[Goose]

Interesting thoughts.  Would Ukraine try to force Russia to defend Crimea and then give Russia a Hobson's choice between Crimea and Donbas?  Do the Ukranians even have that capability?

I think Ukraine believes it has a better chance in the south than the north. Russian supply lines are longer and can potentially be more easily disrupted. That may present Russia with a choice of moving reinforcements south, thereby weakening their position in Donbas, or leaving the situation in the south as-is and expect their current strength to prevail. That didn't work for the Russians in Kherson because the supply situation was so bad more troops wasn't really helpful. Right now Ukraine has lots of the Kherson Oblast in HIMARS range. What Ukraine needs to accomplish is to get either the E105 south from Melitopol' and/or part of the M14 between Melitopol' and Mariupol under the HIMARS footprint. If they can do that, Crimea is potentially in serious trouble.

IMHO Russia will not redeploy forces south unless and until the GLOC is cut as suggested above. At that point, they will probably move forces to restore that situation, not to reinforce Crimea. If Ukraine can cut the GLOC AND also threaten Crimea by an advance through Kherson Oblast, Russia will be in a real world of hurt. That is one reason that the Ukrainian failure to press the Russian retreat from Kherson and establish a presence on the left bank is regrettable. If Ukraine cuts the GLOC to Crimea, Russia has to restore the situation. They can attack the Ukrainian advance from two directions, Crimea and Donbas. Under those circumstances, it is improbable Ukraine could maintain their position, especially without major casualties. If, OTOH the attack from the Crimea direction was impossible because of the threatened or actual attack from Kherson city (or points further south), it would be much easier for Ukraine to keep the GLOC severed. The entire Russian position south of the breach, not just Crimea, would be threatened by lack of a good supply line. As long as those lines are severed, Crimea gets weaker, facilitating the attack through Kherson Oblast. Two mutually supporting thrusts. That is I think the only way to present a Hobson's choice to Russia.

If they are able to force Russia out of Crimea, would they use it to trade for other occupied regions?

IMO, no, not unless forced by NATO to make such a concession. Ukraine is suffering a lot and has adopted a very hard line on this subject. I don't think it would be politically easy (or even possible) to advocate such a swap. I think Ukraine is (rightly) convinced that a Russian Crimea is a sword pointed at their stomach, and eventually that sword would be used. Before 2014, I think some kind of a "deal" could have been made. Russia could have just bought Crimea. Nobody would hate/distrust anybody. After it was seized, not a chance.

Would Russia agree, or would they look at the fact that Ukraine could take Crimea as justification for a war to take all of Southern Ukraine?

BC

Russia doesn't need "justification" to take all of Southern Ukraine. They already tried to do it and Ukraine stopped them. They would do it tomorrow if they thought they could. If Ukraine threatens to actually enter Crimea in force, Russia will, IMO, say that is a "red line" and that if crossed will produce "unpredictable results". What happens then is anybody's guess. I wouldn't be surprised to see Putin removed for allowing Ukraine to get that far. If Putin is gone, I think a negotiated settlement will be possible but on Ukraine's terms (mostly). If that doesn't happen, Ukraine will continue forward, because they really have no other choice. I hope that never happens and Russia cry Uncle before that point is reached.

[Goose]

Interesting thoughts.  Would Ukraine try to force Russia to defend Crimea and then give Russia a Hobson's choice between Crimea and Donbas?  Do the Ukranians even have that capability?

I think Ukraine believes it has a better chance in the south than the north. Russian supply lines are longer and can potentially be more easily disrupted. That may present Russia with a choice of moving reinforcements south, thereby weakening their position in Donbas, or leaving the situation in the south as-is and expect their current strength to prevail. That didn't work for the Russians in Kherson because the supply situation was so bad more troops wasn't really helpful. Right now Ukraine has lots of the Kherson Oblast in HIMARS range. What Ukraine needs to accomplish is to get either the E105 south from Melitopol' and/or part of the M14 between Melitopol' and Mariupol under the HIMARS footprint. If they can do that, Crimea is potentially in serious trouble.

IMHO Russia will not redeploy forces south unless and until the GLOC is cut as suggested above. At that point, they will probably move forces to restore that situation, not to reinforce Crimea. If Ukraine can cut the GLOC AND also threaten Crimea by an advance through Kherson Oblast, Russia will be in a real world of hurt. That is one reason that the Ukrainian failure to press the Russian retreat from Kherson and establish a presence on the left bank is regrettable. If Ukraine cuts the GLOC to Crimea, Russia has to restore the situation. They can attack the Ukrainian advance from two directions, Crimea and Donbas. Under those circumstances, it is improbable Ukraine could maintain their position, especially without major casualties. If, OTOH the attack from the Crimea direction was impossible because of the threatened or actual attack from Kherson city (or points further south), it would be much easier for Ukraine to keep the GLOC severed. The entire Russian position south of the breach, not just Crimea, would be threatened by lack of a good supply line. As long as those lines are severed, Crimea gets weaker, facilitating the attack through Kherson Oblast. Two mutually supporting thrusts. That is I think the only way to present a Hobson's choice to Russia.

If they are able to force Russia out of Crimea, would they use it to trade for other occupied regions?

IMO, no, not unless forced by NATO to make such a concession. Ukraine is suffering a lot and has adopted a very hard line on this subject. I don't think it would be politically easy (or even possible) to advocate such a swap. I think Ukraine is (rightly) convinced that a Russian Crimea is a sword pointed at their stomach, and eventually that sword would be used. Before 2014, I think some kind of a "deal" could have been made. Russia could have just bought Crimea. Nobody would hate/distrust anybody. After it was seized, not a chance.

Would Russia agree, or would they look at the fact that Ukraine could take Crimea as justification for a war to take all of Southern Ukraine?

BC

Russia doesn't need "justification" to take all of Southern Ukraine. They already tried to do it and Ukraine stopped them. They would do it tomorrow if they thought they could. If Ukraine threatens to actually enter Crimea in force, Russia will, IMO, say that is a "red line" and that if crossed will produce "unpredictable results". What happens then is anybody's guess. I wouldn't be surprised to see Putin removed for allowing Ukraine to get that far. If Putin is gone, I think a negotiated settlement will be possible but on Ukraine's terms (mostly). If that doesn't happen, Ukraine will continue forward, because they really have no other choice. I hope that never happens and Russia cry Uncle before that point is reached.