Russia invades Ukraine

[DustyBin]

So much wishful

So much wishful thinking!! Russia has almost eliminated Ukraine's power systems and rail routes, which carried so much kit to reinforce Ukraine's defences in certain places. Russia has transferred 300,000 soldiers (their figure) to the other bank of the river from Kherson and the surrounding area, conscripts though many will be. Some think that figure is underestimated by perhaps as much as 200,000. Putin and his crowd, many of whom are probably even more barbarous and nationalistic than he is, won't be losing any sleep about this potential cannonfodder. They see 'the West' will never truly fight them until Russia has done the 'unspeakable' and exploded a nuclear device. Zelensky, poor man and no fool, I'm sure realises now that so much Western rhetoric was just that: no wonder he's not convinced that the missile killings in Poland weren't deliberate, even though they probably weren't. The American population, no doubt stirred up by Republicans of all types, are becoming increasingly unlikely to support Biden's apparently genuine efforts to provide succour to the Ukrainians and, like with Aghanistan, the benighted, heroic population will be largely left to their misery by the West's effective withdrawal.

I can’t decide if this post is intended to be pro-Russian or simply defeatist?

I’m not sure where you got those Russian troop numbers from incidentally, but you need to take a zero off the end!

 

[Cloud Strife]

I’m not sure where you got those Russian troop numbers from incidentally, but you need to take a zero off the end!

He's quoting Russian figures, which are mostly made up nonsense. Keeping half a million supplied would be nearly impossible without Russia operating a war economy. It's more likely to be around 50,000 at most, with (at most) the same again in the so-called "LDPR".

 

[DustyBin]

He's quoting Russian figures, which are mostly made up nonsense. Keeping half a million supplied would be nearly impossible without Russia operating a war economy. It's more likely to be around 50,000 at most, with (at most) the same again in the so-called "LDPR".

Those figures are ridiculous even by Russian standards!

Most reports state that they evacuated 20-30k from Kherson, which sounds feasible.

 

[brad465]

Suggestions/reports that some evacuations in northern Crimea have begun, along with trench digging.

 

[DC1989]

There is some chatter that Ukraine's military is looking to go towards Crimea first rather than last, to ensure that Crimea can't be then negotiated away

 

[Annetts key]

There is some chatter that Ukraine's military is looking to go towards Crimea first rather than last, to ensure that Crimea can't be then negotiated away

I think the idea is to try to cut off Crimea from military supplies as much as possible, thus causing the Russian military similar problems to what they faced in the Kherson area on the north west side of the river.

If the Ukrainian forces can severely limit Russian logistics and supplies to Crimea, the Russians will have some hard choices ahead.

The big factors being, can the Ukrainians further damage the Crimea/Kerch Strait bridge and limit or prevent it being used for Russian supplies. Can Ukraine block land access from the mainland. And can Ukraine make it too risky for Russia to use ships to supply Crimea, at least on the western side.

 

[Killingworth]

I think the idea is to try to cut off Crimea from military supplies as much as possible, thus causing the Russian military similar problems to what they faced in the Kherson area on the north west side of the river.

If the Ukrainian forces can severely limit Russian logistics and supplies to Crimea, the Russians will have some hard choices ahead.

The big factors being, can the Ukrainians further damage the Crimea/Kerch Strait bridge and limit or prevent it being used for Russian supplies. Can Ukraine block land access from the mainland. And can Ukraine make it too risky for Russia to use ships to supply Crimea, at least on the western side.

However, unpalatable though it is, Russians fight very dirty, as those who experienced their advances in WW2 can attest.

Russia is determined to hang onto Crimea and the parts of the Donbas it holds. Their attacks on infrastructure demonstrate the direction they'll be going to weaken Ukrainian resilience. Ukraine is in for a very cold and hard winter as the trapped Russian animal writhes and lashes out where it can hurt most. If Putin's regime collapses his successors may have less control than he has!

We must all hope there's still someone sane in Moscow to get Russia out of this mess as well as Ukraine.

 

[Russel]

It certainly makes me wonder how much the Ukrainians will take before they start demanding Zelensky negotiates an end to this.

 

[brad465]

It certainly makes me wonder how much the Ukrainians will take before they start demanding Zelensky negotiates an end to this.

I think they can take a lot more before that happens, given recent liberations. Maybe if things start to stall they'll change.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It certainly makes me wonder how much the Ukrainians will take before they start demanding Zelensky negotiates an end to this.

I'm sure that most Ukrainians are well aware that, no matter what they might give the Russians in any negotiated settlement, Putin will be back with his artillery and his troops ready for more territory grabs and more raping and torturing of innocent Ukrainian civilians the moment he feels the Russian military is strong enough. I suspect that knowledge will serve as a strong disincentive to any negotiations that involve surrendering any part of Ukrainian territory - especially while Ukraine is the side that's currently taking territory.

 

[Cloud Strife]

It certainly makes me wonder how much the Ukrainians will take before they start demanding Zelensky negotiates an end to this.

A lot more.

The big factors being, can the Ukrainians further damage the Crimea/Kerch Strait bridge and limit or prevent it being used for Russian supplies. Can Ukraine block land access from the mainland. And can Ukraine make it too risky for Russia to use ships to supply Crimea, at least on the western side.

1) If I were heading up NATO, I would be giving Ukraine the ability to do just that. Take out the Kerch Bridge, and it suddenly becomes very difficult and dangerous to supply Crimea.
2) Difficult to say. Likely no, at least for the time being, although they can make it very difficult.
3) Absolutely yes.

I'm sure that most Ukrainians are well aware that, no matter what they might give the Russians in any negotiated settlement, Putin will be back with his artillery and his troops ready for more territory grabs and more raping and torturing of innocent Ukrainian civilians the moment he feels the Russian military is strong enough.

This is exactly why the only option now is to deal a hammer blow to Russia.

 

[Roast Veg]

The problem also is that "starving Crimea out" is how it affects the people who live there. Ukraine has to be seen to be maintaining something of a moral code to keep the international community on side.

 

[najaB]

The problem also is that "starving Crimea out" is how it affects the people who live there. Ukraine has to be seen to be maintaining something of a moral code to keep the international community on side.

That's true. However, with three (four?) airbases and a substantial naval presence it's difficult to argue that forcing the Russians to abandon the Crimean Peninsular isn't a valid military objective.

 

[gingerheid]

Every single Ukrainian I know is even more fired up against Russia than they've ever been before.

On the other hand a few of the Russians I know are starting to have mild unease and doubts (admittedly I meet people that that travel abroad to learn a language Russia disapproves of, so I know Russians that are likely to be more outward looking than average).

 

[brad465]

But remember, it's Ukraine that needs denazifying apparently:

https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/1595000161922686976

Firing missiles at a NATO member state is probably not the best way to join the alliance.

Tweet contains an image that features a Jewish stereotype.

 

[edwin_m]

The problem also is that "starving Crimea out" is how it affects the people who live there. Ukraine has to be seen to be maintaining something of a moral code to keep the international community on side.

That's true. However, with three (four?) airbases and a substantial naval presence it's difficult to argue that forcing the Russians to abandon the Crimean Peninsular isn't a valid military objective.

Same could have been said of Kherson. The strategy seems to be to choke off the routes for military supplies, then engage in a war of attrition until the Russians run out of them, hopefully before the civilian population runs out of food.

 

[coppercapped]

The problem also is that "starving Crimea out" is how it affects the people who live there. Ukraine has to be seen to be maintaining something of a moral code to keep the international community on side.

Ukraine shaped the battlefield around Kherson by severely reducing the Russian army's ability to fight in that it destroyed command centres, ammunition and fuel dumps, troop concentrations and by making roads and bridges impassible for heavy vehicles. This latter hurt the Russians badly - based on the number of troops reported around Kherson the Russians would have needed many thousands of tonnes of ammunition, fuel and food each day.

Reducing this flow significantly affects an army's ability to fight; specifically it will find it very, very difficult to mount offensive operations.

By destroying aircraft in the Crimean air bases the Russians were forced to move them further away from the front line thus increasing reaction time and and reducing their effectiveness.

There are essentially three land routes into Crimea: one running northwest from Crimea to Kherson, one running north/northeast to Melitopol and the infamous Kerch bridge to the east. The entire length of the road from Kherson to the boundary with Crimea is now under the fire control of HIMARS rockets positioned on the right bank of the Dnipro river and is essentially, for the Russians, useless. That leaves only one road and the now wonky Kerch bridge.

I would suggest that the Crimea is no longer safe from the Ukrainian army and is in military terms indefensible.

None of this involved 'starving' the local population; the 'international community' is well aware of the brutality — there is video evidence of phosphorous weapons being used on the Ukrainians near Bakmut — and lack of honesty of the Russian state. The international community doesn't need Ukraine to be squeaky clean, there's a war on, but I agree that it helps.

 

[Roast Veg]

Ukraine shaped the battlefield around Kherson by severely reducing the Russian army's ability to fight in that it destroyed command centres, ammunition and fuel dumps, troop concentrations and by making roads and bridges impassible for heavy vehicles. This latter hurt the Russians badly - based on the number of troops reported around Kherson the Russians would have needed many thousands of tonnes of ammunition, fuel and food each day.

Reducing this flow significantly affects an army's ability to fight; specifically it will find it very, very difficult to mount offensive operations.

By destroying aircraft in the Crimean air bases the Russians were forced to move them further away from the front line thus increasing reaction time and and reducing their effectiveness.

There are essentially three land routes into Crimea: one running northwest from Crimea to Kherson, one running north/northeast to Melitopol and the infamous Kerch bridge to the east. The entire length of the road from Kherson to the boundary with Crimea is now under the fire control of HIMARS rockets positioned on the right bank of the Dnipro river and is essentially, for the Russians, useless. That leaves only one road and the now wonky Kerch bridge.

I would suggest that the Crimea is no longer safe from the Ukrainian army and is in military terms indefensible.

None of this involved 'starving' the local population; the 'international community' is well aware of the brutality — there is video evidence of phosphorous weapons being used on the Ukrainians near Bakmut — and lack of honesty of the Russian state. The international community doesn't need Ukraine to be squeaky clean, there's a war on, but I agree that it helps.

Interesting analysis, thanks. I am, as I'm sure many Crimean locals are, concerned about the supply of fresh water to the area.

 

[edwin_m]

Interesting analysis, thanks. I am, as I'm sure many Crimean locals are, concerned about the supply of fresh water to the area.

In case anyone doesn't know, there is a canal from the dammed Dnipro river to Crimea, which would presumably lose supply if the Nova Kakhova dam was destroyed. The Ukrainians blocked it after 2014, so I guess they would do so again if they were able.

 

[Gloster]

The Independent, via my yahoo news feed, is reporting that the Belarusian Foreign Minister, Vladimir Makei, has died suddenly. No reason has, as yet, been given, nor is it known if he was anywhere near a sixth floor window at the time.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In case anyone doesn't know, there is a canal from the dammed Dnipro river to Crimea, which would presumably lose supply if the Nova Kakhova dam was destroyed. The Ukrainians blocked it after 2014, so I guess they would do so again if they were able.

I wonder if, tactically, this would give a motive for Ukraine to continue to supply Crimea with water, even if, after future territorial advances, they become able to block the water supplies: As long as Ukraine is supplying Crimea with water, Russia has a very good reason not to blow up the Nova Kakhova dam. One might even wonder if that's part of the reason Russia apparently made preparations to be able to blow up the dam (but without actually doing so) ?

 

[edwin_m]

I wonder if, tactically, this would give a motive for Ukraine to continue to supply Crimea with water, even if, after future territorial advances, they become able to block the water supplies: As long as Ukraine is supplying Crimea with water, Russia has a very good reason not to blow up the Nova Kakhova dam. One might even wonder if that's part of the reason Russia apparently made preparations to be able to blow up the dam (but without actually doing so) ?

The start of the canal is very near the dam, so if they captured the one they would probably have captured the other too. If there was some flanking operation that intercepted the canal further south, then that would most likely also threaten encirclement of any Russian forces remaining near the dam. So I think if the Ukrainians got control of the canal they would also have control of the dam and be able to defuse whatever explosives were attached to it.

That's if the Russians haven't blown it up first. From their behaviour elsewhere, I doubt they have any consideration for the welfare of those they regard as their own citizens, or indeed their own troops that might be on the low-lying land downstream.

 

[brad465]

Reports of activity in the Zaporizhzia region again, with Russian evacuations from front line settlements. This area has been touted as somewhere Ukraine might advance in order to reach the coast and split the Russian forces.

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1598394248583385095

URGENT: The Russian forces began to withdraw some of their units, as well as to evacuate collaborators from the front-line settlements of the Zaporizhzia region. -General Staff of Ukraine

https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1598432157101334540

Tokmak. Watch Tokmak.

 

[gingerheid]

No surprise, but I like that Russia is willing to negotiate if Ukraine cedes to Russia territory they've never even set their murderous invader feet on...

 

[brad465]

Russia are looking to use "ageing tankers" to try and get around oil sanctions, having amassed them in purchases from countries like Iran, as sanctions bar Western insurers from insuring ships carrying Russian oil, unless under the new price cap scheme. Given both the "ageing" nature, and the lack of insurance in the event of a disaster, this is a recipe for trouble:

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

Russia has quietly amassed a fleet of more than 100 ageing tankers to help circumvent western restrictions on Russian oil sales following its invasion of Ukraine, according to shipping brokers and analysts.

 

[Gloster]

Given both the "ageing" nature, and the lack of insurance in the event of a disaster, this is a recipe for trouble:

I would presume that, as far as they are concerned, as long it is trouble for us, they won’t be that bothered.

 

[Annetts key]

Am I remembering this incorrectly, but don’t most western countries require oil tankers to comply with certain standards. For example, they must be double skinned (the tanks must not comprise of the hull)?

Would this also require that a ship entering their waters must have suitable insurance?

Also, if the ship is owned by Russia, under the sanctions, if such a ship was to enter the territorial waters of a western country, could it be seized as a Russian asset?

Or is this an effort by Russia to continue to trade with other countries where there are no sanctions against Russian oil imports?

 

[najaB]

Or is this an effort by Russia to continue to trade with other countries where there are no sanctions against Russian oil imports?

Correct. This is about selling oil to China, India, et al.

 

[Cloud Strife]

And now talk of Russia leaving Zaporizhzhia NPP. It looks like Russia simply cannot cope with the constI tant bombardment.

On the other hand, I think we can expect an attack from Belarus at some point. Russia is building up forces there, and I increasingly suspect that their plan is either to try and seize territory in Western Ukraine (thus forcing Ukraine into a three-front war), or that they'll try again to attack Kyiv.

I still find it hard to believe that Belarus would enter the war, but perhaps Lukashenko has been told that the choice is to either comply or Russia will simply annex Belarus as a whole.

 

[TheEdge]

On the other hand, I think we can expect an attack from Belarus at some point. Russia is building up forces there, and I increasingly suspect that their plan is either to try and seize territory in Western Ukraine (thus forcing Ukraine into a three-front war), or that they'll try again to attack Kyiv.

Ukraine on the back foot against their properly equipped and trained units, such as the *cough* elite VDV managed to turn them back last time.

Why would they think it would work the second time?