The title is badly worded, because it could be read as Crimea being cut off entirely, which could lead to a humanitarian crisis if it lasted long enough. So far Ukraine is intentionally leaving...
The title is badly worded, because it could be read as Crimea being cut off entirely, which could lead to a humanitarian crisis if it lasted long enough. So far Ukraine is intentionally leaving the bridge open so that anybody who wants can leave.
From the article: [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...]
From the article:
Ukraine’s operation, named “Molochka”, began on July 6. Ukraine’s commander of unmanned forces, Robert “Madyar” Brovdi, said it “paralyzes the feeder fleet of Russian courier tankers”, in comments on his Telegram messaging channel.
[...]
These flat-bottomed tankers and barges ferry oil from the shallow waters of the Volga-Don Canal and Sea of Azov to larger tankers waiting in the Black Sea on the other side of the Kerch Strait, he said.
“It essentially prevents the export of ‘black gold’,” said Brovdi, and “restricts the delivery of scarce gasoline to Crimea via the narrow channel of the shallow Sea of Azov, leaving the main and very dangerous method of delivery as rail and road tank cars.”
During the first 10 days of the operation until July 16, Brovdi said, Ukraine had struck 147 tankers of the Russian shadow fleet. The majority, 117, were feeder tankers in the Sea of Azov. The rest were in the Black Sea.
[...]
On the night of July 13, Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) also struck several ferries used to transport military materiel across the Kerch Strait, as well as oil storage and trans-shipment points.
[...]
Ukraine also targeted the Crimean electricity supply, striking the Saky thermal power plant on July 9, five electricity substations on July 10 and nine more substations and the Kuban-Crimea electricity transfer point in Russia on July 13.
[...]
Crimea seems set for more suffering, however, as Ukraine’s campaign appears to be mounting.
The strikes against it and the Sea of Azov are part of a campaign of mid-range strikes begun this year to starve Russia’s front line of fuel and weapons, and the Kremlin of export revenue from fossil fuels.
[...]
On July 7, Russia said Ukraine tried to blow up the main compressor station on its TurkStream gas pipeline, which supplies 16.5 billion cubic metres of gas to Turkiye a year, and has a similar capacity designed to serve Southeast Europe.
[...]
Russian petrol production now reaches only two-thirds of seasonal needs, said the Reuters news agency, citing two industry sources and its own calculations.
This is the first I can recall hearing about Freya having offensive capabilities. Wikipedia describes it only as an "anti-ballistic defense project". Did the author of the article misunderstand...
“I hope that within the next 12 months, we will see FREYA in operation,” Zelenskyy said, referring to the programme, which is both offensive and defensive, aiming to build Europe’s first joint offensive ballistic missile capability and its first joint defence from ballistics.
That capability would allow Zelenskyy to use ballistic missiles for more effective strikes against Russia.
This is the first I can recall hearing about Freya having offensive capabilities. Wikipedia describes it only as an "anti-ballistic defense project". Did the author of the article misunderstand something, or is there information missing from Wikipedia?
Possibly a mistake by Al Jazeera conflating the new defensive FP7.X interceptor and the offensive ballistic missile FP7 the interceptor is based on? I haven't seen any mention of offensive...
Possibly a mistake by Al Jazeera conflating the new defensive FP7.X interceptor and the offensive ballistic missile FP7 the interceptor is based on?
I haven't seen any mention of offensive capabilities for FREYJA either so this is my best guess.
It's designed to take the place of Patriot batteries, so perhaps it can target planes? Ukraine also seems to claim one-way attack drones that Russia launches as materiel that they have...
It's designed to take the place of Patriot batteries, so perhaps it can target planes? Ukraine also seems to claim one-way attack drones that Russia launches as materiel that they have destroyed...I guess anything could be offensive under that definition.
I'll never understand why the Ukrainian government thinks bombing Crimea will encourage them to rejoin. Cutting off their electricity seems needlessly cruel. You would think that it would've...
I'll never understand why the Ukrainian government thinks bombing Crimea will encourage them to rejoin. Cutting off their electricity seems needlessly cruel.
You would think that it would've crossed their minds that bombing what's supposedly still their own territory would increase anti-Ukrainian resentment there. I wonder if punishing Crimeans for leaving is seen as a war goal for Ukraine.
The article says this about starving Russian supply lines and cash. At this point they may not be convincing Crimea of anything and simply treating them as aiding Russia. But either way they're...
The article says this about starving Russian supply lines and cash. At this point they may not be convincing Crimea of anything and simply treating them as aiding Russia. But either way they're cutting off Russia's ability to control it. My understanding is Crimeans see themselves as such more than Ukrainian or Russian but idk, it's been occupied by Russia since 2014, I don't know that "wanting to rejoin" is the right language nor how they felt about it before this (it seems... Mixed?)
But I just doubt they think this will do more than hurt Russia
It's leverage. Or in the vernacular of presidents "having cards". Aside from asserting their position and forcing the Russian position to become untenable, it's about showing they consider that...
It's leverage. Or in the vernacular of presidents "having cards".
Aside from asserting their position and forcing the Russian position to become untenable, it's about showing they consider that land theirs (and by all means, it is) as well as giving them something to negotiate with and about.
Russia is forced to send valuable resources and divert rarer and rarer anti air to protect said resources, spreading them thin elsewhere.
They needed protection for Crimea and the frontlines three years ago, they need anti air protection for Moscow, Valdai, refineries closeby, the Black Sea, and now increasingly refineries and ports thousands of kilometers away.
There is just no way to protect everything and that's precisely the point.
Additionally, Crimea is a weak, easy to hit pressure point with its few entryways. The inability for Russia to respond is.. unpopular to say the least.
I agree. I suppose the main reason Ukraine hasn't renounced its claim to Crimea yet is that it'd be demoralising for the war effort to seen as ceding territory to the enemy.
I agree. I suppose the main reason Ukraine hasn't renounced its claim to Crimea yet is that it'd be demoralising for the war effort to seen as ceding territory to the enemy.
No. The main reason is Ukraine wants that territory back. The opinions of the current residents of Crimea don't matter to Ukraine if it believes that the taking of Crimea was a non-consensual...
No. The main reason is Ukraine wants that territory back. The opinions of the current residents of Crimea don't matter to Ukraine if it believes that the taking of Crimea was a non-consensual action.
And it does not matter to Ukraine if cutting off supplies to Crimea makes life harsh for the current residents. As Crimea was taken and held by Russia through force, only force will bring it back. It's not like becoming popular with Crimeans will convince Crimea to come back via referendum; Russia holds it because they want to.
The title is badly worded, because it could be read as Crimea being cut off entirely, which could lead to a humanitarian crisis if it lasted long enough. So far Ukraine is intentionally leaving the bridge open so that anybody who wants can leave.
From the article:
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
This is the first I can recall hearing about Freya having offensive capabilities. Wikipedia describes it only as an "anti-ballistic defense project". Did the author of the article misunderstand something, or is there information missing from Wikipedia?
Possibly a mistake by Al Jazeera conflating the new defensive FP7.X interceptor and the offensive ballistic missile FP7 the interceptor is based on?
I haven't seen any mention of offensive capabilities for FREYJA either so this is my best guess.
It's designed to take the place of Patriot batteries, so perhaps it can target planes? Ukraine also seems to claim one-way attack drones that Russia launches as materiel that they have destroyed...I guess anything could be offensive under that definition.
There's probably a fair bit of propaganda sprinkled in all this goodness, but I'm still happy to hear it.
I'll never understand why the Ukrainian government thinks bombing Crimea will encourage them to rejoin. Cutting off their electricity seems needlessly cruel.
You would think that it would've crossed their minds that bombing what's supposedly still their own territory would increase anti-Ukrainian resentment there. I wonder if punishing Crimeans for leaving is seen as a war goal for Ukraine.
The article says this about starving Russian supply lines and cash. At this point they may not be convincing Crimea of anything and simply treating them as aiding Russia. But either way they're cutting off Russia's ability to control it. My understanding is Crimeans see themselves as such more than Ukrainian or Russian but idk, it's been occupied by Russia since 2014, I don't know that "wanting to rejoin" is the right language nor how they felt about it before this (it seems... Mixed?)
But I just doubt they think this will do more than hurt Russia
It's leverage. Or in the vernacular of presidents "having cards".
Aside from asserting their position and forcing the Russian position to become untenable, it's about showing they consider that land theirs (and by all means, it is) as well as giving them something to negotiate with and about.
Russia is forced to send valuable resources and divert rarer and rarer anti air to protect said resources, spreading them thin elsewhere.
They needed protection for Crimea and the frontlines three years ago, they need anti air protection for Moscow, Valdai, refineries closeby, the Black Sea, and now increasingly refineries and ports thousands of kilometers away.
There is just no way to protect everything and that's precisely the point.
Additionally, Crimea is a weak, easy to hit pressure point with its few entryways. The inability for Russia to respond is.. unpopular to say the least.
I don't think that there any hope that people that still live in Crimea after russian occupaition want or can rejoin with Ukraine.
I agree. I suppose the main reason Ukraine hasn't renounced its claim to Crimea yet is that it'd be demoralising for the war effort to seen as ceding territory to the enemy.
No. The main reason is Ukraine wants that territory back. The opinions of the current residents of Crimea don't matter to Ukraine if it believes that the taking of Crimea was a non-consensual action.
And it does not matter to Ukraine if cutting off supplies to Crimea makes life harsh for the current residents. As Crimea was taken and held by Russia through force, only force will bring it back. It's not like becoming popular with Crimeans will convince Crimea to come back via referendum; Russia holds it because they want to.
Crimea has been settled by a huge amount of Russian settlers since 2014.