The defense of this land bridge would seem to give Ukraine some strong negotiating points, if this was a regular conflict. It has been said since Putin took Crimea he needed a land bridge and a fresh water source guarantee, perhaps he will now be able to get them?
People have said since 2014 Crimea was Russian, which is in contrast to the geology we see here.
I suppose it is a valid point, if you only consider the last half/quarter dozen centuries?
Crimea was detached from the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic and amalgamated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1956 by Nikita Kruschev. Prior to that, the Crimean Peninsula has been Russian territory since Russia annexed the peninsula in 1783.
At the time of Ukrainian independence in 1991, Crimea was part of Ukrainian territory. However, if there is any part of Ukraine that arguably should be transitioned over to the Russian Federation, it is Crimea.
Lt. General Michael Flynn has frequently made the observation that a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine would involve Russia essentially buying Crimea from Ukraine for a suitably large sum. If the canal from the Dnipro is to be a part of that package, there might even be an ongoing annual water rights fee--certainly were I in charge in Kyiv I would want that little chunk of recurring revenue.
As the maps show, once the Kerch Bridge is repaired, the strategic importance of a "land bridge" to the Crimea is lessened. With only one road via a land route that leads into Crimea and does not involve a bridge, the land route is arguably no more stable and assured than the Kerch Bridge.
This underscores the strategic idiocy of Putin's invasion. He has not made Russia's hold on Crimea more secure, he has not improved the supply situation to the Crimea, he has not improved the strategic viability of Sevastopol as headquarters for the Black Sea Fleet one bit by waging war against Ukraine. He could have achieved all of these by negotiation, however. He still can, although the ultimate price tag for what he needs vis-a-vis Crimea likely is going up every day that he keeps attacking Ukraine.
I agree, but if he had gone into this 'operation' with the goal of achieving his land bridge and water rights, which I felt was the best he could hope for without a bleeding sore on his empire for, like, forever, it would have been a done deal now!
If securing reliable supply routes to Crimea were his priority, Putin squandered troops and equipment with his air assault on Kyiv, and again with the lengthy armored column approaching Kyiv from the north.
Indeed, all the troops attacking Kharkiv and Kyiv in the northern part of Ukraine were completely irrelevant to the goal of securing the land bridge.
If all those forces had been directed towards an assault on Melitopol and Kherson from Crimea, and Mariupol from Russia proper, with a link up somewhere around Berdyansk, Putin likely could have achieved that limited set of war aims within a matter of weeks--well within his initial timeline.
However, that would have exposed the lie that his goal was the "denazification" and "demilitarization" of the Kyiv government.
The defense of this land bridge would seem to give Ukraine some strong negotiating points, if this was a regular conflict. It has been said since Putin took Crimea he needed a land bridge and a fresh water source guarantee, perhaps he will now be able to get them?
People have said since 2014 Crimea was Russian, which is in contrast to the geology we see here.
I suppose it is a valid point, if you only consider the last half/quarter dozen centuries?
Crimea was detached from the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic and amalgamated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1956 by Nikita Kruschev. Prior to that, the Crimean Peninsula has been Russian territory since Russia annexed the peninsula in 1783.
At the time of Ukrainian independence in 1991, Crimea was part of Ukrainian territory. However, if there is any part of Ukraine that arguably should be transitioned over to the Russian Federation, it is Crimea.
Lt. General Michael Flynn has frequently made the observation that a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine would involve Russia essentially buying Crimea from Ukraine for a suitably large sum. If the canal from the Dnipro is to be a part of that package, there might even be an ongoing annual water rights fee--certainly were I in charge in Kyiv I would want that little chunk of recurring revenue.
As the maps show, once the Kerch Bridge is repaired, the strategic importance of a "land bridge" to the Crimea is lessened. With only one road via a land route that leads into Crimea and does not involve a bridge, the land route is arguably no more stable and assured than the Kerch Bridge.
This underscores the strategic idiocy of Putin's invasion. He has not made Russia's hold on Crimea more secure, he has not improved the supply situation to the Crimea, he has not improved the strategic viability of Sevastopol as headquarters for the Black Sea Fleet one bit by waging war against Ukraine. He could have achieved all of these by negotiation, however. He still can, although the ultimate price tag for what he needs vis-a-vis Crimea likely is going up every day that he keeps attacking Ukraine.
I agree, but if he had gone into this 'operation' with the goal of achieving his land bridge and water rights, which I felt was the best he could hope for without a bleeding sore on his empire for, like, forever, it would have been a done deal now!
There is a lot more going on than meets the eye.
The key word is, as always, "IF".
If securing reliable supply routes to Crimea were his priority, Putin squandered troops and equipment with his air assault on Kyiv, and again with the lengthy armored column approaching Kyiv from the north.
Indeed, all the troops attacking Kharkiv and Kyiv in the northern part of Ukraine were completely irrelevant to the goal of securing the land bridge.
https://interactive.guim.co.uk/uploader/embed/2022/03/ukraine-invasion_0103/giv-825pDYFeuFpJGYC/Ukraine_Invasion_0103-inArticle_620.png
If all those forces had been directed towards an assault on Melitopol and Kherson from Crimea, and Mariupol from Russia proper, with a link up somewhere around Berdyansk, Putin likely could have achieved that limited set of war aims within a matter of weeks--well within his initial timeline.
However, that would have exposed the lie that his goal was the "denazification" and "demilitarization" of the Kyiv government.