"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (9 Viewers)

[GTX]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG93gJ7rlpI

 

[MiTasol]

Russians support for their forces in Crimea two years ago would have been very difficult because the bridge was virtually the only rapid supply route.

Now it is just one of many so the Russians can get manpower or supplies from via routes.

For Ukraine it means they must now destroy multiple supply lines which makes retaking Crimea a far far harder proposition than it would have been if the west had given Ukraine what it needed two years ago.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Russians support for their forces in Crimea two years ago would have been very difficult because the bridge was virtually the only rapid supply route. For Ukraine it means they must now destroy multiple supply lines which makes retaking Crimea a far far harder proposition than it would have been if the west had given Ukraine what it needed two years ago.

I honestly think Crimea is forever lost to Russia, as I don't see Ukraine having sufficient manpower, resources or Allied support into 2028 or 2030, when POTUS 48 is in the WH and the last of the Cold War Boomers are gone. Sometimes life isn't fair and you have to accept circumstances as they are, rather than what you wish they were. This is akin to how Germany lost East Prussia to Poland and Russia, Denmark lost Southern Schleswig to Germany, how Mexico lost a huge chunk to the USA, and just look how much territory China has lost to Russia.

Looking at the map below and given its manpower and reliance on foreign interest and aid, I suggest that Ukraine would be fortunate if they managed to retake all of the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Oblasts by 2028. But Crimea and the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts are most likely gone forever.

I would not be surprised if by the mid-2030s the West recognized Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk as Russian (or as "independent" DPRs) in a negotiated peace with Putin's successor, as some sort of modern-day Western betrayal, especially if Putin's successor makes any indications of turning away from authoritarianism and expansionism. Anything to get trade and business back up.

 

[SaparotRob]

Retaking Crimea might be "easier" than regaining the occupied Luhansk, Donetsk and Zapporizhzia territory taken by Russia. I look at a map and although the Dnipro has to be crossed, there's less enemy territory to fight through. Russian logistics are a nightmare even with the new rail connection. Crimea is a peninsula and can be blockaded. Ukraine wouldn't be fighting a decade or so of entrenchments. It must be less pleasant under Russian occupation than Tass might have us believe.
Maybe we should include some CH-47's in an upcoming package?

 

[Greg Boeser]

I honestly think Crimea is forever lost to Russia, as I don't see Ukraine having sufficient manpower, resources or Allied support into 2028 or 2030, when POTUS 48 is in the WH and the last of the Cold War Boomers are gone. Sometimes life isn't fair and you have to accept circumstances as they are, rather than what you wish they were. This is akin to how Germany lost East Prussia to Poland and Russia, Denmark lost Southern Schleswig to Germany, how Mexico lost a huge chunk to the USA, and just look how much territory China has lost to Russia.

Looking at the map below and given its manpower and reliance on foreign interest and aid, I suggest that Ukraine would be fortunate if they managed to retake all of the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Oblasts by 2028. But Crimea and the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts are most likely gone forever.

View attachment 777833

I would not be surprised if by the mid-2030s the West recognized Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk as Russian (or as "independent" DPRs) in a negotiated peace with Putin's successor, as some sort of modern-day Western betrayal. Especially if Russia makes any indications of turning away from authoritarianism and expansionism. Anything to get trade and business back up.

There is nothing less permanent than a national border in Europe.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Russians support for their forces in Crimea two years ago would have been very difficult because the bridge was virtually the only rapid supply route.

Now it is just one of many so the Russians can get manpower or supplies from via routes.

For Ukraine it means they must now destroy multiple supply lines which makes retaking Crimea a far far harder proposition than it would have been if the west had given Ukraine what it needed two years ago.

A properly-placed and -supported offensive can reduce Russian supply-lines down to the Crimea from the landward side. Coordinate the ground offensive and the air/missile interdiction of the bridge and this could change the picture. It would all have to be combined-arms ops and scheduled alongside each other. But I think it's doable if the Ukrainians are willing and able to concentrate the forces needed.

 

[GrauGeist]

Russia will not last as a military power if this war drags on for a few more years.

Ukraine is bleeding them hard and they are having replenishment issues. Their economy cannot sustain the losses and the Russian public is becoming more restless.
Even the "Free Russian" militias supporting Ukraine are growing in numbers.

 

[MiTasol]

A properly-placed and -supported offensive can reduce Russian supply-lines down to the Crimea from the landward side. Coordinate the ground offensive and the air/missile interdiction of the bridge and this could change the picture. It would all have to be combined-arms ops and scheduled alongside each other. But I think it's doable if the Ukrainians are willing and able to concentrate the forces needed.

I do not disagree but what I am saying is that where two years ago there was only one target to kill the Russian supply lines into Crimea there are now multiple routes and worse still a road or rail connection can be repaired within days, sometimes hours, whereas the bridge would take weeks at best, and more like months, to repair. You can gaurantee that the Russians have stockpiled their version of a Bailey bridge close to all river crossings on the roads and rail lines and have a rapid deployment team handy. It only needs one or two trained people to supervise installing such a bridge and a chopper can deliver those people quickly to any location and use untrained staff for the job.

This makes the Ukrainian's task massively more difficult to attain and means daily attacks on the rail and road networks to restrict the volume of traffic they can handle.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Russia Now Firing Kh-101 Cruise Missiles Modified With Two Warheads At Ukraine

The modification likely halves the range of the missile, but a separate fragmentation warhead makes it considerably more lethal.

www.twz.com

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

This makes the Ukrainian's task massively more difficult to attain and means daily attacks on the rail and road networks to restrict the volume of traffic they can handle.

This is why I think a ground offensive driving south would have to be an integral part of an attack deploying air assets as well -- and really it would have to be a big ground offensive supported by air, imo.

I think the objective of slicing off Crimea is worth it, to the point that only maintaining holding actions to the northwest would be winnable. Once Russia loses Crimea, that really undercuts their war aims.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Russia will not last as a military power if this war drags on for a few more years.

You think so? In over two years of fighting Russia's total total killed (est. 150k) are less than a bad month in the 47 months (8.7 mil soldiers KIA) the USSR fought in WW2.

 

[Denniss]

They have a lot less russians willing to fight than in WW2, thats why they used that many prisoners. Remember how many russians fled their country after the first mobilization law was announced.