I tend to agree with you here. also, afaik alot of western countries have problems with their tanks (i.e. they dont run) i remember reading articles about that last year. also as previously commented, ukrainian armed forces are being trained in western countries then sent back to the front lines. there is not a big leap from that to "trained to use western weapons". in this regard the west continues to support ukraine. I dont expect this to change until something fundamentally changes (what that is i dont know). so to summarise, I would expect the west to give Ukraine more and more bigger and bigger tools to help themselves (i advocate serious risk of escalation to this policy but I am in the minority on this position).



i would say it ramps up the war, rather then say it just perpetuates it, but yea perpetuating the war, but that the war will intensify this year, looks to be on the cards. i mean does anyone not expect that things will escalate later in the year (provided Ukraine can successfully move against crimea)?

/a couple of edits to this. i got confused and had to correct myself XD

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 9 2023 09:02am

Mate, there is a near zero chance Ukraine ever gets back Crimea. If they can't take back parts of the east, that have no natural barriers then the odds of taking Crimea are non-existent. You just have to look at a map. Ukraine doesn't have a navy nor the real capacity to have a large scale amphibious landing. Crimea also basically has a chokepoint in the north where the peninsula is connected to the mainland. It would be a literal graveyard of both men and hardware for whoever tries to cross it, fish in a barrel, same concept.

Looking at maps close up, can tell you a lot why certain areas are hard/easy to defend. Kherson for example, would have been very difficult to hold for Russia because to reinforce troops/supplies you would need to cross a large river meanwhile the enemy doesn't have that issue. Now the river serves as a natural barrier for Russia all the way across from Kherson oblast to Zap.

Bakhmt similarly has a lot of natural barriers, that's why Ukraine is trying to so hard to make a stand in it.

Possibly about the new German tank that recently had a meltdown on trials. The Leopard 2 is a very, very capable tank.



Agree with alot of what your said. About being a party to the war, the west is already a party to the war at this point. The US and UK have taken a lead in supporting Ukraine. Germany is very slow to grant support. I'm not sure why exactly, if its a hesitancy not to be seen to escalate. Or if its an internal mechanism of the German government, I'm not so familiar.

About breakdowns, yes of course that is a challenge. I think you've answered your own question in saying that Ukrainians would be trained. Something that's already happening with the Patriot missile system, which is arguably more complex training than tank repairs.
There is definitely a point to consider about which system is appropriate. Apparently the American Abram tanks have a very complex engine in comparison to Leopard 2's; they also vastly higher fuel consumption.

The counter to the point about the challenges of repairs. Is that initially the former soviet countries could send soviet made ammunition and parts. The west does not manufacture those soviet era parts or ammunition.
So eventually they would not be able to service or arm those platforms from western military industry.


I didn't suggest this brings us closer to an end of the war. However, the Ukrainians have said they will not stop fighting until Russia has left the territory occupied in 2022. As far as I know they have included Crimea in that, even written it into the constitution. Something which I think is not prudent and likely dilutes the legitimacy of the constitution.
So with that in mind, either the war will end with Ukraine's ability/will to fight, or with Russia leaving the occupied territory.

I don't think Ukraine or its allies are prepared to accept the former ending to the war, and so for them continuing support is really the only realistic option.

Even if there is a ceasefire of some kind, I don't foresee a future without an armed conflict continuing sporadically for decades.

Generally agree with this point.

I think short of taking Crimea back which is unrealistic militarily. Ukraine could make it very uncomfortable for those in Crimea, if they were to cut off the land bridge to the east.
It appears any momentum the Ukrainians had has been stifled and the opportunity to press further is not realistic. Especially without main battle tanks/air superiority.

"Tanks" or "armored vehicles" ... "Tanks killers" ...etc

I don't think basic civilians know about all the differents weapons and their implications.
A poll asking about which kind of weapons should be send to Ukraine or not is half-invalid IMHO.

Thus i'm not a professional

One thing is certain, however: the gradual increase in load of equipment brought to ukraine.



This post was edited by Meanwhile on Jan 9 2023 09:29am

It is ukraine's plan to take back crimea this year. this is widely reported both by western media and from zelensky. not to do so would be a capitulation. to do so would step over another of russia's red lines. i dont care about whether it will be difficult or not, i am simply stating this is what we have been sold. As I mentioned previously, its winter now, little or no movement, and therefore i have not posted here much, and just let people have at it. things will change (escalate) as the year progresses and its a wait and see.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 9 2023 09:20am

We might get to see Serbia and Kosovo this year too. But cross fingers hopefully not.

With NATO guarantees? Of course there would.

The point is that either side can stop fighting whenever they want, so long as they're willing to accept what "stop fighting" represents. Neither side is at a place where the demands of the other side are acceptable.

Russia is clearly not going to accept the loss of Crimea as a precondition for peace, for instance, and yet that is one of Zelensky's preconditions for peace. They're not going to submit their leaders to a war crimes tribunal, another Zelensky precondition.

On Russia's part, I don't know that they'll accept the loss of the land bridge to Crimea, and that is almost certainly going to be unacceptable to Ukraine, and so both sides need to fight on until the conditions on the ground make conditions for peace possible.

You say of course, but thats highly debatable. As late as January the Kremlin was saying their was no plan to invade
I stand by my statement that Putin has the ability to end the war immediately. I do not believe Zelensky has that ability.

I agree with alot of what you said, there are no acceptable grounds for peace currently.

Don't underestimate the strength of the implied threat. Making Russia believe Ukraine wants to take back Crimea is a way to keep Russia guessing, and making them commit resources to defend that region.
Taking Crimea would be very unlikely, just based off the geography. Cutting the land bridge to Crimea from the east is something that could be attempted.