Ukraine

[Dave2002]

For one thing, back in 2014, there was less united western support for Ukraine and the history of which state Crimea was allocated to was, to put it mildly, muddy, and had much to do with the Soviet Union's perceived administrative convenience.

It’’s interesting to read John Simpson’s comments a day or two after the 2014 invasion- commenting on how easy it was and [seemingly] very few people were hurt. See BBC News. Since then significant infrastructure linking the region to mainland Russia was built. Did nobody object or care? Maybe everyone was happy and hoped for better times?!?! Everyone trusted “good” actors?!?.

[Historian]

It’’s interesting to read John Simpson’s comments a day or two after the 2014 invasion- commenting on how easy it was and [seemingly] very few people were hurt. See BBC News. Since then significant infrastructure linking the region to mainland Russia was built. Did nobody object or care? Maybe everyone was happy and hoped for better times?!?! Everyone trusted “good” actors?!?.

The annexation of Ukraine was swift and relatively bloodless. There is a Russian-speaking majority in Crimea and there was significant support for the Russian takeover (although I doubt whether support is so solid now). Ukraine never stopped regarding this as a 'temporary occupation' but obviously had no influence over what Russia did. The Kertch straits bridges were necessary as Russia had no land access to Crimea: obviously Russia's supporters in Crimea saw this as a good thing: Ukraine's wishes were, of course, ignored. I very much doubt that 'everyone' felt the way you suggest.

The successful annexation led on to Russia's intervention in Donetsk and Luhansk: this conflict in 2014-2015 saw severe fighting estimated to have cost something like 8,000 lives. Russia was emboldened to do this because of the West's lack of reaction to the annexation of Crimea (among other place e.g. actions against Georgia in 2008).

[french frank]

I don’t understand why this wasn’t started in 2014.

The pro-Russian (anti-EU) Yanukovych was president until early 2014 until he was kicked out for opposing the Ukrainians' wish to turn towards Europe and away from Russia. The unrest was what Putin seized on to launch the invasion and annexation of Crimea. Poroshenko was elected president after an interim period, and after the Crimea annexation. He supported Ukrainian nationalism, but was defeated by Zelensky when he stood for re-election. Ukraine itself was too unsettled to retaliate at the time, and as has been said, the west was not involved to strengthen any kind of Ukrainian resistance.

[Historian will put me right if I have any of this muddled!]

[Historian]

Accurate, concise summary which covers areas I did not even mention ff, thank you.

[Dave2002]

There is a Russian-speaking majority in Crimea and there was significant support for the Russian takeover (although I doubt whether support is so solid now)……. The Kertch straits bridges were necessary as Russia had no land access to Crimea: obviously Russia's supporters in Crimea saw this as a good thing: Ukraine's wishes were, of course, ignored.

So significant road and rail connections were established. Under more normal circumstances this might have been seen as a good thing - in a similar way to the denuclearisation of Ukraine.

[Serial_Apologist]

So significant road and rail connections were established. Under more normal circumstances this might have been seen as a good thing - in a similar way to the denuclearisation of Ukraine.

"What did the Romans ever do for us?"

[richardfinegold]

So significant road and rail connections were established. Under more normal circumstances this might have been seen as a good thing - in a similar way to the denuclearisation of Ukraine.

Austria Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzogovina in 1907 (I think). Serbia resented this mightily. B/H had very little infrastructure under Ottoman rule, and the Hapsburgs built a lot of it in the few years before the Great War. Most of the locals regarded it as part of a Colonization effort even though it materially improved their lives. The same could be said for many U.S. Aid and Development Programs in South Vietnam and Afghanistan. No doubt there were large parts of the British Empire where the local element resented 'improvements' sponsored by the conquering power.
The exception to most of this seems to be the Roman Empire. Although Pagan Temples were trashed when Christianity became ascendant, one doesn't see whole scale destruction of Roman acqueducts or roads after the Empire fell. Perhaps the Dark Ages weren't so dark after all.

[Dave2002]

"What did the Romans ever do for us?"

I don’t know what rail or road infrastructure into/from Crimea there was before 2014 - indeed 2018. Were there rail links from Ukraine?

The newer links could be used for diverse purposes, including moving military equipment and personnel into Crimea. For the current Ukrainian government’s point of view that might now not be seen as a great thing.

What might seem like really good ideas in peacetime between “friendly” nations may now be looked at in other lights. It is interesting to note that issues like this have been considered for many centuries, and led to fables such as “the farmer and the snake”, “the scorpion and the turtle”, “the scorpion and the frog” - from different countries such as Persia, and perhaps Greece.

[Dave2002]

The exception to most of this seems to be the Roman Empire. Although Pagan Temples were trashed when Christianity became ascendant, one doesn't see whole scale destruction of Roman acqueducts or roads after the Empire fell. Perhaps the Dark Ages weren't so dark after all.

I don’t believe the Romans were universally welcomed, nevertheless. Regarding trashing the roads and aqueducts some may have been preserverd - considered useful long after the invaders had gone. The Pont du Gard was retained for a very long while, though eventually only serving as a road bridge, and was maintained as such. Other structures would almost inevitably have crumbled, and the component parts used for other purposes, which is what often happened with structures which started to collapse. Some of the structures were well constructed and would possibly have required at least 20th century explosives to dismantle rapidly.

[french frank]

I don’t believe the Romans were universally welcomed, nevertheless.

The Roman strategy was to set up civitates centred on old Celtic tribal settlements and then administered by Celtic 'allies', who had been the old British aristocracy, and who were then supervised by Roman provincial governors. The highest stratum of British society saw the advantages of 'romanisation' in the form of roads and other infrastructure. There was no settlement of a Roman population in Britain: the Romans who remained after the invasion(s) simply intermarried with the British population which ironed out any antagonisms between two peoples.

I can't see the Ukrainians wanting to preserve the road and rail bridges linking Crimea with Russia.

[Historian]

Well, I was wrong.

I believed that Ukraine would slowly begin to turn the tide of the war by a series of small offensives, focusing on continuing to degrade Russian lines of communication to destyroy their supply lines.

Instead they have unleashed a remarkable sweeping attack south-east of Kharkiv which has liberated an estimated 1600 square km of territory in just a few days, while inflicting heavy losses on the Russian invaders, especially in terms of materiel. More importantly, Ukraine has reached (although not yet taken I think) Kupyansk - a railway and road centre which controls almost all the supply lines between Russia and the Ukrainian city of Izyum. Russia is currently unable to stop this advance or set up effective counter-attacks. No doubt the Ukrainian offensive will have to pause at some point but this is a remarkable achievement by Ukraine.

At the same time Ukrainian forces continue to put heavy pressure on Kherson in the south-east of Ukraine. This is despite heavy Russian reinforcement of their position there. Ukraine has destroyed the bridges which give access to the city and the northern p[art of Kherson province. Russian forces are therefore starved of supplies and at some point will almost certainly have to choose between surrender, running away leaving behind all their heavy equipment, or death.

This is not the end, but it may well be the beginning of the end.

[french frank]

Russian forces are therefore starved of supplies and at some point will almost certainly have to choose between surrender, running away leaving behind all their heavy equipment, or death.

If that comes about, I wonder what will happen in Russia?

How likely that the advance on the Kharkhiv area is a sort of 'decoy', in the hope that the Russians will be panicked into trying to prop up their forces there while the Ukrainians prepare for the main onslaught on Kherson which I would have thought a more valuable victory, holding on to their Black Sea territory? Do they have the reserves for that?

[Historian]

If that comes about, I wonder what will happen in Russia?

How likely that the advance on the Kharkhiv area is a sort of 'decoy', in the hope that the Russians will be panicked into trying to prop up their forces there while the Ukrainians prepare for the main onslaught on Kherson which I would have thought a more valuable victory, holding on to their Black Sea territory? Do they have the reserves for that?

Well... I think Putin is heading for a heavy defeat in Ukraine (as to when all bets are currently off). Honestly I have no idea, but options range from even more brutal repression to maintain the status quo to Putin being 'removed' (probably permanently) t o a break-up of the Russian Federation in something resembling a civil war. Let's hope that the worst does not happen.

I think that would you describe has effectively happened but in reverse. Kherson has acted as a lure to Russia which has sent forces there and also in the area around Melitopol further east to protect the so-called 'land bridge' from Russian-occupied Donetsk to annexed Crimea. Whether this was the intention all along is currently unclear.

You are correct that Kherson is a greater prize, explaining why Putin has allowed forces to be sent into an increasingly indefensible area for political reasons. Without Kherson he cannot hold a 'referendum' and claim that the inhabitants of that oblast have voted overwhelmingly for union with Russia. Kherson is the only province which was effectively conquered during the current invasion: it will be a massive setback when it falls.

When that will be is subject to many factors, because Russia's forces in the south-west of Ukraine are much stronger than in the north-east.

[Historian]

It is hard to keep up with the speed of the Ukrainian advance in the north.

Kupyansk has fallen. Izyum is under attack (may even have been taken by now). Lyman is under attack. Russian forces are running east leaving vast quantities of tanks, artillery, vehicles, ammunition and supplies, as well as some prisoners. Even the usually well-contollred media in Moscow is starting to panic.

Little or nothing of this has been reported by the BBC whose coverage of Ukraine in recent months has been, IMVVHO, very limited in scope. Some newspapers have been somewhat better at keeping up e.g. Guardian, Telegraph. While I understand that news organisations will lag behind online claims etc. the level of analysis has been very poor. This was the case before the recent 'other news'.

I also find it slightly disappointing at the lack of interest shown on the forum in recent weeks (months), but there are many reasons for this and I am probably being unreasonable. My apologies if so.

[Bryn]

It is hard to keep up with the speed of the Ukrainian advance in the north.

Kupyansk has fallen. Izyum is under attack (may even have been taken by now). Lyman is under attack. Russian forces are running east leaving vast quantities of tanks, artillery, vehicles, ammunition and supplies, as well as some prisoners. Even the usually well-contollred media in Moscow is starting to panic.

Little or nothing of this has been reported by the BBC whose coverage of Ukraine in recent months has been, IMVVHO, very limited in scope. Some newspapers have been somewhat better at keeping up e.g. Guardian, Telegraph. While I understand that news organisations will lag behind online claims etc. the level of analysis has been very poor. This was the case before the recent 'other news'.

I also find it slightly disappointing at the lack of interest shown on the forum in recent weeks (months), but there are many reasons for this and I am probably being unreasonable. My apologies if so.

You're doing too good a job, so I, for one, have just read and been suitably informed without responding on Forum, until now.