[nkskalyan]

Putin can stop whenever he wants by not annexing Ukraine. Its surprising that people spin that west is responsible for a war started by Russia. The article says "We can stop the war by the west stopping supply to Ukraine". This is literally the way Russia wins the war and annexes Ukraine.

Stop being an apologist for the aggressor

[whimsicalism]

I think there is a middle ground imo.

Insistence that Ukraine recapture Crimea and we should keep supplying weapons until they do is ridiculous imo and will lead to a lot more loss of life and likely little success. Nevermind that the ethnically Russian population of Crimea likely does not want to be part of the post-Euromaidan government of Ukraine (which, let’s keep in mind, did technically involve the illegal ouster of the president Crimeans helped elect and the subsequent banning of the Russian language in schools).

[spywaregorilla]

> Insistence that Ukraine recapture Crimea and we should keep supplying weapons until they do

There are no major western leaders saying this. Ukraine is saying that they intend to recapture Crimea.

The russian play book of conquering lands and then stuffing them with ethnic russians is not a good strategy to reward. Ethnic russians can go live in Russia if they don't want to live in Ukraine.

[whimsicalism]

What? Crimean Russians have been there for like at least 50 years.

Ukraine is making claims about recapturing this and that because they feel they can count on Western support to do so and because it lets them negotiate from a high starting point. I think that is largely fine if we are pushing for settlements behind the scenes

[spywaregorilla]

Sure. And yet still, Russia's been trying to make it more Russian. And they've been doing the same in recently occupied areas.

Ukraine is indeed making those claims because they think they can do it. But you were implying this was a Western move, which it is not.

But frankly fuck them. If Ukraine can gain fire control over the bridge to Crimea then it's just Kherson City all over again. Crimea would be immensely expensive to hold. No practical logistical support for what is, by far, the most valuable part of Ukraine. No safe harbor for ships in Sevastapol. Maybe Russia tries to play it out. Maybe they just acknowledge it and give up. But it'd be relatively easy to lay siege to it if the land bridge is captured and the bridge bridge is in fire control (or destroyed). They don't need to march into Crimea itself. Just hold that siege and Russia will eventually need to yield.

Crimea isn't a side objective. It's the checkmate move. It has the potential to be a lot less bloody than fighting for every meter of land in the east.

[whimsicalism]

Yeah, sieges are notably a lot less bloody.

[spywaregorilla]

Sieges are pretty bloody, but its better than a grind through trenches and minefields at the rate of dozens of meters per day. My point was more so that Russia "probably" won't keep fighting if they don't control Crimea.

[lock-the-spock]

Your post suggests ethnic russians are the only ones that matter. There are no trustworthy numbers since Russia annexed Crimea but before that - meaning less than 10 years ago - ethnic russians were just a minority. There are also Ukrainians, Crim tartars and a wealth of smaller groups.

Options:

1. Russia might have managed to drive off other ethnicities and add more russians,but all of which would have been in the past 10 years, knowing full well it's stolen land.do these people get a say on who owns Crimea? I don't think that's something to reward.

2. Russians are still a minority(and not necessarily all of them might want to be part of Russia...). Then clearly your logic would suggest that Ukraine should retake it or Russia voluntarily should hand it back.

[Iwan-Zotow]

> but before that - meaning less than 10 years ago - ethnic russians were just a minority

ha-ha

got "trustworthy numbers" for that?

[spywaregorilla]

Why would the majority of people living in Ukranian lands be Russian and not Ukranian?