Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MrFancyPanzer t1_ixx4dj7 wrote

Reply to comment by flaccidcolon in Zelensky and the Prime Minister of Belgium sign declaration of support for Ukraine’s membership to the EU and NATO by TheRealMykola

Considering Crimea will probably be occupied for the foreseeable future i think the NATO membership think will probably be used as a bargaining chip in peace talks.

−19

xanderman524 t1_ixxc09y wrote

If by "foreseeable future" you mean next few months until it becomes impossible to resupply due to Ukrainian advances cutting off all supply routes and/or Ukraine just retaking it manually, then yes.

If you instead mean that Russia is going to keep control of it, then you should go back to whichever hole you've not been paying attention from for the past several months.

8

MrFancyPanzer t1_ixxchwg wrote

Even military experts think trying to take Crimea would stretch them too thin. I wish they could take all their land back, but the direction of the war is far from determined.

5

hipery2 t1_ixz727r wrote

Which military experts claim that?

Because from my non military expert point of view, Ukraine is one city away from signing Crimea.

3

xanderman524 t1_ixxe314 wrote

I mean, Ukraine has done nothing but advance and successfully defend from counter-attacks on all fronts, and already advanced to where the land routes to Crimea are under threat. They also hit the bridge, which though repaired, is still unusable by large trucks and trains due to structural damage. They did the same thing to the Russians at Kherson: made it impossible to maintain those positions and wait for the withdrawal. I see no reason why it couldn't happen again. And if the reason is "because nukes" then why, when Russia suffered previous major defeats, weren't they used already? Standard Russian doctrine at their wargames concludes with using a nuke to force negotiations. They would've used one by now if they were ever going to. They won't. They posture and brag and threaten but they're losing and can't do anything about it. Even if they use a nuke, Ukraine won't give in. Russia won't deplete their functional missiles over Ukraine. Ukraine surrendering means deaths for millions of innocents, as per the mass murders found everywhere the Russians have been, and a signal to every tin-pot tyrant that having or using nukes gets you a free-pass to conquer and pillage as you please. Ukraine can't give in, so Russia can't win.

1

orangejuicecake t1_ixxwx08 wrote

ukraine still needs to reclaim 42% of the land russia took over since the invasion (including crimea). Its still a tall order that might take another year or even more especially with the upcoming winter and damaged electrical grid

6

xanderman524 t1_ixy3huw wrote

With the upcoming winter, Conscript Ivan Notgayovich, currently VDV Sergeant previously double life without parole in Siberia for cannibalism, with his blue tarp tied to a tree that he shares with a dozen other conscripts, is going to die of hypothermia clutching the rusty AKM and half magazine he was issued while Ukraine, equipped with actual winter equipment, will make short work of the invaders. Or have you forgotten how winter benefits the country with intact logistics and stable equipment acquisitions, generally the defender?

4

orangejuicecake t1_ixy49wk wrote

historically russia was the defender benefitting from winters because advancing into the tundra wasn’t a good idea…

1

xanderman524 t1_ixy5rxs wrote

Russia is the attacker with the non-existent supply lines in Ukraine. The whole "winter" thing is the deaths of thousands of conscripts.

9

NockerJoe t1_ixxmcnm wrote

I think they'll have what it takes. There are Ukraining pilots who've been training for the f16 for a while, and about 10,000 Ukrainians are graduating from training as fresh troops in the UK fully equipped each month, and thats just the U.K. and not any other countries.

Ukraine is in a position where the numver of trained troops they're gaining is fsr exceeding their losses, and Russia is losing hundreds a day, every day, and is increasingly poorly armed.

We're in a position where as time goes on Ukraine is becoming increasingly more powerful and Russia increasingly weaker. They're also in this position explicitly because Russia broke all of its promises for peace prior to this and no new promises can br trusted.

Fighting Russia in Crimea would be hard, bloody, and costly, but Russia has essentially forced a situation where Ukraine has no real other option, and is also being armed well enough and fast enough that this time next year they'll have an army capable of actually doing it.

6

pedrohpauloh t1_ixyhyx8 wrote

Russia is getting weaker. Ukraine stronger. That's a problem Russia might use weapons mass destruction. So far it has not used nukes but it has escalated conflict targeting power grid, something it had not done untill now. So more surprises might be in store. Ukraine in in holy war. Very bad. They seem to be ready to sacrifice half population to have some hundreds of kilometers of land back. Ridiculous

−7

Alexander_Granite t1_iy04y5c wrote

Idk. Russia isn’t doing very well right now and Ukraine its in the stronger position. Finland and Sweden are in the process of joining NATO and Russia is going to have to finance a 800 KM border with a NATO county at the same time it fights a war in Ukraine. Also, Russian oil sanctions and price caps will start soon.

Soon the people of Russia will need to suffer more for Moscow

1