ADVERTISEMENT

This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

Then start another thread to call them out.

This is about Ukranians fighting back.
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but what happens when/if Putin wins the battle? I would think there are enough dissidents/underground resistance that a permanent occupation by Russia will be extremely difficult. Putin can't afford to keep 200k troops in Ukraine for infinity. This fightback by Ukraine could last many years at a high cost to Putin.
 
The thing that worries me is if Ukraine puts up enough of a fight to drag this on or make Russia pull back. Putin doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would handle egg on his face very well. If that happened, who knows what he's willing to do on his way out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VodkaSam
If playing Risk has taught me anything, it's that invading and holding Ukraine is fraught with peril!

board.jpg
risk.gif
 
September 2, 2014 6:21 PM EDT

Reports emerged Tuesday that Russian President Vladimir Putin he could take control of Ukraine’s capital city in as little as two weeks, a remark that escalated already pitched tensions between Russia and the West in the lead-up to NATO’s summit in Wales.

Putin made the incendiary comment in a phone conversation with European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, according to Barroso’s account, published by Italy’s La Repubblica on Monday.

Barroso said he asked Putin if Russian troops had crossed into eastern Ukraine, La Repubblica reports. “That is not the question,” Putin reportedly said. “But if I wanted to, I could take Kiev in two weeks.”
 
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but what happens when/if Putin wins the battle? I would think there are enough dissidents/underground resistance that a permanent occupation by Russia will be extremely difficult. Putin can't afford to keep 200k troops in Ukraine for infinity. This fightback by Ukraine could last many years at a high cost to Putin.

Sounds like the goal is for Putin to take Kyiv and replace the government with installed Moscow puppets.

That also would result in a widespread and ongoing insurgency to fight, so yeah, they'd probably need to maintain a presence.

I'm no expert, but I think the plan is that he takes Kyiv so quickly and decisively that the West stands down rather than to try to roll that back. Which they probably would, as nobody really wants to go to war.

Also, I think there will be a lot of hesitation by the West to very visibly back Ukraine with arms and supplies, without knowing if the Ukrainian defense is just going to roll over dead. That would be a triple value for Putin taking Kyiv, as he could declare proxy victory over the U.S. and Europe.

And the US has spent untold treasure and lives trying to prop up people who don't really want to fight on their own behalf.

That's what makes this so compelling to me...the longer and harder Ukraine stands, the much more likely the West is to really back them up. If the fall of Kyiv is inevitable, nobody in the West is going to want to risk too much over it. But if Ukraine holds long enough, the calculus might change if the West thinks that with enough support, the Russian invasion could be broken, either directly or from internal Russian pressure.
 
@MitchLL this is why I asked why you held this opinion:

The area around Crimea is the one spot they could most successfully defend.
Putin will not invade there, imo.
Southern Ukraine is relatively flat, grassland. Not the best defensive terrain, and good tank country. That’s why I wanted to read more about the info that formed your opinion.
Why did you think that area would be easier to defend?
 
Sounds like the goal is for Putin to take Kyiv and replace the government with installed Moscow puppets.

That also would result in a widespread and ongoing insurgency to fight, so yeah, they'd probably need to maintain a presence.

I'm no expert, but I think the plan is that he takes Kyiv so quickly and decisively that the West stands down rather than to try to roll that back. Which they probably would, as nobody really wants to go to war.

Also, I think there will be a lot of hesitation by the West to very visibly back Ukraine with arms and supplies, without knowing if the Ukrainian defense is just going to roll over dead. That would be a triple value for Putin taking Kyiv, as he could declare proxy victory over the U.S. and Europe.

And the US has spent untold treasure and lives trying to prop up people who don't really want to fight on their own behalf.

That's what makes this so compelling to me...the longer and harder Ukraine stands, the much more likely the West is to really back them up. If the fall of Kyiv is inevitable, nobody in the West is going to want to risk too much over it. But if Ukraine holds long enough, the calculus might change if the West thinks that with enough support, the Russian invasion could be broken, either directly or from internal Russian pressure.
It’s like watching real life 300 and not stepping in.
 
Poland and other countries are walking a tight rope.
..and so would Putin. If the other countries including the US get slapped for suppling war materials via the Polish border.....the next thing crossing the border could be fast movers.
 
@MitchLL this is why I asked why you held this opinion:


Southern Ukraine is relatively flat, grassland. Not the best defensive terrain, and good tank country. That’s why I wanted to read more about the info that formed your opinion.
Why did you think that area would be easier to defend?
I had read somewhere that the highest concentration of Ukrainian ground troops were in that region.

Perhaps that wasn't accurate?
 
I had read somewhere that the highest concentration of Ukrainian ground troops were in that region.

Perhaps that wasn't accurate?
That makes sense, given the Russians in Crimea, and the fighting in Donbass prior.

I was thinking purely in terms of terrain features pro/con to the defender/invader.
 
There haven't been any reports, to my understanding, of Ukrainian troops fleeing or surrendering yet.

I'm following what seems like a pretty robust list of sources, and I haven't heard anything like that yet.

That said, they're at least somewhat pro-Ukraine because...virtually everyone decent and sensible is. Might be prone (as I readily admit I am) to want to believe the best.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT