Jump to content

Ukraine #17: Is There Life on HIMARS?


Werthead

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

I’m curious how much of it is a bargaining position. If Russia agrees to withdraw from Donbas region and recognise Ukraine as independent, no more war - in exchange for Crimea and water access, I suspext Ukraine would be tempted. At the least, refusal to accwpt that offer might cool international support for Ukraine.

I think Russia would have to, at an absolute minimum, withdraw to February 23rd lines. That would create a difficult position with countries like France and Germany being less likely to support Ukraine in trying to reclaim Crimea and the original DPR/LPR borders. Poland, the UK, US and Baltic States would likely continue supporting Ukraine in that ambition, though.

I do think the chances of Russia allowing Crimea to go are essentially zero, and Ukraine knows that and knows its ability to retake Crimea is going to be limited, so by keeping the claim and pressure up, they create a position they can present as a major concession and climbdown in return for Russia giving up territory elsewhere.

I think the Ukrainian government is also aware that the Crimea and DPR/LPR being removed from Ukraine's borders is what allowed a succession of pro-EU governments to come to power. Those areas being restored might tip back in the democratic balance in Ukraine and cause internal problems, so leaving them outside of Ukraine might be politically convenient (even if they have to say they want them back for popular support reasons).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This is reported to be a traffic jam caused by Russians fleeing Crimea.  It’s also the height of tourist season there.  That said explosions at Russian Military bases in Crimea may suggest… it’s time to cut the vacation short:

 

They must certainly fear retribution if Crimea is retaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Partisan activity around Kherson is apparently very high at the moment. The head of the Russian occupation admin for the entirety of Kherson Oblast was poisoned recently.

Russia has established a new ground forces formation, 3 Army Corps, in Nizhny Novgorod. I believe the Ukrainians leaked this information two months ago, at least. This Army Corps has been assigned to bring itself to full strength (15-20,000 troops) from volunteer battalions and then reinforce operations in Ukraine. However, the UK MoD does not believe the corps is capable of doing that and may have to reconstitute troops rotated out of Ukraine. They also have lifted their recruitment age to 50 to try to fill in gaps in the line. This formation is likely not going to be decisive.

Some indications the attack on the Crimea airbase was carried out by Ukraine's brand new Grims-2/Hrim-2 ballistic missile system. This system has been on the drawing board for some years but was not believed to be operational when the war began. The system has a range of almost 300km, putting most of Crimea and almost the Kerch Bridge within range from Ukrainian-held territory. It is believed that the USA has vetoed the use of HIMARS on targets in Crimea, but Ukraine is free to use domestic systems. If Ukraine has deployed this system, it is likely that missiles are in limited supply. It is believed that Russia lost 6 Su-24s and 3 Su-30s in the attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

I think the Ukrainian government is also aware that the Crimea and DPR/LPR being removed from Ukraine's borders is what allowed a succession of pro-EU governments to come to power. Those areas being restored might tip back in the democratic balance in Ukraine and cause internal problems, so leaving them outside of Ukraine might be politically convenient (even if they have to say they want them back for popular support reasons).

It might be politically convenient on some level, but Donbas is the industrial backbone of Ukraine. They can't afford to lose it. Crimea different story, that's more of symbolic value, but Donbas is vital for the country's survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This is interesting:

I think bombing the bridge might be extremely escalatory, but if they can destroy the railhead in that area, they can cut off rail resupply into Zaporizhzhia.

Apparently the Russians have mined the nuclear plant there and threatened to blow it up if they are attacked, so starving the Russians into surrendering or retreat is now the preferred operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

I think bombing the bridge might be extremely escalatory, but if they can destroy the railhead in that area, they can cut off rail resupply into Zaporizhzhia.

Apparently the Russians have mined the nuclear plant there and threatened to blow it up if they are attacked, so starving the Russians into surrendering or retreat is now the preferred operation.

So… nuclear blackmail is the Russian go to?  Recognizing that acting on such would damage Russia almost as much as Ukraine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So… nuclear blackmail is the Russian go to?  Recognizing that acting on such would damage Russia almost as much as Ukraine?

These aren't the brightest sparks in the box. My guess is that they haven't cottoned on that blowing up Zaporizhzhia would result in a massive radioactive outflow down the Dnipro to Kherson (which, y'know, is still under their control at the moment) and then out into the Black Sea and right past Crimea and Sevastopol. They'd also inflict massive damage and loss of life on their side of the front line as well as the Ukrainian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

@Werthead

Maybe that prospect is behind the continuing traffic jam across the Kerch Bridge:

They think the bridge is coming down and they don't trust the Russian corps of engineers to float them across the Kerch Strait.

I don't think Ukraine will bring the bridge down yet because they want to give the troops in Kherson an escape route. And they won't bring it down with hundreds of civilian cars stuck on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

So... Say Ukraine somehow captures Crimea. How much trouble does that cause for Putin?

ThinkerX -- that's what I'm wanting to find out, I want to see it! But I think it unlikely given how it most likely would be used as a bargaining tool to secure some type of peace, as suggested by Derfel Cadarn:

9 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

I’m curious how much of it is a bargaining position.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russian cycle times between the request for artillery and the actual arrival is enormous because the request has to run up the entire chain of command for approval.  Whereas Ukraine has adopted NATO standards, where NCOs can approve a fire mission.

"DPR" commander Khodakovsky on the difference between the work of Russian and Ukrainian artillery • WarTranslated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wilbur said:

Russian cycle times between the request for artillery and the actual arrival is enormous because the request has to run up the entire chain of command for approval.  Whereas Ukraine has adopted NATO standards, where NCOs can approve a fire mission.

"DPR" commander Khodakovsky on the difference between the work of Russian and Ukrainian artillery • WarTranslated

Ah, the old 'we don't fear our soldiers' advantage. Classic 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

I’m curious how much of it is a bargaining position. If Russia agrees to withdraw from Donbas region and recognise Ukraine as independent, no more war - in exchange for Crimea and water access, I suspext Ukraine would be tempted. At the least, refusal to accwpt that offer might cool international support for Ukraine.

Right now there isn't really any prospect for bargaining. Russia has recognised Ukraine in its 1991 borders - only to revoke that recognition in 2014. After that and the violation of the Minsk agreement it just lacks the credibility needed for any kind of treaty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

 Donbas is vital for the country's survival.

It also seems hardest to regain, both as military and sociopolitical task. I wonder what should be done with the inhabitants. Many supported secession (or joining Russia) in 2014 already (and many of those who did not left in the meantime, I guess), the 8 years of Russian government and propaganda did its job too. During the years many men fought against Ukraine with weapons in their hands. How long would it take to reintegrate them and is it possible at all? Deport the people to Russia? I think the West would not like it. I am a pessimist here.

North Korea remained with vast majority of mineral deposits and heavy industry when land was divided, in the 50/60's South Korean economy was based mostly on agriculture but the country survived, thanks to Western long term support (which will be most vital for Ukraine too).

Access to sea shore is very important for the country, to retake as many ports as possible. It won't be easy from military POV either, but I think as long as memory of Ukrainian rule lives there the reunion is still more feasible than with the so called republics in the East (I do not mean Crimea here, different story).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, broken one said:

It also seems hardest to regain, both as military and sociopolitical task. I wonder what should be done with the inhabitants. Many supported secession (or joining Russia) in 2014 already (and many of those who did not left in the meantime, I guess), the 8 years of Russian government and propaganda did its job too. During the years many men fought against Ukraine with weapons in their hands. How long would it take to reintegrate them and is it possible at all? Deport the people to Russia? I think the West would not like it. I am a pessimist here.

I think they might mean the areas of the Donbas captured since February, not 2014. Retaking the Donbas republics is extremely difficult for all the reasons listed, but retaking the land lost just in the last few months should be more doable, at least from the POV of the people there being more amenable to returning to Ukrainian rule.

That said, even the average person on the street in the republics seems reluctant to full-throttledly joining Russia. There's been those clandestine polls suggesting the majority of people in the DPR and LPR would favour a federated arrangement with Ukraine over full independence or being part of Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...