Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[PLATO]

Trying to attack on the eastern side would be kind of suicide while the western side isn't that bad. It's mainly flat land that isn't that easy to defend. Add to that it's also kind of narrow without being horrible.

One of the advantages that an attacker has is that they can concentrate force at a particular point. A defender has to cover a much wider area as they do not know the exact location an attack will occur at. The narrowness of the land bridge favors the defender in that they can also concentrate force. In a typical attack, you would want a 2 or 3 to 1 advantage in attacker to defender. The concentration of Russian forces and the fortifications they have built make that a much harder goal for the UAF to obtain. IF thy did break through, the the defenders are once again having to spread out to defend a much larger line. Crimea is both easily defended and easily isolated. It has a strength and a weakness for defense. I think it far more likely that the UAF will try to seal off Crimea and cut off resupply for a while before they will try and penetrate the land bridge.

[Berzerker]

The USA will force the people of Crimea and the Donbas to live under the rule of Azov

wtf

[BlackCat]

PLATO, I was maybe a bit short, so will elaborate a bit. UA manage to get to the Azov sea, destroy the Kersh bridge, knock out russians in the remaining areas that they occupy in the Kherson oblast, get a front line in the west of Crimea starting pounding whatever the russians have of defenses with artillery, drones etc. both destroying defenses but also bleeding out resources - kind of a Kherson II, but on a bit larger scale, so will take longer time.
The real question is if the UA can make an offensive that makes it realistic to liberate the Kherson area. Edit: that is of course not enough - they will need enough forces to make reliable defenses in the east and still have enough to advance in the west.

[PLATO]

PLATO, I was maybe a bit short, so will elaborate a bit. UA manage to get to the Azov sea, destroy the Kersh bridge, knock out russians in the remaining areas that they occupy in the Kherson oblast, get a front line in the west of Crimea starting pounding whatever the russians have of defenses with artillery, drones etc. both destroying defenses but also bleeding out resources - kind of a Kherson II, but on a bit larger scale, so will take longer time.
The real question is if the UA can make an offensive that makes it realistic to liberate the Kherson area. Edit: that is of course not enough - they will need enough forces to make reliable defenses in the east and still have enough to advance in the west.

Yep...we are on the same page.

[BlackCat]

Yep...we are on the same page.

Meh, there is actually a dark horse in Belarus - as long as Lukashenko​ is alive and kicking, the northern front will be kind of quiet, but if he dies, noone really knows what will happen since he doesn't have an obvious successor. Either there will be a peaceful takeover of another dictator, some democratic presidency, a joyful integration of the country into the russian empire or maybe civil war. If it end up in a second front it might mess things up a bit.

[BlackCat]

The USA will force the people of Crimea and the Donbas to live under the rule of Azov

wtf

Ah, you seem to prefer that those people live in a dictatorial rule made by putin instead of a free democracy.

[Geronimo]

The USA will force the people of Crimea and the Donbas to live under the rule of Azov

wtf

It's about time. At least evil Azov has an excuse for being in Crimea.

By the way, what documented evil things has Azov done? What documented evil things have their enemies done?

[Berzerker]

Ah, you seem to prefer that those people live in a dictatorial rule made by putin instead of a free democracy.

I would object if the USA forced them to live under Putin, but we're not arming Putin to attack them and Ukraine is not a free democracy. How about we let them decide?

[Berzerker]

It's about time. At least evil Azov has an excuse for being in Crimea.

By the way, what documented evil things has Azov done? What documented evil things have their enemies done?

A coup is not an excuse to kill dissidents, thats one documented evil thing. Shelling the people of the Donbas for 8 years is another. How did they respond when Azov attacked them? They asked Putin for help.

[BlackCat]

I would object if the USA forced them to live under Putin, but we're not arming Putin to attack them and Ukraine is not a free democracy. How about we let them decide?

Excuse me, but are you a total idiot ? Ukraine is most certainly a free democracy, especially since they kicked out the russian oligarc.

[BlackCat]

A coup is not an excuse to kill dissidents, thats one documented evil thing. Shelling the people of the Donbas for 8 years is another. How did they respond when Azov attacked them? They asked Putin for help.

Yup, you are an idiot - there are no evidence that Ukraine has shelled their own people in Donbas - that is a fantasy made up of Putin and his cronies.

[BlackCat]

Technically I'm actually a bit wrong - the Ukrainans have actually shelled a lot of russians in the Donbas area, they all was of the type called "little green men" aka russian military units without their correct distinctions, and that certainly made them legal targets.

[Berzerker]

Excuse me, but are you a total idiot ? Ukraine is most certainly a free democracy, especially since they kicked out the russian oligarc.

The guy was democratically elected and fled for his life after he was blamed for 100+ people killed in a right wing coup. Vote against us and we will murder people, free and democratic. The people who did that went around killing dissidents and they attacked eastern Ukrainians who overwhelmingly voted for the man for not supporting their coup. Those are the facts as I know them. Its bizarre how people outraged by Jan 6 have no problem with a bloodbath in Kiev and arming Nazis to go on a rampage.

[Berzerker]

Technically I'm actually a bit wrong - the Ukrainans have actually shelled a lot of russians in the Donbas area, they all was of the type called "little green men" aka russian military units without their correct distinctions, and that certainly made them legal targets.

Then why did they support Minsk?

[Geronimo]

Then why did they support Minsk?

The Ukrainians had hundreds of thousands of guns to their heads.

Why do suppose Iraq agreed to UNSC 687 and 689? It wasn't because the Saddam Hussein regime thought they were a good idea they wanted to line up behind. If there was any support of the Iraqi people for either resolution it would have been in hopes of end to the war.

The Ukrainians also hoped something, anything agreed to in the Minsk agreement would be delivered by the Russians and their Separatist puppets led by at that time by Moscow born and previously resident FSB agents who had never previously lived in the Donbas. The Ukrainians would be completely disappointed. Russia, despite demanding a seat at the table of the Minsk "negotiations" actually immediately publicly and officially declared they were bound by nothing in the agreements whatsoever. Per Minsk, the Separatists were to be disarmed and Russia was immediately discovered shipping more arms to the Separatists and never stopped.

Ukraine never supported any version of Minsk that Russia was willing to even give lip service to, let alone that Russia would actually respect.