Take odessa, and ukraine will be a permanently failed state. take eastern bank of the dneiper from kiev and ukraine will be a vengeful, but economically weakened but still viable state, with a new capital, nearby sympathizers states that live to do Russia harm, and patience to wait for the next period of russian weakness.
How will the Ukraine war end?
- Thread starter Abominable
- Start date
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
If Trump wins the next Presidential election, it will be number 7.
Make Ukraine Great Again...as part of Russia.
Many Ukrainians agree with you actually.
Here are some Ukrainian military officers or politicians of Russia:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. , ethnic Ukrainian
8. , ethnic Ukrainian
It is proven that Ukrainians are not discriminated against in Russia and have achieved great success, rising to the highest levels of government and even being entrusted to command the military.
Somewhere between 4 and 5. The frontline/border probably ending up along something like a Dnipro-Kharkov or Kremenchuk-Poltava-Kharkov line. Don't know about Odessa. As it looks now I'd say no, but once the front shortens in the east, that could free up units that could be used for an offensive there.
It's a limited objective war (i.e. 'Special Military Operation') so it's objectives are limited in nature, likely centered around neutrality status (i.e. No NATO), DNR/LNR annexation, and formal Crimean annexation recognition. Kherson/Marioupol are bargaining chips to be traded away during negotiations, there is zero chance with current troop strength to take Odessa.
Furthermore, the declared objectives (i.e., de-militarization and de-nazification) are deliberately vague and broad, so Putin can declare victory at any moment.
I vote #3, but personally prefer Novorussiya Confederation which isn't even listed here.
Furthermore, the declared objectives (i.e., de-militarization and de-nazification) are deliberately vague and broad, so Putin can declare victory at any moment.
I vote #3, but personally prefer Novorussiya Confederation which isn't even listed here.
There's no way Russia is leaving Kherson or especially Mariupol after passing out passports and stacks of rubles there. This is textbook annexation.
Mariupol is also seen by Russia is rightfully part of DPR because it declared independence in 2014 before Ukraine retook it by force.
It is not negotiable, the negotiations will happen if Ukraine drives tanks into it.
Losing Kherson would be a strategic defeat. It’s the most important Russian advance so far. Kherson gone means there’s no more land bridge to Crimea and the Crimean Bridge will be left as the only physical connection.
Many feel that Russia no longer have the ability to take major cities. I disagree. If you look at the speed in which cities are taken. From Mariupol onward, it has been speeding up. Lyman only took a couple of weeks, Severodonetsk only took a few days(if you don't count the counter-attack which is militarily suicidal). Some think that Russia suffered up to 30k losses. I disagree. The most recent fighting has been mainly Russia killing Ukrainians with cannons, then fighting in the city, in which the Ukrainians seems to collapse pretty quickly. There was no storming of buildings. The Russians mainly send in troops as scout, calling out firing positions for their aircrafts and cannons. My guess is 4000 dead and 3x that wounded. Maybe 16K out of action altogether.
After Donbass, Russia will have all of its military at their disposal to take cities. They can take the cities one or two at a time. With their major arm forces gone from Donbass, Ukrainian defense for a given city will be significantly weaker compared to their Russian counterparts. Maybe 3 to 1 advantage. This is something that did not exist in the siege of Mariupol or other cities. Since the Russians are not storming the cities with bodies, but mainly to have people scout out firing positions for their cannons, they don't really need the 3 to 1 advantage. There will be no stopping them if they want to take any city. For this reason I voted for 6. I did not vote for 7 because the cost of holding Western Ukraine is not worth it for the Russians, plus they want to create a place for all those who are anti-Russian to go. It make sense to keep a small region for these people to go to. In the longer run, a landlocked rump of Ukraine cannot support a large population since it lack any industry, so most will chose to migrate to the West. Even if the NATO wanted to organize an army, the five people that are left in that region would pose no danger to the Russian part of Ukraine.
After Donbass, Russia will have all of its military at their disposal to take cities. They can take the cities one or two at a time. With their major arm forces gone from Donbass, Ukrainian defense for a given city will be significantly weaker compared to their Russian counterparts. Maybe 3 to 1 advantage. This is something that did not exist in the siege of Mariupol or other cities. Since the Russians are not storming the cities with bodies, but mainly to have people scout out firing positions for their cannons, they don't really need the 3 to 1 advantage. There will be no stopping them if they want to take any city. For this reason I voted for 6. I did not vote for 7 because the cost of holding Western Ukraine is not worth it for the Russians, plus they want to create a place for all those who are anti-Russian to go. It make sense to keep a small region for these people to go to. In the longer run, a landlocked rump of Ukraine cannot support a large population since it lack any industry, so most will chose to migrate to the West. Even if the NATO wanted to organize an army, the five people that are left in that region would pose no danger to the Russian part of Ukraine.