War in Ukraine/Med Cruising

[more]

"Russia would need half a million troops for this scenario."
In any case, Russia would need up to half a million troops (terrain + background) for this scenario, and I am not convinced that it can do something like that because it has to take care of the border with the Baltic states where NATO forces are stationed, Belarus (which is the gateway to Russia from Poland) and, of course, the Black Sea.

In addition, the situation in the Middle East, as well as in Kazakhstan, is not in Russia's favor, which now has to closely monitor and secure forces and that part, which reduces the number of free forces for a possible invasion of Ukraine.

Another fact is important - absolutely all Ukrainian troops have gained war experience and spirit over 8 years, while in Russia this is the case with a small number of troops, and this could be very significant.

An important factor is time
Another factor is important - time.

Due to the characteristic relief and geological background, offensive operations, especially of such a large character, can be carried out only in two periods: in winter, when the ground freezes, or in summer, at high temperatures (often up to 40 degrees).

The winter period suitable for such operations lasts from December to the end of February, in the case of long and severe winters it includes the first week, March 2. This is followed by a period of 3 months with constant shifts of sun and rain, mud to the knees, which is almost impassable for the technique.

Given that it is already mid-February, I doubt that there is time for a major operation to occupy space to the Dnieper because I do not believe that a period of several weeks is enough to, seen from the north, go a thousand kilometers deep, ie from the east 400 km through well-fortified positions of the Ukrainian army, additionally armed with modern anti-tank weapons, radars and offensive drones.

If he does not bluff this time, Putin will, in order to intimidate and show power and determination, in my opinion, carry out a less extensive offensive operation, related to the east, northeast and possibly inland around the Crimean Peninsula, in order to secure better positions for possible later penetration. control of dominant points, hills and traffic hubs, which would directly harm the economy of Ukraine, and occupy the so-called. placdarme - suitable places from which he can carry out further expansion today or tomorrow and at the same time control them at a relatively low cost (victims).

"A total attack on Ukraine would be too much"
A total attack on Ukraine would still be a little too much given the price it would have to pay (victims) as well as the consequences. In addition, it is quite certain that, just as Putin does not want to see NATO on the border with Russia, NATO does not want to see the Russian army on the borders of Romania, Poland or Hungary.

They are aware of that in the Kremlin as well, and the Dnieper River is certainly in the eventual plans of the RF army the point to which any offensive action is planned.

Unfortunately, what was the war for the independence of the Ukrainian people turned into a testing ground for the forces of East and West, in the end of which, unfortunately, Ukraine became their collateral victim. Neither NATO has the courage and will to protect the will and desire of a sovereign state that it would like to see in its ranks, nor does the Russian Federation have the will and courage to try to conquer it completely by military means and turn it into its satellite.

Ukraine and its people benefit the least. It remains for her to trust in herself and her strength, because both the East and the West have long been hypocrites hidden in the mask of good puppets. "

[more]

This up is not my world i simply translate what he writes.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by more

This up is not my world i simply translate what he writes.

Interesting comments. This is from Croatian resources? You should give a cite.

This:

"Unfortunately, what was the war for the independence of the Ukrainian people turned into a testing ground for the forces of East and West, in the end of which, unfortunately, Ukraine became their collateral victim. Neither NATO has the courage and will to protect the will and desire of a sovereign state that it would like to see in its ranks, nor does the Russian Federation have the will and courage to try to conquer it completely by military means and turn it into its satellite.

"Ukraine and its people benefit the least. It remains for her to trust in herself and her strength, because both the East and the West have long been hypocrites hidden in the mask of good puppets."

Is pretty good. Certainly, Ukraine is being played by both sides, and NATO has offered nothing to Ukraine of any value to Ukraine.

Unfortunately though I think the author misjudges the military situation. The Russians have put together overwhelming force adequate to make short work of the Ukrainian military, if the Ukrainians even fight (and it would be smart not to). There is no reason for Russia to "conquer completely" Ukraine; she merely needs to procure capitulation, by come combination of force and threat of force, and change the government.

It's not true that Russian tanks don't get stuck in the mud (they do), but slogging through mud will not be much needed -- the Russians have enough force to secure roads and railways, and air power and cruise missiles will anyway be the main force used at first. This is not WWII. They can do to Ukraine pretty much what NATO did to Serbia in 1999.

[boatman61]

Kuwait replay..
Create false hope then wait for invasion to justify a war.

[sailorboy1]

meanwhile this whole is messing up cruisers by messing with the stock market

[MicHughV]

I tend to agree with above posts....
Putin is thinking...ok, well, I made Nato soil their pants, without even firing a shot...victory is mine...

[SaltyMetals]

Hedgeworth ! Did we forget yr original question? But I must admit i think it has been a fascinating discussion of the history of the region of which many West Europeans know very little. Bravo to Dockhead and Bravo to More.

But do have the courage to come to the Med. There is lots to see so you do not immediately need to rush across to the Eastern Med of Black Sea. Many of us have spent years of sailing in the Med and love it. So you could easily spend 2, 3, 4, years or more around the western or Mid-Med before venturing further east. There are plenty of other threads on the subject of VAT for yr boat (you have a limit of 18 months but can reset the 18-mth clock by a day or so outside the EU such as N Africa (Morocco/Tunisia?)) and the 90day in 180 day limit for you personally but there are systems of extended visas in some of the EU countries. But Hey! I am getting off topic.......
Best of luck
Andrew

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by MicHughV

I tend to agree with above posts....
Putin is thinking...ok, well, I made Nato soil their pants, without even firing a shot...victory is mine...

Threatening NATO justifies it's existence.


So, if that's what he wants, he's done a great job of it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Threatening NATO justifies it's existence.

So, if that's what he wants, he's done a great job of it.

NATO will be supercharged by all this. I think chances of Sweden and Finland joining have lept. Europe, who was wavering, will be driven back into the arms of America.



None of this is good for Russia. But they don't care. Because -- as we stubborny refuse to understand -- keeping NATO out of Ukraine is an existential question, for which they will do ANYTHING. All of this is worth it for them.

[boatman61]

NATO setting itself up inside Ukraine right on Russia's border would be the equivalent of Russia setting itself up on the Canadian or Mexican border.. and we all know, the USA prefers to fight in other peoples countries.. that's why Europe has been a buffer zone for 70 years..

[kmacdonald]

They will milk the market with "invade, not invade rhetoric" before it all ends.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by boatman61

NATO setting itself up inside Ukraine right on Russia's border would be the equivalent of Russia setting itself up on the Canadian or Mexican border.. and we all know, the USA prefers to fight in other peoples countries.. that's why Europe has been a buffer zone for 70 years..

Out of the mouths of salty dogs . . .



Nailed it.

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Out of the mouths of salty dogs . . .



Nailed it.

The stock market seems to think something is going to happen

[boatman61]

Except Shanghi.. wise heads..

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Except Shanghi.. wise heads..

Dockhead I think you are right. The Russians can’t not invade at this point.

Today we see increasing blood shed in the Donbas region.

Maybe you could help me with a question I have. Everyone keeps equating this with the Cuban missile crisis. Yet that was 60 years ago. It seems at least two important things have changed since then. First, we can fire missiles from a number of places, including submarines and Poland, that would leave the Russians with little to no advanced warning. We don’t need Ukraine to threaten Russia. So the missiles in my backyard argument seems kind of moot.

Second, the Ukraine is not part of nato. Nor do most observers think it will become a part of NATO anytime soon. During the Cuban missile crisis we had satellite photos of actual launch facilities being constructed. Nothing like that is even close to happening in Ukraine.

So should we view these so-called existential national security threats to Russia as perhaps pretextual reasons for their behavior when in fact the real reasons are more to do with the fact that Putin is getting old and he sees this as maybe his last best shot at knitting together the former Soviet union?

I worry a little bit about Taiwan and Xi gin ping for the same reason.