"Crimea Under Threat from Ukraine?" Topic

I admit to not being up on the current news in Ukraine due to a variety of issues – poor coverage by the various news channels, working too much, etc.

However, I seem to recall a headline from a week or two ago mentioning that Ukraine might be attacking or threatening Russian forces in Crimea as well.

Have there been any moves to retake the region from the Russians, and if so, does it appear they are being successful?

Would love to know more about that, and to see the Russians thrown out of Crimea totally too.

I suspect Putin will have his troops fight tooth and nail to try to protect the gains there, but given their poor morale and training, perhaps it is now ripe for the picking by Ukrainian forces.

Would love to know more about that, and/or to be pointed to any links with good intel and battle reports on Ukrainian counterattacks in Crimea and their eastern provinces.

The front lines are still quite a distance north of Crimea. These two sites have fairly accurate information about the war in Ukraine

facebook.com/zedwardson

medium.com/@x_TomCooper_x

From what I understand, Kherson area is under threat of collapse. Recently a Russian general frankly said the situation there is grave, & may be setting up the Russian public to accept a general withdraw from the Kherson region.

The situation is that Ukraine has interdicted most of the bridges over the river seperating Kherson region, the troops there are essentially trapped, supply points subject to bombardment, etc. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces are making gains in the north, possibly with the aim at enveloping Russian forces.

If Kherson falls, this will have negative consequences for Crimea; back in Soviet times a canal was built in the area, to bring water to Crimea (which has few sources of fresh water). If Ukraine can capture Kherson, they can shut down the canal, denying Crimea water. With the damage to the Kerch bridge, this puts even more pressure on the logistics line in Crimea, since the Russians not only need to support their troops, but the civilian population now, with fresh water. That will put them in a difficult situation.

Capture of Kherson will also bring HIMARS & other weapon systems closer to important targets in Crimea, & allow Ukrainian forces to further threaten Russian naval assets with anti-ship coastal missiles, possibly shutting down Sevastopol as a military port (the Russians already evacuated their submarine force to other Black Sea ports).

Damon.

Thanks williamb!

Good eval Garand…

From what I understand, Zelinsky wants to take back the Crimea. With the current state of the Russian military … he may just be able to do it … If you're going to do it … do it now.

I fully & whole-heartedly support Ukraine in taking back Crimea. I also think "The West" should call Putin's bluff & supply ATACMs missiles, closely curated by the US, to be used to bombard strategic targets like the Kerch Bridge (drop the other span, interdict the pontoon bridge, etc), targets of military significance in Crimea, etc. Ukraine has already offered to allow the US "veto power" in how these missiles are to be used.

I have also made it clear in the past that bowing down to Putin's nuclear blackmail is dangerous, & will have negative consequences down the road, when dealing with states like N Korea or Iran. And I think the curernt president has done a good job with making it clear to Putin that nuclear blackmail has severely negative consequences (regardless of what you think of the man).

So yes, I think Ukraine has a decent chance of taking back Crimea.

Damon.

"the curernt president has done a good job with making it clear to Putin that nuclear blackmail has severely negative consequences"

Putin is shaking in his boots, I'm sure….

Optimists like Ben Hodges claim, Crimea will be liberated next summer and Putin's regime will collapse [0]; more pessimists like Mark Galeotti and others assume a protracted war of attrition, the outcome highly dependent on Western support for Ukraine.[1]
Not the least financially I assume.
And since Western support overwhelmingly means U.S. support and your midterms are loomin it may depend on that, among other things,or as Kevin McCarthy puts it on Punchball News:
"I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they're not going to write a blank check to Ukraine." [2]
So stay tuned, the game is not over yet.

Sorry for the politics, but no money no war.

[0] English summary of an interview with Ben Hodges by the FAZ, a leading German daily newspaper.
[1] Summary of a roundtable: Alternative Ukrainian Future Trajectories: Implications for Russia and the West – On Mark Galeotti's blog
[2] Kevin McCarthy about financing Ukraine on Punchball News.

If Russian "evacuates" the civilian population of Kherson, which the collaborationist government has suggested, I expect that they will be used as human shields on barges carrying military equipment and troops. That will allow the Russians to get much, most, or almost all of their heavy equipment out of Kherson.

Its OK saying no money no war but that applies to Russia 5 times over. The West would find it cheaper than having to invest so much in their own army.

Remember Russia has no bigger GDP than Britain so just a fraction of the Wests defense budget will out spend Russia long term.
Both the West and Russia are spending at a rate that is unsupportable long term but long term the Wests minimum spend is more affordably than a Russian spend. After all they have to pay western prices or more for western kit which they have to have to make almost anything actually work. Troops with bows and arrows are not going to do much harm.

Plus longer term Europe will not be buying Russian raw materials so they are in real financial trouble. They can sell to China but that's the same strategy that got Germany into such trouble. What can Russia sell to a green economy that won't need so much gas or oil which is what Russia rely's on? I tried to work out what we buy in Russian manufactured goods. Most vodka is made in the UK for UK consumption, Russian cars are no longer even acceptable so any ideas?

Russian brides?

+1 emckinney – That was my thoughts too.
I also wonder how many civilian evacuations are voluntary.

link

"Evacuation" in Kherson.

People have been under Russian occupation for many months.

Now Russia is trying to make locals panic, frightening them with the offensive of Ukrainian Army. They are trying to cover up self-evacuation – fleeing of "administration" and collaborants.

The video is … interesting.

link

RU is sending messages to Kherson residents about supposed Ukraine 🇺🇦 attacks against "residential buildings & civilian infrastructure…We are asking all locals quickly to leave the city….starting 7am buses will leave from Riverport in Kherson to move people to the left bank"

Meanwhile, Russia's moment of decision lies in early November:

"I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they're not going to write a blank check to Ukraine," McCarthy responded when asked about Ukraine's fortunes under a Republican-held Congress. "It's not a free blank check."

If the Russians are evac'ing the Crimean civilians, etc. That is not a good sign for Putin et al. But a positive event for the Ukraine. I think the Ukraine may take the Crimea back …

The West would find it cheaper than having to invest so much in their own army.

Not to be misunderstood.
I do not question the extraordinary achievements of the Ukrainian people, nor do I doubt the determination of the West, especially the United States, to continue to help Ukraine.

Thresher01 asked, I tried to give some different perspectives I find interesting and/or important.
I think on the internet it's best to just give your point of view and leave it up to the audience to decide what they think is worth considering.

Regarding money and war, Marcus Tullius Cicero is reported to have said or written:
"The sinews of war are infinite money."
And Duke Wellington used to say, "Hard pounding this, gentlemen; let's see who will pound longest."

From what I understand, Kherson area is under threat of collapse

My understanding is that this would be at best the part of Kherson region that is on the western side of the Dnipro river (though it contains the important town of Kherson).

From Dnipro river, there is still quite some distance to the borders of Crimean region. Even if the Ukrainians manage to capture that area (and that might not happen quickly), they might want to focus on liberating some other bits of the country first before moving towards Crimea.

Geographically, Crimean peninsula would be a bit different area from the rest of the country. There is a rather narrow isthmus connecting it to mainland Ukraine – thus forming a rather short defensive line that cannot be easily outflanked by land (no idea how prepared Ukrainians would be to carry out amphibious landings). On the other hand, if the northern land routes are blocked, Russia would have to supply it over the Kerch straits, by the bridge (damaged but expected to be repaired before next July) and ferries. That said, there are a number of military bases (most famously the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol) and military depots in the region already.

If the Russians are evac'ing the Crimean civilians, etc.

I haven't heard of any news of evacuations from Crimea.

And the Ukrainian military is too far to target military resources in Crimea with conventional means. However, in the past months there have been a number of incidents in Russian military depots and bases there, officially attributed to people "smoking in the wrong places".

To correct myself: the Crimean isthmus is actually quite wide (80 km?), so forming a strong defensive line across it would require a fair amount of forces. But if the Russian military is going to seriously defend their hold in Crimea, this would be a logical location.

Again, I just don't think the Russians have the assets or capabilities to defend the Crimea. At this time …

The Perekop Isthmus ranges from 8 – 15 km wide, not 80 km.

Ooopsie, I should have checked a more detailed map than the first one I had at hand. Indeed, the actual isthmus is quite narrow, and thus could make for a quite defensible position with sufficient concentrated firepower.

To the east of the isthmus there is quite a long stretch of coastline, where there is a relatively short distance to cross from Ukrainian mainland to Crimea. Covering that coastline would tie quite some resources, though if the Ukrainians would try crossing from there they would be limited to relatively small watercraft or amphibious AFVs – possibly good for small raids, but difficult to maintain a large scale invasion in that fashion.

As for airborne invasion, my impression is that the Ukrainian air transport capacity at the moment is rather limited, and Russians might have some air defense assets around that might make it a risky proposition.

As for the Russian manpower, they are soon supposed to have mobilised 300 000 men from across the country. While they appear to be of variable quality, they could perhaps be counted able to hold defensive static positions across northern Crimea – provided that they would be first properly trained, equipped, led, motivated and supplied! However, the current "plan" seems to be instead to send them as under-trained, under-equipped and unmotivated reinforcements to the front line meatgrinder.

I still think the Ukraine can do it …

Thanks for the replies.

Tonight on the nightly news some seem to think the Ukrainians ARE driving south to try to cut off, and/or retake Crimea, which is good news. Looks like a thrust from the NW to the SE, across the landbridge there.

It will be interesting to see if this occurs, how, or if Putin responds.

The Ukraine has out soldiered, planned, operated etc. from the beginning. For all the reasons we have discussed before. The Ukraine should do all it can with US/NATO support to take back the Crimea and the Donbas, etc.

Generally, the Russians can do little but attempt to hold what they have. But as we see with their attrited and weakened forces, they are behind way the power curve. Putin et al know they are losing. And he must know using tac nukes will only make his situation worse.

Well, Germans / Romanians eventually managed to take Crimea in 41/42 but it took 8 months and was very bloody.

That is a narrow front and Ukraine has little option except to blast defenders to pieces. Russia still has some Naval and amphibious capability… more than Ukraine, anyway.

Due to the long established Black Sea Fleet presence… with settlement, marriages, etc. and also 'tourism' and retirement… I think the civilian situation could be 'complicated'.

The Russians there today are nowhere as strong as they were in the Crimea in WWII. Their entire Army is not up to the task, IMO …

russians are on point of withdrawing from kherson?
as said above putting crimea in ukrainians sights
so whats so special about bakhmut that the russians are more inclined to defend it rather than defend kherson/crimea?

The Russians aren't trying to defend Bakhmut, they are stubbornly still trying to take it. It was on the path of the southern pincer movement, the northern pincer was from Izyum – as this is no longer held by Russia, having half a pincer is worthless.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

russians are on point of withdrawing from kherson?

They are perhaps withdrawing from the part of Kherson region that is to the west of Dnipro river.

This would still leave the river and a fair bit of Kherson region between the Ukrainian military and the borders of Crimea.