Ah, the Field Marshall Haig school of tactics.It is clear that Russia continues to make small advances, but from what I can gather, they're incurring substantial losses for as little as a couple of hundred meters.
Ah, the Field Marshall Haig school of tactics.It is clear that Russia continues to make small advances, but from what I can gather, they're incurring substantial losses for as little as a couple of hundred meters.
If they think they stand a reasonable chance of reaquiring it then they will go for getting it back. The ultimate victory for Ukraine is to restore itself to its original borders. The last thing anybody wants, though, is for Sevastopol to become the new Mariupol.I still think Ukraine will leave Crimea alone (beyond blowing up the Kerch bridge), as it won't pose any threat to them once Kherson Oblast is taken back under Ukrainian control.
If they think they stand a reasonable chance of reaquiring it then they will go for getting it back. The ultimate victory for Ukraine is to restore itself to its original borders. The last thing anybody wants, though, is for Sevastopol to become the new Mariupol.
If they think they stand a reasonable chance of reaquiring it then they will go for getting it back. The ultimate victory for Ukraine is to restore itself to its original borders. The last thing anybody wants, though, is for Sevastopol to become the new Mariupol.
I don't think it would be in their best interests. Much better long-term to cut Crimea off and leave it as a drain on Russia's finances - get Russia to give it back rather than take it back.If they think they stand a reasonable chance of reaquiring it then they will go for getting it back. The ultimate victory for Ukraine is to restore itself to its original borders. The last thing anybody wants, though, is for Sevastopol to become the new Mariupol.
Go back to 2001 and Putin was at Ground Zero in New York as a welcome guest to pay his respects to the victims of Islamic terrorism. He was also sincere about it. It’s like looking at an alternate universe now.
It can only be a bargaining chip after Donetsk and Luhansk have been ceded - they are a greater priority - but what will Ukraine have that Russia would trade for it? Not demanding reparations?I don't think it would be in their best interests. Much better long-term to cut Crimea off and leave it as a drain on Russia's finances - get Russia to give it back rather than take it back.
Any ideas what the local populace there wants to be? Ukraine or Russia. Because if it's Russia it would be a pointless endeavour.
The Kerch bridge however...
That's exactly the scenario I was pontificating. Make it too expensive for Russia to stay and too embarrassing for them to leave.If the Kerch Bridge goes down and they control the land border, the cost to Russia will be enormous.
Retired colonel speaks out on Russian TV
Mikhail Khodarenok gives a rare insight saying the military operation in Ukraine can only get worse.www.bbc.com
This story is worth a read. To cut it short, a retired Russian colonel went on TV and made it clear that things can only go from bad to worse for Russia.
What should be frightening Russia right now is that Ukraine hasn't even used the capabilities of their reserves due to a lack of equipment. There's a valid point that Russia doesn't have the forces to actually win this war, and they might even end up overwhelmed in the LDPR as Ukraine will have nothing to lose by taking them back into Ukrainian control.
I still think Ukraine will leave Crimea alone (beyond blowing up the Kerch bridge), as it won't pose any threat to them once Kherson Oblast is taken back under Ukrainian control.
I caught this on Twitter this morning where somebody had kindly added English subtitles to the actual debate; it’s quite extraordinary really. You don’t say what he was saying on Russian TV unless you either a) want to jump off a balcony having murdered your entire family with an axe, or b) have been authorised to do so. Presuming it’s the latter, is this Putin’s way of preparing the Russian people for a withdrawal from Ukraine (following a great victory obviously)? It’s maybe just wishful thinking, but I can’t help but get the impression he knows the game is up and it’s now all about how to frame Russia’sdefeatvictory domestically.
It's a "win-win" strategically (though perhaps a bit psychopathic) - they will either come home as heroes or die as martyrs. Neither option plays well for the Russians, at least if they trade them for Russian prisoners they get something out of it.What concerns me is the fate of the Azovstal defenders. Zelensky appears to be taking a huge gamble that they will be treated like normal POWs in Russian custody, although it may be a calculated gamble. If they are known to be mistreated or killed, then the anger among the Ukrainian population will go through the roof: just in time to equip a huge offensive force to wipe out the Russian forces.
It's a "win-win" strategically (though perhaps a bit psychopathic) - they will either come home as heroes or die as martyrs. Neither option plays well for the Russians, at least if they trade them for Russian prisoners they get something out of it.
As well as that if the Russians do kill them then if Russians end up confronted with any other such pockets of resistance you can be sure that the defenders will fight to the last. Possibly even against orders. Why surrender and be executed when you can fight on and at least take some Russians with you? Quite apart from any moral considerations mistreating and executing POWs is always a bad idea as once word gets out that's what waiting for you if you do surrender why would you?It's a "win-win" strategically (though perhaps a bit psychopathic) - they will either come home as heroes or die as martyrs. Neither option plays well for the Russians, at least if they trade them for Russian prisoners they get something out of it.
I'm starting to see a few suggestions of a "Odessa Naval Corridor", to protectships taking Ukrainian grain to the developing world.
Yes. The Montreux Convention bans the passage of ships belonging to the combatting nations in time of war, but places no restrictions on the movements of third-party navies.Is it legally possible to open the Dardanelles/Bosphorus to get any NATO/neutral warships into the Black Sea to police such a corridor, without also allowing more Russian warships in, which could then be used to attack Ukraine/replace the sunken Moskva?
So it doesn't seem that is a show-stopper.In time of war, Turkey not being belligerent, warships shall enjoy complete freedom of transit and navigation through the Straits under the same conditions as those laid down in Article 10 to 18.
Vessels of war belonging to belligerent Powers shall not however, pass through the Straits except in cases arising out of the application of Article 25 of the present Convention, and in cases of assistance rendered to a State victim of aggression in virtue of a treaty of mutual assistance binding-Turkey, concluded within the framework of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and registered and published in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of the covenant.
Actually, it would just need to extend to within Neptune range of Odessa - Moskva was sunk some 50NM off the coast so there would be no need for NATO ships to come any closer than that.Also the naval corridor would presumably have to extend right into the port at Odesa, which then means that ships protecting the corridor are actually in the conflict zone. Given NATO's current aversion to putting any forces in the conflict zone because of the escalation risk, I'm not sure how they'd agree to that here?
In other news, multiple sources are now reporting that there was an assassination attempt on Putin in the early days of the war - Google News link. This is quite significant if true, and even if it isn't the fact that it's being deemed credible says a lot about the magnitude of drop in his perceived strength has been.
There is if you don't just want Russian submarines to have a field day with the merchants.Actually, it would just need to extend to within Neptune range of Odessa - Moskva was sunk some 50NM off the coast so there would be no need for NATO ships to come any closer than that.
I can't imagine that Russian submarines would target and sink third-party merchant ships. That is out and out piracy.We leave those merchant ships 50nm from Odesa and there's plenty of time for a Russian submarine to make hay. They might not actually of course but good luck finding an operator/insurer willing to take that bet.
You willing to risk it though? You willing to risk sending your ship into an active warzone unescorted? Willing to insure a shipowner who wants to and if you are what premium are likely to charge?I can't imagine that Russian submarines would target and sink third-party merchant ships. That is out and out piracy.
I can't imagine that Russian submarines would target and sink third-party merchant ships. That is out and out piracy.
Sinking a merchant ship is how the US entered world war 1.You willing to risk it though? You willing to risk sending your ship into an active warzone unescorted? Willing to insure a shipowner who wants to and if you are what premium are likely to charge?
I'm not sure the Russian's would sink third-party merchant ships (though I certainly wouldn't rule it out). But the threat alone is likely to have a similar effect on shipping.
Yes. But, as you point out, it wasn't (at least officially) a Russian serviceperson who pushed the button. Which is quite different to a torpedo attack, which they would have difficulty denying responsibility for - unless Russia has supplied the LPR or DPR with submarines?The Russians (or at least, their allies in Donbas) already have form for shooting down a passenger airliner, and more recently attacking civilians in Ukraine.
Though that was a US flagged, owned and operated ship. These days the chances are any such being US flagged, owned and operated are slim to none. The US merchant fleet is tiny. You'd be most likely dealing with a Panamanian or Liberian flagged ship, probably owned by a non-US company and probably crewed by non-US citizens.Sinking a merchant ship is how the US entered world war 1.
They'd just flood the zone with BS like they always do. It was a Ukrainian bomb/missile, it was a secret US submarine, etc etc. We all know it would be lies. It wouldn't stop them.Yes. But, as you point out, it wasn't (at least officially) a Russian serviceperson who pushed the button. Which is quite different to a torpedo attack, which they would have difficulty denying responsibility for - unless Russia has supplied the LPR or DPR with submarines?
What if these merchant ships flew the flag of the United Nations?