• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
quadraginta said:
Good question.

Ukraine shut the canal down in 2014 when the Russians invaded Crimea. The Russians managed to get it flowing again last March, after they invaded Ukraine.

So they they got along without it as a water supply for eight years.

I have no idea how well they got along without it.
Click to expand...

From the reports I remember, not too great. They've significantly depleted the Crimea aquifers, had to truck in a lot of water across the Kerch Bridge and the area under cultivation has been reduced (though Russia claims that output is up).

According to official Russian statistics, the Crimean agricultural industry fully overcame the consequences of the blocking of the North Crimean Canal and crop yields grew by a factor of 1.5 from 2013 by 2016
Click to expand...

These official statistics contrast with reports of a massive shrinkage in the area under cultivation in Crimea, from 130,000 hectares in 2013 to just 14,000 in 2017, and an empty canal and a nearly dry reservoir resulting in widespread water shortages, with water only being available for three to five hours a day in 2021
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal
 
jimbob said:
If Russia thinks it's not going to hold the Crimea in the long term, it could be another bit of scorched earth
Click to expand...

I think* Russia thinks it still has the moral right to "escalate." Since it can't understand (or refuses to accept) that the invasion was morally wrong, it's still going "Well Ukraine has surrendered, I'm justified in upping the stakes."



*part of it, Russia is at the point where I don't think anything they do has one single reason, motivation, or intended goal.
 
If the USA thinks that Russia is going to do something at Zaporhiza Nuclear plant, then I think Biden has all options on the table, including Seal Forces etc... Boots on ground type of stuff.

Russia just proved that it is willing to destroy the earth for it's benefit.
 
This is global terrorist type stuff that Russia is doing.

This will effect the world for years to come, and if they get a hint that the Russians are going to sabotage the Nuke plant, then the US will intervene with a special forces operation to take it over.
 
Drewbot said:
This is global terrorist type stuff that Russia is doing.

This will effect the world for years to come, and if they get a hint that the Russians are going to sabotage the Nuke plant, then the US will intervene with a special forces operation to take it over.
Click to expand...

Well one thing it almost certainly just did was insure 41 F/A-18's from Australia will make their way to Ukraine.
 
Drewbot said:
If the USA thinks that Russia is going to do something at Zaporhiza Nuclear plant, then I think Biden has all options on the table, including Seal Forces etc... Boots on ground type of stuff.
Click to expand...

The life expectancy of light infantry operating behind enemy lines, without immediate reinforcement or extraction, is terribly low. Securing ZPP would take more than a lightning raid by Navy SEALs. In the face of the forces Moscow has arrayed in that region, it would probably require at least an armored brigade, and probably the better part of a division, to ensure and sustain success. The commandos would just be the tip of the spear, accomplishing the initial disruption of the facility's garrison and ensuring their own cavalry arrives before the enemy.

I don't see NATO sending an armored brigade combat team into Ukraine any time soon. And if they did, it would be such a major escalation that they might as well bite the bullet and seek total war with Moscow. Even just sending in a spearhead of NATO commandos, reinforced by a Ukrainian assault brigade, would be a pretty big deal.
 
theprestige said:
The life expectancy of light infantry operating behind enemy lines, without immediate reinforcement or extraction, is terribly low. Securing ZPP would take more than a lightning raid by Navy SEALs. In the face of the forces Moscow has arrayed in that region, it would probably require at least an armored brigade, and probably the better part of a division, to ensure and sustain success. The commandos would just be the tip of the spear, accomplishing the initial disruption of the facility's garrison and ensuring their own cavalry arrives before the enemy.

I don't see NATO sending an armored brigade combat team into Ukraine any time soon. And if they did, it would be such a major escalation that they might as well bite the bullet and seek total war with Moscow. Even just sending in a spearhead of NATO commandos, reinforced by a Ukrainian assault brigade, would be a pretty big deal.
Click to expand...

I think Russian forces are so degraded that a couple of battalions of elite light infantry could hold the nuclear facility with ease.... given a wing of F-35's to drop lgb's on any Russian armored.

Odds of things escalating to WW3 at that point though approach 1.
 
theprestige said:
I don't see NATO sending an armored brigade combat team into Ukraine any time soon.
Click to expand...

Sadly, not to prevent a nuclear incident...

After a nuclear incident, though, I'd say all bets are off. We'd be in the undiscovered country then.
 
I think the US could get China to support such a move. China doesn't want Russia pulling this ****. China is a food importer, and some of it comes from the Ukraine/Crimea region. in 2020 China imported $600million US worth of food from the Ukraine.


China imports over 100 Billion in food, a price increase on agriculture imports, because Russia blew the nuke plant would be catastrophic for China
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
I think Russian forces are so degraded that a couple of battalions of elite light infantry could hold the nuclear facility with ease.... given a wing of F-35's to drop lgb's on any Russian armored.

Odds of things escalating to WW3 at that point though approach 1.
Click to expand...

I almost think that if we (U.S. or NATO) sent in a smallish but elite group of soldiers or Marines to secure the nuke plant, Russia might just blink and allow it. Have the elite group guard a contingent of engineers and nuke specialists (Ukrainian and foreign) just to keep the plant secure.

The Russians would bitch and moan very, very loudly. Make endless hyperbolic threats towards those forces. Behave like entitled arrogant asshats. But allow it. Better that than to engage directly with America/NATO forces and get slaughtered like the Orcs they are.

They would probably better tolerate a smaller group like that than they would a big combat force. The American force would be a tripwire, a line in the sand so to speak.
 
crescent said:
I almost think that if we (U.S. or NATO) sent in a smallish but elite group of soldiers or Marines to secure the nuke plant, Russia might just blink and allow it. Have the elite group guard a contingent of engineers and nuke specialists (Ukrainian and foreign) just to keep the plant secure.

The Russians would bitch and moan very, very loudly. Make endless hyperbolic threats towards those forces. Behave like entitled arrogant asshats. But allow it. Better that than to engage directly with America/NATO forces and get slaughtered like the Orcs they are.

They would probably better tolerate a smaller group like that than they would a big combat force. The American force would be a tripwire, a line in the sand so to speak.
Click to expand...

When we were only a few months into this conflict I pondered if it was worth it to find a way to let Russia "save face."

It wasn't a case of Russia deserving it by any means but the idea of just floating some backdoor message to Russia with some version of "Listen we know this isn't ending well and it's your own stupid pride more than anything that's going to keep it going, so let's say we talk about ways to end this were you don't look so bad" for simple practical reasons.

Now? I don't even think that would work, morality of it aside. Even if Russia was given an out that would trade them facing full consequences for what they did in exchange for pulling us back from a potential brink, I don't think they would do it.
 
Jimbo07 said:
Sadly, not to prevent a nuclear incident...

After a nuclear incident, though, I'd say all bets are off. We'd be in the undiscovered country then.
Click to expand...
Sending in troops to try and prevent a nuclear incident is no win for NATO. If there isn't enough water to keep the spent fuel cool, NATO troops won't change that. If NATO troops do go in Russia may even act to make sure there isn't enough water to prevent a major nuclear incident.

Basically it would insure the blame for the incident falls on NATO and it probably increases the chance an incident occurs if Russia cuts off whatever water supply may be available.
 
lomiller said:
Sending in troops to try and prevent a nuclear incident is no win for NATO. If there isn't enough water to keep the spent fuel cool, NATO troops won't change that. If NATO troops do go in Russia may even act to make sure there isn't enough water to prevent a major nuclear incident.

Basically it would insure the blame for the incident falls on NATO and it probably increases the chance an incident occurs if Russia cuts off whatever water supply may be available.
Click to expand...

When I used the word 'sadly,' I think I was referring more to the humanity, or prevention of devastation, rather than the actual effectiveness of an ill-conceived operation. The fact remains that, for good or bad, the collective 'West' isn't going to put boots on the ground ahead of any nuclear incident.

I'm not sure what would happen following one, though...
 
Wildy said:
In that they actually do something when it comes to an issue that is of interest to a veto-holding member?
Click to expand...

Yes. The UNSC in its current form acts to retard the onset of direct conflicts between the nuclear powers. If the US and China agreed to set aside that framework and enter into a direct conflict with Moscow, that would be the end of the UNSC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom