Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

electricsurfer47 said:The Crimean Tatars aren't looking to live under Russian rule. You can bet there's going to be guerrilla activity working right alongside the Ukrainians.

View on facebook

A huge number of Crimean Tatars fled Crimea—I’d guess about half since 2014. They're in a really tough spot right now, facing constant harassment just because of where they come from. There have even been reports of Russian kids bullying Tatar children. Many who finally made it back in the late eighties were forced to leave all over again. One of the first moves the Russians made back in 2014 was shutting down a major Tatar organization—I can't recall the exact name offhand—they actually had their own political group until the Russians dismantled it. It seems like they arrest Tatars on Crimea every single year; plenty of them end up with sentences as long as 20 years.

Joshua Myers432 said:It’s simple math. It took the Wehrmacht eight months just to secure a single peninsula between 1941 and 1942, yet they somehow managed to blitz toward Moscow in only five. 🤦

It’s enough if Putin considers it so. He doesn't need anyone else's validation.

Back then, the Soviet Union essentially marched 20 to 40 million "defenders" straight into their deaths. Putin doesn't have that kind of cannon fodder left—besides, the Ukrainians are already pushing near Kherson, while the Russian Air Force is nowhere to be found. And since Moscow turned into some sort of underwater exhibit, even the Russian Navy isn't particularly active—except, perhaps, when they need to terrorize civilians over in Odessa.

Everything on Crimea falls within range of HIMARS if the Ukrainians manage to liberate Kherson.

Joshua Myers432 said:It’s simple math. It took the Wehrmacht eight months just to secure a single peninsula between 1941 and 1942, yet they somehow managed to blitz toward Moscow in only five. 🤦

It’s enough if Putin considers it so. He doesn't need anyone else's validation.

The real crux of the matter lies in those years, 1941 and 1942.

Joshua Myers432 said:It’s simple math. It took the Wehrmacht eight months just to secure a single peninsula between 1941 and 1942, yet they somehow managed to blitz toward Moscow in only five. 🤦

It’s enough if Putin considers it so. He doesn't need anyone else's validation.

I couldn't agree more.

Kate Cook27 said:If all this hadn't kicked off on February 24th, I honestly think a lot of people would have just let Crimea go. It was never actually that "vital"—it just kind of was—like a blind appendix. The status quo didn't really suit anyone, but it was definitely better than what we're seeing now. Now that Russia has decided to play the war card, even Crimea is up for debate. I doubt there will be a full military push for it, though—maybe targeting that bridge, perhaps. If that bridge goes, Crimea loses its purpose.

Obviously, they aren't going to put every single person who took Russian citizenship on trial—there are plenty of people who were basically forced into it. Every case has to be looked at individually. I mean, what are you going to do with a few hundred elderly folks in Popasna who stayed behind? Are they really going to face trial? These people are living in a city that doesn't even exist anymore—they're getting humanitarian aid every two weeks just to get by, and they only took the citizenship so they could collect whatever tiny pension they're being handed. They’re out there walking everywhere because there’s zero transportation left. Special forces aren't going to go hunting down grandmas and grandpas to arrest them for treason or collaboration or whatever else. Each situation is its own thing. I know some people who crossed back into Ukrainian territory and had zero issues, even though they only had those documents. Plus, the number of people who took Russian citizenship isn't even that huge—back in Kherson it was around 1%, in Mariupol it was about 5%, though maybe things have shifted since then, I don't know.

Naprtiv, Crimea is incredibly significant to both sides. Just look at Sevastopol and that once-legendary Black Sea Fleet; as long as the Russians are stationed there, they maintain a permanent stranglehold over everything sailing in and out of the other Ukrainian ports.
And let's not forget, Crimea has always been a premier vacation spot for many Russians.
The only point where I truly concur is the idea that, over time, the pressure on the Ukrainian government to formally hand Crimea over to Russia would only intensify. Honestly, achieving that would have been relatively simple; one would just have to wait for some new Yanukovych to win an election, and it would have happened sooner or later regardless.

Tyler Jones6 said:Back then, the Soviet Union essentially marched 20 to 40 million "defenders" straight into their deaths. Putin doesn't have that kind of cannon fodder left—besides, the Ukrainians are already pushing near Kherson, while the Russian Air Force is nowhere to be found. And since Moscow turned into some sort of underwater exhibit, even the Russian Navy isn't particularly active—except, perhaps, when they need to terrorize civilians over in Odessa.

Everything on Crimea falls within range of HIMARS if the Ukrainians manage to liberate Kherson.

steelheron25 said:The real crux of the matter lies in those years, 1941 and 1942.

I couldn't agree more.

That’s irrelevant. This is about terrain configuration and access to the peninsula. Crimea is relatively easy to defend. But take the route to Moscow, for example; that's much harder to hold if the enemy has air superiority.

Maybe they should just extend the road to Moscow. Once they take Moscow, Crimea is theirs.
😁

Of course, we haven't even factored in the use of tactical nuclear weapons. I think the Russians have made it crystal clear they'll use them if the Russian Federation is threatened. And those idiots consider Crimea part of the Russian Federation, so by their logic... 😉

steelheron25 said:Naprtiv, Crimea is incredibly significant to both sides. Just look at Sevastopol and that once-legendary Black Sea Fleet; as long as the Russians are stationed there, they maintain a permanent stranglehold over everything sailing in and out of the other Ukrainian ports.
And let's not forget, Crimea has always been a premier vacation spot for many Russians.
The only point where I truly concur is the idea that, over time, the pressure on the Ukrainian government to formally hand Crimea over to Russia would only intensify. Honestly, achieving that would have been relatively simple; one would just have to wait for some new Yanukovych to win an election, and it would have happened sooner or later regardless.

Beyond the political weight of it all, I also think that in a few years, Ukraine would have found itself backed into a corner where they'd have to settle the Crimea issue and somehow walk away from it. Things are obviously different now.

I saw this documentary about Crimea from back in 2016 a few months ago. It felt pretty low-budget, but that tourist island was definitely

Joshua Myers432 said:That’s irrelevant. This is about terrain configuration and access to the peninsula. Crimea is relatively easy to defend. But take the route to Moscow, for example; that's much harder to hold if the enemy has air superiority.

Maybe they should just extend the road to Moscow. Once they take Moscow, Crimea is theirs.
😁

Of course, we haven't even factored in the use of tactical nuclear weapons. I think the Russians have made it crystal clear they'll use them if the Russian Federation is threatened. And those idiots consider Crimea part of the Russian Federation, so by their logic... 😉

☕

If Ukraine doesn't reclaim Crimea immediately, they're essentially handing Russia total control over Ukrainian exports—which, I guess, just leaves the door wide open for another bloody conflict down the road. It’s probably better to settle this now; after all, we can't exactly ignore the threat of Russian nukes, since radiation doesn't care about borders.

Tyler Jones6 said:If Ukraine doesn't reclaim Crimea immediately, they're essentially handing Russia total control over Ukrainian exports—which, I guess, just leaves the door wide open for another bloody conflict down the road. It’s probably better to settle this now; after all, we can't exactly ignore the threat of Russian nukes, since radiation doesn't care about borders.

Crimea represents half of the Ukrainian coastline and provides control over a significant portion of the remaining coast.

We would be foolish to simply hand that over to the Russians.

swiftjackal11 said:I saw this documentary about Crimea from back in 2016 a few months ago. It felt pretty low-budget, but that tourist island was definitely

It’s not just a Crimea thing—Ukraine is a struggling nation overall. After independence, you had Kyiv pulling all the weight while other cities felt sort of lost in time and space, stuck with really low incomes. In my opinion, Eastern Ukraine took the biggest hit since that's where most of the wealthy elite were concentrated. Honestly, what really drained Ukraine was the corruption and the constant theft... it’s a lot of the same issues you see in Russia or even here in the States—well, maybe less extreme, but similar patterns. You had politicians who were basically just puppets for Russia, local traitors, placing their own people in key positions to tighten their grip. Ukraine got swallowed up by that cycle, and all its actual potential just sat on the sidelines.
Some things have definitely shifted, though. Take Mariupol, for example—up until 2016, it was such a bleak, depressing, gray city (feels like that for a lot of places, honestly), but after 2016, there were actually projects and plans moving forward. Especially regarding the occupied territories—those areas were struggling before 2014, and even more so afterward. It's the same story with Crimea—there's so much potential there, but if all the money gets diverted into yachts and luxury apartments for the elite, how is anything actually going to get built? How do you improve living standards? Ukraine has massive potential and some stunning locations, it's just that the will to actually utilize it hasn't been there.

Nancy Gomez26 said:There is an alternative to simple amnesty: convict them first, then pardon them. It’s a distinction without a difference to some, but it matters. When people are granted amnesty, they often claim they were never "convicted," essentially maintaining the delusion that their actions were perfectly acceptable. But when there is a conviction, they carry that weight for life. Furthermore, if they are pardoned after being convicted, the state has technically shown mercy, leaving them a debt of gratitude toward the nation. This kind of conduct needs at least a formal condemnation. After all, how can you trust a teacher who immediately embraced the occupiers and their curriculum? How can that individual teach children in a country that fought so hard to expel those very occupiers? They can't teach in Ukraine anymore. Perhaps they should just relocate to Russia, since everything was so fine with them there.

Forgiveness is fine, but there needs to be a formal record of it somewhere.

Tyler Jones6 said:If Ukraine doesn't reclaim Crimea immediately, they're essentially handing Russia total control over Ukrainian exports—which, I guess, just leaves the door wide open for another bloody conflict down the road. It’s probably better to settle this now; after all, we can't exactly ignore the threat of Russian nukes, since radiation doesn't care about borders.

I really hope Ukraine gets everything back, including Crimea. No handing anything over, no "autonomy" nonsense or whatever. At the end of the day, it always comes down to politics and interests.

Nancy Gomez26 said:There is an alternative to simple amnesty: convict them first, then pardon them. It’s a distinction without a difference to some, but it matters. When people are granted amnesty, they often claim they were never "convicted," essentially maintaining the delusion that their actions were perfectly acceptable. But when there is a conviction, they carry that weight for life. Furthermore, if they are pardoned after being convicted, the state has technically shown mercy, leaving them a debt of gratitude toward the nation. This kind of conduct needs at least a formal condemnation. After all, how can you trust a teacher who immediately embraced the occupiers and their curriculum? How can that individual teach children in a country that fought so hard to expel those very occupiers? They can't teach in Ukraine anymore. Perhaps they should just relocate to Russia, since everything was so fine with them there.

We have to draw a line between different types of domestic collaborators. In the occupied territories, they’re teaching kids that Ukraine is actually just part of Russia—that the people living there stole Russian land, that Ukrainians don't even exist, or that they were some invention by Nazis. They're out there singing the Russian anthem and all that. People like that simply shouldn't be allowed to work as teachers anymore.

Tyler Jones6 said:If Ukraine doesn't reclaim Crimea immediately, they're essentially handing Russia total control over Ukrainian exports—which, I guess, just leaves the door wide open for another bloody conflict down the road. It’s probably better to settle this now; after all, we can't exactly ignore the threat of Russian nukes, since radiation doesn't care about borders.

The US wasn't hit by radiation from Fukushima or Chernobyl, so boundaries actually do exist. Sure, we're close to Russia, but if we're talking about those tactical nukes people bring up in these scenarios being dropped somewhere in Ukraine, it wouldn't necessarily be a direct threat to the American population. Nobody is seriously suggesting they'd go after us with strategic nukes. The bigger issue would be the political fallout.

Here’s a quick timelapse from the last few days—https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/statu...87313381765123.

If they were to deploy a nuclear weapon, they would instantly lose any global propaganda advantage by drawing comparisons to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would essentially be an admission that they cannot secure Eastern Ukraine without resorting to nuclear force. They already intend to occupy those territories, but if radiation from strikes on Kyiv or Lviv were to drift into Poland, things would escalate quickly. The real question is whether that triggers Article 5.
They would likely only use a nuclear weapon in response to an Allied attack on Russia, rather than just occasional Ukrainian shelling. That’s my take.

Joshua Myers432 said:That’s irrelevant. This is about terrain configuration and access to the peninsula. Crimea is relatively easy to defend. But take the route to Moscow, for example; that's much harder to hold if the enemy has air superiority.

Maybe they should just extend the road to Moscow. Once they take Moscow, Crimea is theirs.
😁

Of course, we haven't even factored in the use of tactical nuclear weapons. I think the Russians have made it crystal clear they'll use them if the Russian Federation is threatened. And those idiots consider Crimea part of the Russian Federation, so by their logic... 😉

Oh man, please don't make me laugh, seriously, hahaha!

Crimea belongs to Ukraine, plain and simple, just like Donbas and Luhansk. Almost nobody on this planet actually recognizes the annexation of Crimea. Putin can claim whatever he wants—he can sit there thinking Russian Alaska is actually Russian or that half the world belongs to him for all I care, but you can basically tell him to go jump in a lake regarding his little delusions. 😁

The Russians aren't going to use tactical nukes or any other kind of nuclear weapons, because let's be real—if even a tiny bit of radiation drifts toward a single NATO member, NATO is going to treat that as a full-blown nuclear strike. They said as much right at the start of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. If a nuclear war actually breaks out, Russia will just be a scorched wasteland that ceases to exist. The population of the "collective West" is way more spread out than the Russians, most of whom are crammed around Moscow and in Western Russia anyway.

Russ doesn't have the guts to start a nuclear war because, newsflash, they’d cease to exist. It's just like how they were blustering about Crimea being part of the RF and threatening to drop nukes if even one shell hit the place, yet they won't touch nukes if Ukraine liberates Crimea. They're getting bombed in Crimea constantly, they've lost half their aviation there, and the Russians are scurrying away like cowards, just moving what's left of their planes back into Russia. Hahahahaha!

Taking Crimea militarily is going to be surprisingly easy. But looking at how things are playing out, the Russians might just hand it over as a gesture of good faith.

Joshua Bishop3 said:Oh man, please don't make me laugh, seriously, hahaha!

Crimea belongs to Ukraine, plain and simple, just like Donbas and Luhansk. Almost nobody on this planet actually recognizes the annexation of Crimea. Putin can claim whatever he wants—he can sit there thinking Russian Alaska is actually Russian or that half the world belongs to him for all I care, but you can basically tell him to go jump in a lake regarding his little delusions. 😁

The Russians aren't going to use tactical nukes or any other kind of nuclear weapons, because let's be real—if even a tiny bit of radiation drifts toward a single NATO member, NATO is going to treat that as a full-blown nuclear strike. They said as much right at the start of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. If a nuclear war actually breaks out, Russia will just be a scorched wasteland that ceases to exist. The population of the "collective West" is way more spread out than the Russians, most of whom are crammed around Moscow and in Western Russia anyway.

Russ doesn't have the guts to start a nuclear war because, newsflash, they’d cease to exist. It's just like how they were blustering about Crimea being part of the RF and threatening to drop nukes if even one shell hit the place, yet they won't touch nukes if Ukraine liberates Crimea. They're getting bombed in Crimea constantly, they've lost half their aviation there, and the Russians are scurrying away like cowards, just moving what's left of their planes back into Russia. Hahahahaha!

Taking Crimea militarily is going to be surprisingly easy. But looking at how things are playing out, the Russians might just hand it over as a gesture of good faith.

They’ll only drop the nukes if their very existence as a state is threatened. That's a broad term, but an attack on Crimea is a hard sell when you're trying to argue it threatens the survival of Russia.

Bringing up nuclear weapons is just something reserved for the doom-scrollers and the extreme conspiracy theorists.

Honestly, it’s a ridiculous topic.