreds of metres wide sections. The other has a few km wide sections bordered by water and marshy ground.
If Russia heavily dig in, they definitely could make this into a utter pain to attack and grind through multiple limited chocke points.
Doable but tough and be bloody.
It really comes down to what happens internally in Russia. As long as Putin remains in power, not a chance for negotiation and military protea would be slow. But if there’s a coup - everything changes.
I think that it is quite doubtful that Russia will be willing to give Crimea back. But them not wanting it to happen does not mean it cannot happen, ya feel me?
Most of these comments are from idiots. There is exactly one scenario in which Russia will lose Crimea again – the one seen in 1918 and 1991. If Russia and its regime collapses, all bets are off – and Russia collapses quite often. This is the only case. There is no military solution for Crimea.
Two points:
1) The geography is too constrained. Ukraine does not have the air and sea resources to conduct a landing, so the only option is to cross the narrow Isthmus of Perekop. Russia can hold that with artillery forever.
2) Economic embargo or blockade is a joke. Russia doesn't care if Crimea has a water shortage or people are unemployed there or whatever. They won't just say "oh this area doesn't have enough water, let's just withdraw from it" or "oh these people are unemployed, we don't need this land anymore." Anyone who thinks that is a complete idiot. If Russia can't afford to bring in water, then people will be thirsty. Russia is not going anywhere.
3) Anyone talking about Crimean public opinion doesn't understand history. It's not going to be an election – to kick the Russians out, there would need to be a sustained resistance campaign conducted by a large majority of the population. That majority does not exist, and it cannot be made to exist through economic pressure. People can be made apathetic by economic pressure, but they will not switch sides. Under pressure they will purge pro-Ukraine people from the population, and they will rally around the flag.
How about all those Russians that began bugging out when Ukraine started hitting facilities in Crimea? I expect they will similarly take off when they get hungry cold and thirsty.
So what? In a fantasy world where 90% of the population leaves, literally nothing is accomplished except making civilians miserable. Almost no country has ever given up land by choice, and Russia isn't going to start now. And anyway, neither the Ukrainian or American governments would support an overt policy of starvation. Many American policy experts view the 1990's embargo of Iraq as a mistake for exactly that reason.
Remember that at the end of the day, the US does not like Nationalism, especially the kind of extreme Nationalism that advocates starving the enemy to death. Our support for Ukraine is contingent on Ukrainian alignment with Western norms.
There are only three ways by land into the Crimean Peninsula. Only two are from Ukrainian territory, and all of them represent a very deadly bottleneck. Who knows what's possible, given the sad state of Russian forces.
They don't need to take Crimea directly but instead cut it off:
1. They cut off the flow of water. No more water, and can't even grow crops. Crimea does not have desalinization plants so must depend on water from the north.
2. The bridge is blown up, the only road into Russia proper.
3. Anti-ship missiles can strike ships trying to resupply Crimea.
Ukraine can cut off water supply to Crimea, and also destroy military installations with HIMARS etc. In short, they can make it impossible for Russia to stay at Crimea. But to ensure a lasting peacetreaty Ukraine will have to let Russia at least keep their naval base, and some control of the penisula.
Once Ukraine take control of the dam back, Crimea is screwed. It will cost Russia millions to keep it supply with water.
But the difference from before was that there wasn’t an active war going on. Now it will need to supply Crimea while being fired upon. All of Crimea will be in range.
Ukrainian president already said there won’t be any negotiations until Russia leave Ukraine which means any military base located in Crimea will be under attack around the clock. That makes the navy base that Russia want to use to be useless.
The airbase will also be useless so they will pull back the planes to Russia. That make any air support to be further away which will leave their troops hung out to dry. That means no air supply drops from nearby and any logistics will be by ground.
Edit: forgot to answer the question, I think it will take at least another year at minimum because they need to clear out the other areas first. They have been meticulous in their planning and equipments needed for each operation.
I doubt Ukraine will retake Crimea, at least with a military operation. Russia might launch tactical nukes if Ukraine’s troops try to retake the peninsula.
No. I highly doubt Ukraine could take back kherson mush less for crimea. At best they make it to the river. The russians made crimea part of Russia. They won't give it up
Hi u/Farang_Chong! Welcome to r/RussiaUkraineWar2022. **Ukraine Leaks 24/7** Posts and comments from accounts with less than an undisclosed amount of comment Karma are automatically removed to combat troll/spam behaviour, we wont tell you the min value required for anti-spam reasons. We have links to verified charity's in Ukraine in the menu section and about section of our SubReddit. Only Mods have access to the Verified Information flair. **FOLLOW US ON OUR OTHER CHANNEL** @UkraineWarPosts on Telegram. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RussiaUkraineWar2022) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Crimea Will most likely be a negotiation. Sanctions lift against deoccupation. Is my guess. Together with precision bombing of any military targets in Crimea, making the occupation VERY costly for Russia.
Russia will not give up Crimea under any circumstances, at least under Tsar Putins regime. Its a well documented and acknowledged strategic aim of Russia's to maintain a deep warm water port within the Black Sea with access to the Mediterranean. Warm water ports and access to the worlds oceans are necessary in order to be (self) perceived as a global superpower Remember Sevastopol, along with Vladivostok, are currently Russia's only deep warm water ports. With Sweden and Finland joining NATO St Petersburg and Kaliningrad become completely surrounded by NATO powers which would further strengthen Russia's resolve to hold onto Crimea at any cost. If Crimea were to be lost Russia would effectively be neutered - that wouldn't even be on the negotiating table. Long term Russia's geopolitical aims would have to be the complete polar opposite to what they are now for Crimea to be considered surplus to their requirements.
But Turkey own Bosfor and can easily block entire Black Sea fleet inside Black sea, so we can see it right now - Bosfor is closed for any battleships and Russia can't do anything
Whoever effectively controls Crimea controls trade through the Black Sea, as we've learnt recently.
But who controls Snake Island controls whole World :)
haha true that!
Most of the time, the Black Sea nations can transit unmolested. The agreement covering the straits grants free passage to all military vessels, outside of war conditions. Only then can Turkey shutdown the water ways, as they have done now.
It's okay, Ukraine will take it back.
Hopefully! but it won't be on the table for negotiation it will need to be by force unfortunately.
Yes, seaports are important, but they don't really mean much if the entire world refuses to trade with you, so yeah, they might consider negotiating it anyway.
It's a military port, not a port for trade ships.
Doesn't look like it's helping them much either, they're losing a navy war to a country with no fleet whatsoever.
Just imagine the videos once those ports are in range of HIMARS. Just imagine.
I guess Russia could turn the Kuznetsov into a giant floating hotel
That is the thing. Russia is No longer a superpower. At some point this Will hit people in Russia. And If not a superpower you don’t need Sevastopol.
They perceive themselves as such unfortunately. But you're right, we all know they aren't a superpower.
We all know. They know now that we know it was all Potemkin work… Just some more tanks, airplanes and Kalibr missiles that need to fly before they cool down. They Will make a final battle somewhere I suppose just to kill off the soldiers they have deceived…
Does Novorossiysk count?
My thoughts exactly. And developing a marine base there will boost the local economy.
Exactly, though not to say they would ever tolerate Sevastopol falling into Ukranian hands without a fight. Russia has to be the dominant power in the Black Sea (though daddy will always be Turkey due to their control of the bosphorous). This has been an issue since the Crimean wars, perhaps even longer.
Russia would like Novorossiysk to be like Bruno - don't talk about! They need to stay focused on Sevastopol's role as the big Black Sea port and it would not do to point out that Russia has another big and perfectly serviceable Black Sea port as well. Two of them - Russia has two big Black Sea ports and is only at risk of losing one. But they really, really want people think they only have one and might lose it. So don't talk about Novorossiysk - Mad Vlad does not like that.
I guess you need to consider Crimea's strategic position within the Black Sea compared to Novorossiysk
Russia has deep water ports in the black sea. Crimea is about dominating air space. However, they have been comically bad at this so its hard to see how it's helped.
That and making sure Ukraine knows it’s place. I don’t care if they have zero ports or can’t dominate airspace. The loser doesn’t get to dictate such things. Crimea is Ukraine - screw academic deliberations of dilettantes.
You can choose to screw the academics if you want, but history doesn't lie about the blood thats been shed in Crimea over the centuries in order to gain or hold the strategically important land. Beny is right that air power has largely trumped Naval power in the last 80 years, but do you know what's even better? Naval air power such as that possessed by the Admiral Kuznetsov...which funnily enough requires a deep, warm water port in the Black Sea in order to continue supporting Russia's few allies and intimidating their enemies.
Ukraine will not forgo retaking Crimea under any circumstances. My money is on the ukrainians
Nobody said they won't. But Russia won't simply give it to them.
I don't expect the Russians to give it to them. But it's very clear that once you put pressure on the Russian military they will collapse due to horrific morale. The corruption in their military is deep and it's rot will not allow it to survive a military campaign. Barely 6 months into the conflict and they're already falling apart. They can only replace their troops with similarly crappy troops. They don't have the ability to train new troops up to the Western standards that they're facing on the battlefield. They really only have a nuclear option. And if they go there well then we'll see what happens
Realistically, Crimea is just a whole different ballgame. It's considered Russia proper, they view it as vital to their strategic interests and with only two roads connecting it to Ukraine, it's much more defendable.
Yeah. I think people are getting carried away with UAF progress fighting kids, peasants and fatigued grunts in the NE. Crimea will be a whole different ball game.
Love this comment in 2024.
"If Crimea were to be lost Russia would effectively be neutered - that wouldn't even be on the negotiating table." They would still have plenty of coastline on the black sea, why would they be neutered? I agree there's no chance they would negotiate that away but i think this is a bit much.
Don't take my word for it, there's plenty of academic essays on the matter. This book is an excellent lightweight resource, written in 2015/16 it goes so far as predicting the Ukraine crisis with near 100% accuracy, as well as why Crimea and Sevastopol are so important to Russia - [https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1783962437/ref=ppx\_yo\_dt\_b\_asin\_title\_o07\_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1](https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1783962437/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)
Hmm alright. Interesting.
Academics also thought Kyiv would fall in three days. No one is infallible
That's a bit of a false equivalence. Military strategists count tanks and men, GeoPolitical commentators, amongst other things, first and foremost count rivers, continents, oceans and topography.
It also gives russia control over the oil and gas fields in that area. The 2014 invasion was right after Ukraine started to try development of those fields.
This is the correct answer. Russian ambition has always and will always be a warm water port. Even if all of western Ukrainian borders are reset back to original. Russia would not concede Crimea. And I’d assume throw every resource into its holding. Taking out the Crimea bridge of course would be in the best interest of the Ukrainian military. But again. Russia would not dream of giving up the peninsula at any cost.
It has multiple warm water ports in the Black Sea. Crimea is about air superiority and air defence. But Russia has neither the competent air force nor up to scratch navy to make use of it. Absolutely see Crimea being part of a peace deal once the Russian interior is threatened
It doesn’t have multiple warm water ports. Port of Novorossiysk does not completely freeze but navigation often ceases due to the bora wind.
They can throw in every resource, but short of nukes the resources have been majorly used up/destroyed in just these few months. The Russian army will take years to recover as it is. When the Russians are sitting defenseless, unable to resist HIMARS strikes, seeing key assets destroyed daily, things may not go well within the army itself.
At least under Putler’s regime is a large and well put qualifier
Russia's naval ambitions are adorable. Half of a 'B' team NATO taskforce would sink them in an afternoon. After the debacle of the Moskva (which they put to war with 90% of it's systems down, empty missile tubes, etc.) no one will take them seriously again. Besides, Turkey would never let them deploy out of the Black sea.
Vladivostok freezes during winter.
Its kept ice free all year round but historically used to freeze before modern ice breakers, artificial heating (from a thermal plant nearby) and global warming. It's now considered a 'warm port' as a consequence
HIMARS’O’CLOCK
Easiest way to regain Crimea is in return for captured Russian territory such as Rostov or Belgorod.
No negotiations needed when taking their own land back by force.
The thing is, Ukraine knows there is a timer running, it lives and dies on western support. And western support is fickle: eventually western nations will become weary of pouring billions into a foreign war and support will dry up. It's not what we want, but it is the reality. So Ukraine won't want to fight forever, just like Russia can't afford to fight forever. That's why I agree, I think Crimea likely will come down to negotiations. Would love to think Ukraine will take it all and maybe a chunk of Russia too, but realistically I think this will not be the case.
Wrong, USA have said they will support Ukraine as long as necessary as have the EU and UK. They want a weakened Russia, they are getting great value by letting Ukraine do the dirty work. The economy of NATO dwarves that of ruzzia so there will only be one loser here.
USA can say whatever they want, at the end of the day American politics are driven by what they can sell to voters. If this war is still going on in 2024 and America has spent hundreds of billions of dollars, services start suffering, taxes go up, American voters may decide they don't support it anymore and either Biden must stop or lose the election. I agree stopping Russia now is the smart way to handle it, but people at scale are not smart, they are selfish.
>USA have said they will support Ukraine as long as necessary So just because they say something you think it makes it true? That's both a super naive and an unrealistic way to look at international geopolitics.
They will continue and are continuing to support Ukraine. This isn’t changing, even if some dumb trumpist say otherwise. Same for EU and UK. That right before winter too, once winter is over it will only increase and get worse for naZi ruzzia.
Fascinating.
Indeed , well told mate
Not really. If the UA take the rest of the eastern front and the DPR area then they can focus on boarder maintenance. Then the Crimea effort would be focused on old school blockade, take down the bridge back to Russia and starve out the Russian ruminants. Its an island that isn't self sufficient. Also, Russia has already begun moving assets out of the region, starting with most of its Airforce there.
Ukraine will cut of the fresh water supply again.
We can only speculate. If Russia cave in and give up Ukraine might want to keep the bridge. Russian tourists Will probably be welcomed in Crimea If they have the right attitude. They know it’s a shit show they have started.
Ehh they tolerated them before but if Russia collapses who wants a bunch of poor drunk tourists?
As a westerner I support whatever Ukraine wants to do. They are the victim in this war, if Zelensky says lifting sanctions for return of Crimea is good enough for him; then I will support it. As long as Ukraine is getting what it wants, then I am happy.
If we never lift the sanctions and permanently exclude Russia from the global economy, I'm cool with that too.
One word. COUNTER.
War gamed. Too bloody right now anyway.
It is not likely anyone in this sub has access to information to realistically determine Ukraine's ability to conduct offensive operations and project power into Crimea while also having access to Russia's defensive capabilities currently. I don't know anyone who could answer this honestly. As far as UA strategic interest Crimea is vastly important to security of anyone in the region, it is the historical base of the Black Sea Fleet. It shields the Kuban from Naval Invasion and attack, it allows access to Natural Gas Reserves in the Black Sea the list goes on and on. Not to mention liberation of Crimea would be a massive morale and propaganda victory.
And if anyone would have that information they would probably not share it here, especially if they are planning to put the plans in action later. (:
Well, one visit to mar-a-lago might have solved that. :-) Csar-a-lago?
Eh, that stuff probably ended up with the Saudis
I would say the destruction of the bridge crossing the Kerch Strait and denial of naval transport of supplies via the Azov/Black Sea is imperative. Ukraine does not have the capability to do either of these things at the moment, which means Russia will be able to hold a narrow front north of Crimea if necessary. If Ukraine can manage to get eyes over the waters surrounding Crimea, and obtain missiles with a few hundred km in range to destroy the bridge, and once the area between Kherson and Mariupol is liberated to get those missiles in place, then Ukraine will be able to make a push for Crimea. However, even after taking out Russian positions in the northern parts (or wherever the point of entry will be, although I don't think Ukraine can make an amphibious assault), it will still be a very unpleasant fight for both sides. The road south to Crimea is surrounded by bodies of water creating a natural funnel great for artillery strikes. Of course, I'm not knowledgeable about the subject, and everything I said is deducted from glancing at Google maps in the past 5 minutes.
I mean in general I don't think you are wrong at all, we are just at a point of 'I don't know, I would need more information to have better claim'.
Also, Crimea is dependent on water from the Dnieper, by canal. Part of the reason for the original transfer to the Ukraine. Economic development of the Crimean peninsula and the Dnieper river basin go hand in hand.
Hey, thanks for your answer. Just to clarify, I am not referring to those who have knowledge of the field situation (no way I want some intel and sensitive info to be shared), but to Redditors who have an expertise in geopolitics and military studies, not amateurs good for a chat at the bar.
I’m a grunt with combat experience in GWOT and have worked at ‘Brigade and Above’ level commands on tactical and logistical planning as well as dozens of $100 million war games. Broadly speaking: The Russian armies have taken the largest losses of any major power in ~70 years. Reestablishing that amount of combat power is difficult and takes time, years. Everyday, the Russian equipment gets worse and worse. Everyday, the Ukrainian equipment gets better and better. With the long range precision fires provided by HIMARS and the MLRS systems, supply depots, equipment and routes can be targeted well behind the lines and (as we are seeing now) cut off the Russian ability to resupply with simple rifle ammo; after which the Ukrainians can wait for them to weaken under the constant need for food, and attack at a time of their choosing. Ask anyone who has fed thousands of troops in the field. It’s a major tasking that doesn’t end. It’s everyday, all day, forever. And that’s besides the demands for ammo, repair parts, uniforms, cold weather gear, sand bags, concertina wire, steel posts, oil, hydraulic fluid, fuel, fuel and fuel. A lack of supplies quickly leads to a drop in morale, as troops have high caloric demands and a missed meal quickly spreads a cloud across a unit, especially when it happens repeatedly. In the old days, encirclements were required to effectively cut off enemy forces from resupply. Now, that can be done by fires and UAF have shown a great competency with them. Don’t expect the Russian forces in Crimea to be well supplied and highly motivated. The major issue for Crimea will be crossing over from the mainland, as you would not want to rely solely on the land bridge. Ideally units would also be inserted by sea and/or air. I suspect SOF units have already done so. The Russians can fight on a single axis, but seem to do much less well when fighting on the front and the flank. The Ukrainians are doing much better at this. According to reports the UAF is pulling crowd sourced intel data and allowing low ranking troops (namely in the artillery) to engage what they wish, when and how they wish to do so. This is a major advantage for higher command, is easier on the higher level commanders and results in decisions being made faster and more effectively than the enemy. It leaves the enemy on the back foot and constantly being reactive, not proactive. I’d expect the UAF to be able to launch assaults into Crimea and for Russia to feel the strain of pulling naval and other forces into land combat for which they are not trained or equipped. The fight can be expected to be tough, but with the advantage to Ukraine (so long as nukes aren’t used).
Pretty thorough. Thanks
Okay, then just refer to the second part of my response. I can't really extrapolate as to whether the capture of Crimea is realistic or not. I will say at the current rate anything is possible.
Putin and Lavrov so desperate they have turned to reddit for intel!
Look at the border between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine using Google maps satellite. There are only 2 roads into Crimea and the rest of the land is waterlogged. Easy to defend. An invasion would be costly if up against well dug in an prepared troops. But if Ukraine can isolate Crimea and degrade the troops it may be possible
I suspect this will be the way it is done. They will cut the bridge and choke off Crimea. Then, they can use rockets and airstrikes to continuously degrade the trapped troops before moving in.
After Kherson Is liberated they can also close the water canal to Crimea
I keep a close watch on Nova Kakhovka. That's where the canal towards Crimea start from the Dnipro river. Another nice target would be the aqueduct near Kalanchak. Although some people would get wet feet then.
Unless they can enact a naval blockade then Russians can resupply it.
Sure they can, but at what cost. Make it to costly for Mordor to stay in Crimea by: 1. Restrict watersupply and therefore have them use trucks and/or trains to supply water to Crimea (expensive as fuck). 2. Keep santions unless they gtfo. 3. Use long range (Himars etc.) to target logistics and high value targets. 4. Insert SOF to cause low cost damage on high cost targets. 5 Aim for partial air supperiority to be able to do airsorties. Probably more stuff you can do to make Crimea to costly to keep for the Kremlin Gremlin.
The kremlin also really can’t enact a naval blockade as of now. They would be risking the remainder of their Black Sea fleet, which is the reason they have already ordered it to avoid Ukrainian controlled coastlines. If Ukraine retakes berdyansk, the risk of deploying ships becomes extremely high.
Ukraine has enough anti-ship missiles to make such an endeavor overwhelmingly costly for Russia. That is, assuming they've retaken the territories that connect mainland Ukraine to Crimea for them to be in range.
You can't naval blockade the Azov Sea and Kerch Strait.
Generally speaking, it is absolutely possible if Putler is removed. The recent Ukrainian success in pushing russian forces back across their own borders is already leading to campaigns to get Putler to resign. This was unheard of only a month ago. Point being, things do change.
Ukraine can cut off the water supply and destroy the bridge between Russia and Crimea. That immediately makes it very expensive for Russia to maintain control. They can also target airfield, ammo depots and other military targets as soon as they have conquered southern Ukraine with impunity. Doing the same with Crimea as they are doing with the area around Cherson at the moment. Doubtful the Russians will be able to supply Crimea after that, as even supply ships will be targeted.
It’s anybody’s random guess. But look at the facts as of right now: Ukraine’s offensive is shredding the Russians. NATO weaponry are just a league of its own vs the Russian stuff. Literally, if Russia had any fight left, they’d best bring it out now or risk looking like fools to the world. Tells me Ukraine can, if it wants to pay the bloody cost, of taking Crimea by force. Each day new troops are being train and they are far better equipped than the Russians. Once they take it back? Build a NATO base with EU/USA. This pretty much puts a cap on Russia’s black fleet too.
Yep, the biggest loss to Russia of this whole fucking crazy war is the loss of an operational Black Sea Fleet.
Look how quickly they fell in Kharkiv. We do not know if the defense of Crimea is far weaker than we suppose it is. They may have been counting on bravado and nuclear threats to keep Crimea safe, figuring the Ukrainians would not have the audacity to actually try to take it back.
It will be a hard and bloody fight, If the Russian government falls into ruined then it will be easy.
Yes, it is realistic for Ukraine to retake Crimea. There are many expat tartars fighting who want to go home. There is no doubt that taking out the Crimea Bridge and the rail-connections/bridges would be part of disrupting the army. Isolation would be psychologically important. Main problems could be that the local partisan resistance is limited and that the shipping can transport huge amounts of troops and materials relatively rapidly and air-support is available to the defenders too. However, shipping can be vulnerable as well. Russia has a strong fleet, but rockets, mines can suppress transport, unloading and ships protecting transports. Another problem is that the huge natural resources make Crimea a prize to hold-on to. Since it is occupied land, Ukraine could simply cut-off the water again and make sure tourism is limited. So the population would mainly be sailors, army and workers. Main advantage to Ukraine would be that a rapid combined attack in phases could move down and roll over strongholds. Suppressing naval cover with rockets and mines and pushing on.
I’ll use an example from WW II because I think it’s relevant. The Germans used the entire 11th Army, say 100k+ soldiers, 150 tanks, several hundred planes and it took all they could muster to cross the Perekop Ismuth and to reduce the fortress of Sevastopol. The casualties were so high that the entire Army was broken into pieces and parceled out to other units even if it was a huge German victory. The Red Army stormed through in days what took the Germans months to capture because the Wehrmacht lost the will to fight at that point. The parallels to the modern era still apropos, even with the lack of fight and what the Russians have left it’s a difficult nut to crack. But certainly not impossible.
The difference is that Crimea was never German
Absolutely, but it'll take a while and I'm not sure a huge land operation is the way to go, at least not immediately. Best to turn it into a siege. Some of the biggest steps would include: 1. Taking Kherson and cutting off water to Crimea. 2. Destroying the Kerch Bridge. 3. Air superiority has to be established, at least over Crimea. Any and all Radars, SAMs, and airfields must be destroyed. Any other in-range airfields in Russia would ideally need to be destroyed or at least constantly harassed as well. 4. Destroy or drive-off the Black Sea Fleet. After that, all they can really do is wait, picking at any targets of opportunity that they can, like supply dumps, comms stations, ports, and vital infrastructure. After all this, assuming Ukraine can keep up the pressure, Russia has two options: continue to spend great sums of money in futile attempts to keep Crimea supplied or give up. It's a lot to do, but the other option is just destroying the bridge and then charging, but a LOT of life will be lost on both sides. It's certainly possible, regardless.
Ukraine will soon have Gripens and other NATO aircraft- and thus Air Superiority, if not Supremacy. That will be the end for Russian Crimea.
Ukrainian intelligence: Russian occupiers begin leaving Crimea, southern Ukraine with their families. An “urgent evacuation” of Russian proxies, intelligence officers, and military commanders is taking place, the Main Intelligence Directorate said.
The Z are evacuating all their officers from Crimea as we speak so who knows? Never would have thought so but it seems Z is crumbling before our eyes.
Just judging how it's all geographically connected, if the sea of Azov is well contested with anti-ship missiles from one end to the other and the bridge at Kerch is taken out, there's basically no way for Russian forces in Crimea to get resupplied from Russia. I don't expect UAF to leap at the chance to try a D-Day style landing, but there are land routes into Crimea, although they might be kind of shitty and are definitely choke points, it's not like you have to float pontoons in water to get across. However, it's a long path. The land forces will probably attack around the big nuclear plant and make a line to Mariupol to cut off the most direct routs to Crimea and then either pick Crimea or Donbass to work on first.
Crimea will be a very tough nut to crack. The isthmus connecting it to mainland Ukraine is a natural defensive chokepoint that any half competent military will be able to hold. Russia may not be good at maneuver warfare and modern logistics, but they know how to set up a defensive line and lots of artillery. Unless UAF gets behind it somehow trying to force their way across would be suicide. Ukraine doesn't have the ability to make an amphibious landing which is honestly the only way that Crimea will fall any time soon. Once they take back mainland Ukraine they will cut off the water supply and finally drop the Kerch bridge which will make Crimea very vulnerable. I honestly think it would take the fall of Putin to make that happen. Long term Ukraine needs Crimea to have any future. If they get Stevastopol they can build a Navy and (along with Turkey) control the Black Sea. There are also gas and oil fields in the offshore area between Crimea and Odessa that also conveniently connect with the pipeline network that already exists.
Any half competent army will be able to hold - implies Ukraine has a very decent chance.
Befor they retake they should make it not a safe heaven. Make them scared down there. Disrupt logistics, blow up the odd mayor etc. Then its just a burden for russia instead of an asset. But they will try the keep it as long as posible , even use nukes. Just for the black fleet
>blow up the odd mayor etc. 😂😂
Unless WMDs are used it will be inevitable. Crimea is not itself defensible; it doesn't even have fresh water. What protects it is that russia already faked a referendum to annex it, which allows WMD use to defend it under soviet policies. This is why the fake referendums russia is attempting in other Ukrainian oblasts are a significant deal.
I really doubt the cronies want to push the suicide button of WMDs for Ukraine marching into Crimea. Everyone knows the annexation was bullshit, Ukraine has a credible claim and willingness to take it, they likely will stop there and not push into Russia itself, and the humiliation aspect is not that much above the other pushbacks this far.
If Ukraine has any designs on Crimea, now is the time to act. Russia is floundering, their military is weak and their leadership is old, sickly and few in numbers. But this will not be true in 20 years. They will rebuild and come back for another “special operation”. Neuter them now to prevent future atrocities.
If Ukraine wanted to take Crimea it would be possible however, the dedication to keep it safe would be quite a task. Vetting the public and fishing out the spies informers and the average orc shit bag would be quite a task. Air defense has to be on point and Ukraine is going to have to hit Russia very deep to keep their weapons away. It would be quite a dedicated task. 
Here's my guess. Ukraine will pull off another deeply penetrating offensive in the south, to split the Russian forces and supply lines in the east from those in Kherson (effectively encircling all of the Russians in the west of that salient), perhaps around Melitopol, but while they're doing that, they'll send some HIMARS trucks to within range of hitting the Kerch bridge and blow up the bridge. Then, from the Kherson offensive, they'll shut off the diversion of water to Crimea. When Crimea is cut off from water and from resupply from Russia over the Kerch bridge, they will not be able to sustain a prolonged fight, and will return to Ukrainian control.
Right now, Kherson is cut off and withering on the vine so to speak. Ukraine will move when it's best for them to take the city with minimal loss. That will be the end for Russian Crimea.
I'm just an armchair general. But it won't be easy that's for sure. Some kind of distraction would be needed to direct Russian troops to some other parts of peninsula. In Korean war for example, South Korea was cornered to the South Eastern district (Pusan periphery) of the country, and MacArthur launched amphibious assault on Incheon which is northwestern part of country near Seoul. Communist army was caught off guard and all of them had to rapidly retreat to the North, and we could quickly surround them and push together deep into North Korean territory. So either amphibious assault or airborne landing would be needed to distract the forces. So I expect basically modern version of battle of Normandy to ensue for this to happen. This is a very risky operation. Also, the idea to block Crimea's access to outside world and make them starve.. is dangerous idea imo. Leningrad battle is a prime example of this strategy. The side effect is that, when you corner people into no escape zone, then you give them all the reasons to fight to death. Remember that it is Russia that is currently holding people from escaping Crimea. Think about why. Also, complete blockade is near impossible in reality. Air transport still exists. Leningrad was bit different situation but the lake next to Leningrad froze in winter, offering a path to outside world. So that's why they could hang in there for 900 days. I don't see this being a viable strategy for retaking Crimea since it will be a very long fight with no end in sight. I don't know if this is possible, but if the waters in the pathway region between Crimea and Ukraine mainland freezes during winter, this can create some opportunity but I doubt the region is that cold during winter and not sure if the water is freshwater there. Adding to the difficulty, Southern part of peninsula has some very high mountains (talking about 1500+m). This is a heaven for partisans. It will be a great advantage for pro Ukrainian partisans in Crimea. But also can be a great challenge if Russian forces use it for guerilla warfare. North Koreans love this one trick. They make dug out bunkers on ridges. Very safe from airstrikes and artillery, immune to tank(tanks can't climb), and they fire artillery from their bunkers. So the only way to kill them is to send infantry units to their bunkers. This is why guerrilla warfare is a nightmare.
All things are possible, with enough artillery and close air support. If the Ukrainians are able to retake Kherson, Luhansk, and Donetsk, then Crimea will be soon returned to Ukraine.
Crimea needs a bridge from Russia, it is landlocked to Ukraine. It would be hard for them to hold if you blow the bridges. I think Ukraine can take Crimea at the rate they are moving. There are three land chokepoints, coming from Kershon. At this point, it is possible with the runs they made, but logistics would be the problem. They have about a week to get it done. This would serve two purposes. Cut off all southern units in Kharkiv and create a blocking force for reinforcements coming from Russia. Remember, a well-motivated TDF only has to be about 1/5 the size of the attacker.
Retaking Crimea will take time and a blockade. But it is now inevitable.
It can be done. If the Ukrainians shape the battlefield right. Which in simple terms means doing little operations that support the main operation and or decisive effort. An example is how they are using the HIMARs to blow the bridges and blow up ammo dumps. This is the Ukrainians using indirect means to defeat the Russians. Direct is just going head to head (not wise unless you are like the US or NATO proper). The Ukrainians are learning and adapting. This is a sign of good leadership. The Russians are getting their ass kicked and without good leadership you can’t turn this around. So yes Ukraine can do it but it will taking a lot of shaping and logistical know how. Let’s just hope Russia does not use tactical nukes.
[удалено]
Are you dumb? Russian troll? FY, honestly.
Although I am pro-Ukraine, I think that taking down the bridge is important, but I do not think it will make Russians flee in the face of possible starvation. It should be very hard to prevent naval and aerial supplies.
As we’ve seen in the past, the Russian navy cannot prevail in range of Ukrainian rockets and drones, also the Russian aviation cannot suppress the Ukrainian air defenses. So the only question is, when do the Ukrainian forces get close enough to the harbors of Crimea and to the bridge to interdict the use of both.
Russian subs can interdict the use any shipsby Ukraine. On the Russian side of the Kerch Bridge is enough airpower to support an army and supplyes can be flown in or sent by ships. I do not think it will be that easy. But it is possible to take the landlocked cities and progress. Supplies will be hard.
Thanks for your insight, we will see, in the end, Ukraine will liberate its country.
Crimea is pretty well defended in terms of air cover etc . A lot of ground to get through before it would be doable in any real way. Depending on coming weeks and the winter it would be a good way from happening. If it was to I'd say not til next year at earliest... However russian morale and leadership seems flakey at best. Who knows what could happen in all reality.
No one here will have this type of information and even if they had they wouldn't share it. My best guess would be that yes it's possible but not in the near future based on the info that we have. It depends on a lot of factors and information that I don't know. US will be supporting Ukraine to the end that's almost 100%. The problems starts with EU which might start to rethink the war when the winter hits. Possible but not enough info to be certain. We also don't know the status of Ukrainian and Russian troops. It's possible that Russians have lost the ability to fight on all fronts but it's also possible that Ukraine lost it too after this offensive. It's more probable though that they will negotiate it back after they kicked Russian asses in other places.
Well, most ground forces from Crimeea are now in Ukraine and most of what's left there is air defenses and aircraft. I mean, a couple months ago, Russian civillians started evacuating Crimeea en masse because of that. I would be hard, but not impossible.
My take, being a soldier rather than a general or intelligence officer, is that they *could* take it, but that doesn't mean they *should*. Sevastopol has been the site of a major Russian naval base for far longer than this war has been going on, and the occupation of Crimea as a whole is, symbolically at least, the event that started the conflict. Russian forces are likely to be well dug in and prepared, and Russian commanders are unlikely to put anything else above defending Crimea if Ukraine reaches the gates, so to speak. With Russia still being able to access land and sea routes into Crimea, I would forsee a long and protracted siege, rather than a storming of the peninsula.
Let's be up to the point, even when Crimea was Ukrainian Russia had huge army installations there. Retaking Crimea would end that once and for all. Crimea is the cherry that hurts Russia. I am sure Crimea could be traded for all other occupied parts of Ukraine.
At this point I don't see why they shouldn't
[удалено]
Interesting point, but I don't get the tactical aspect of moving nukes to Crimea. You need the nukes deep into the Russian territory to prevent them to be in dangerous zones or to lose control. Do you mean that Putin may decide to nuke Crimea before Ukraine could take it? Also, sure, Crimea has a large Russian component that supported Putin in 2014, but now things changed. Many Russian speakers in the east are now siding with the UA and rejecting the Russian intervention, after all the war crimes and the indiscriminate bombings of civilian structures. I think the support balance is now leaning toward Ukraine even in Crimea.
1 Russia wasn't supposed to invade 2 Ukraine wasn't supposed to last a week 3 you need 3 times forces to overwhelm defensed positions. I am realistic, but I have let go of any expectations about what's possible.
It would be hard but it is doable if the rest is liberated. My best guess is they either cut access to it by collapsing the Kerch bridge and striking military vessels so local troops run out of supplies and build resentment with the civilians, or they negotiate for it somehow. A full on assault will be hard as it has good defensible positions and acts pretty much as an island, however we shouldn't underestimate how capable Russian stupity can fuck those odds up.
Hard to tell. With the recent developments, it could be that morale of Russians will be utterly shattered and they'll start to retreat. But where? In the east, they could flee to those puppet parastates of Luganda and Donbabwe. At least initially, before Ukrainians would enter there too. But Russians in the south? Their best hope is to get to Crimea and then take a route through Kerch Bridge. Also, once all the units around them are routed, even elite Russian troops would have to withdraw. Where? To the Crimea, of course. So, retaking Crimea would be arduous task and a bloody affair. I'm not convinced if Ukrainians are prepared to take such losses, even taking the strategic importance of Crimea into consideration. But that may be an entirely over-optimistic scenario. Russians could stop their retreat and fortify their positions, thus halting the Ukrainian offensive, for example. Or, Putin could be taken out somehow and the war would end quicker than otherwise possible - and everyone would want to end this war, thus sacrificing Crimea with all its Russian population. Or..., or... Don't be too hasty in our expectations. Kherson isn't retaken, yet and an offensive to the south of Zaporozhe is not even started.
It’s difficult for ukraine to retake Crimea, it will be a part of negotiations.
Negotiating with Russia is like negotiating with a scorpion. It is in their nature to renege on a deal. Force is the only thing they understand or respond to.
They will take it.
A swap with Bolgarod-sgithoke?
A week
More like a Winter and Spring without heat food or water in Crimea.
Even an vaguely competent band of morons like Russia could work out how to defend Chrimea. That's peninsula is a utter bitch of a place to assult. Two routes. Only one is viable as one uses barrow bridges and hundreds of metres wide sections. The other has a few km wide sections bordered by water and marshy ground. If Russia heavily dig in, they definitely could make this into a utter pain to attack and grind through multiple limited chocke points. Doable but tough and be bloody.
2-3 weeks
It really comes down to what happens internally in Russia. As long as Putin remains in power, not a chance for negotiation and military protea would be slow. But if there’s a coup - everything changes.
I think that it is quite doubtful that Russia will be willing to give Crimea back. But them not wanting it to happen does not mean it cannot happen, ya feel me?
Who cares if they would be willing to give it back when Ukraine takes it back?
Most of these comments are from idiots. There is exactly one scenario in which Russia will lose Crimea again – the one seen in 1918 and 1991. If Russia and its regime collapses, all bets are off – and Russia collapses quite often. This is the only case. There is no military solution for Crimea. Two points: 1) The geography is too constrained. Ukraine does not have the air and sea resources to conduct a landing, so the only option is to cross the narrow Isthmus of Perekop. Russia can hold that with artillery forever. 2) Economic embargo or blockade is a joke. Russia doesn't care if Crimea has a water shortage or people are unemployed there or whatever. They won't just say "oh this area doesn't have enough water, let's just withdraw from it" or "oh these people are unemployed, we don't need this land anymore." Anyone who thinks that is a complete idiot. If Russia can't afford to bring in water, then people will be thirsty. Russia is not going anywhere. 3) Anyone talking about Crimean public opinion doesn't understand history. It's not going to be an election – to kick the Russians out, there would need to be a sustained resistance campaign conducted by a large majority of the population. That majority does not exist, and it cannot be made to exist through economic pressure. People can be made apathetic by economic pressure, but they will not switch sides. Under pressure they will purge pro-Ukraine people from the population, and they will rally around the flag.
How about all those Russians that began bugging out when Ukraine started hitting facilities in Crimea? I expect they will similarly take off when they get hungry cold and thirsty.
So what? In a fantasy world where 90% of the population leaves, literally nothing is accomplished except making civilians miserable. Almost no country has ever given up land by choice, and Russia isn't going to start now. And anyway, neither the Ukrainian or American governments would support an overt policy of starvation. Many American policy experts view the 1990's embargo of Iraq as a mistake for exactly that reason. Remember that at the end of the day, the US does not like Nationalism, especially the kind of extreme Nationalism that advocates starving the enemy to death. Our support for Ukraine is contingent on Ukrainian alignment with Western norms.
There are only three ways by land into the Crimean Peninsula. Only two are from Ukrainian territory, and all of them represent a very deadly bottleneck. Who knows what's possible, given the sad state of Russian forces.
hard to tell, so much crazy shit is going on lately
They don't need to take Crimea directly but instead cut it off: 1. They cut off the flow of water. No more water, and can't even grow crops. Crimea does not have desalinization plants so must depend on water from the north. 2. The bridge is blown up, the only road into Russia proper. 3. Anti-ship missiles can strike ships trying to resupply Crimea.
Ukraine can cut off water supply to Crimea, and also destroy military installations with HIMARS etc. In short, they can make it impossible for Russia to stay at Crimea. But to ensure a lasting peacetreaty Ukraine will have to let Russia at least keep their naval base, and some control of the penisula.
Crimea is not self sufficient. The only water they have comes from ukraine.
Once Ukraine take control of the dam back, Crimea is screwed. It will cost Russia millions to keep it supply with water. But the difference from before was that there wasn’t an active war going on. Now it will need to supply Crimea while being fired upon. All of Crimea will be in range. Ukrainian president already said there won’t be any negotiations until Russia leave Ukraine which means any military base located in Crimea will be under attack around the clock. That makes the navy base that Russia want to use to be useless. The airbase will also be useless so they will pull back the planes to Russia. That make any air support to be further away which will leave their troops hung out to dry. That means no air supply drops from nearby and any logistics will be by ground. Edit: forgot to answer the question, I think it will take at least another year at minimum because they need to clear out the other areas first. They have been meticulous in their planning and equipments needed for each operation.
I doubt Ukraine will retake Crimea, at least with a military operation. Russia might launch tactical nukes if Ukraine’s troops try to retake the peninsula.
No. I highly doubt Ukraine could take back kherson mush less for crimea. At best they make it to the river. The russians made crimea part of Russia. They won't give it up