[Goose]

Goose, I know you're all-in on Ukraine trying to retake the South and threaten Crimea.  How would your endgame look?  Russia cedes all of Kherson and Crimea to Ukraine, but keeps the Donbas?  In the map you've created, how would Ukraine hold Crimea in the long term without facing the same vulnerabilities with supply lines that Russia would face absent the Kerch Bridge?  Would Ukraine be substantially more secure if it also held Melitolpol and/or the entire left bank of the Dnipro including the NPP?  Wouldn't Ukraine still be in grave danger as long as Putin, or a similar successor, remains in power in Russia?

My "end state" is that Ukraine gets back all of the Sea of Azov coast all the way to Marioupol and the original border, i.e. the status quo ante. Ukraine needs that to secure the port there and also Beryadans'k. This is vital to Ukrainian commercial (primarily) and military interests. How much of Luhansk/Donetsk Russia gets to keep (if any) would be a negotiation. Ukraine wants those areas obviously, but they are either agricultural or part of the "rust belt" that at one time was very important but not anymore, especially because it is mostly destroyed.

Ukraine also gets back Crimea. It can base its navy there and can therefore in case of war close the Kerch strait and deny Russia all the trade that transits the Sea of Azov. That will hurt. Also, Sevastopol is a much better port than Novorossiysk. That is why Russia wanted it so bad. Ukraine would not have nearly the same problem as Russia does defending Crimea. Russia has to supply the place by sea (or the infamous bridge). Ukraine has to cross a river. Granted, it is a big river but lots easier. Ukraine can also base aircraft and missiles in South Kherson which is close to Crimea. Russia has no nearby place to base similar forces and worse still would need to conduct an amphibious landing. That is why seizing Crimea by treachery was so necessary in 2014. If it were defended it is a tough nut to crack from the Black Sea, even if you land to the west and attack down the coast. Taking Crimea from the "land" side is orders of magnitude easier than doing so from the sea.

No matter what happens, Ukraine is always going to be in danger from Russia. That was true in 1991 and it is true today. Once again, it is the intent vs capability problem. As long as Russia has the capability, they are a problem, no matter what their "intent" may be. Unfortunately Ukraine hasn't had the financial strength to prepare accordingly. Somehow, they will have to do so if they survive the current calamity.

[Goose]

Goose, I know you're all-in on Ukraine trying to retake the South and threaten Crimea.  How would your endgame look?  Russia cedes all of Kherson and Crimea to Ukraine, but keeps the Donbas?  In the map you've created, how would Ukraine hold Crimea in the long term without facing the same vulnerabilities with supply lines that Russia would face absent the Kerch Bridge?  Would Ukraine be substantially more secure if it also held Melitolpol and/or the entire left bank of the Dnipro including the NPP?  Wouldn't Ukraine still be in grave danger as long as Putin, or a similar successor, remains in power in Russia?

My "end state" is that Ukraine gets back all of the Sea of Azov coast all the way to Marioupol and the original border, i.e. the status quo ante. Ukraine needs that to secure the port there and also Beryadans'k. This is vital to Ukrainian commercial (primarily) and military interests. How much of Luhansk/Donetsk Russia gets to keep (if any) would be a negotiation. Ukraine wants those areas obviously, but they are either agricultural or part of the "rust belt" that at one time was very important but not anymore, especially because it is mostly destroyed.

Ukraine also gets back Crimea. It can base its navy there and can therefore in case of war close the Kerch strait and deny Russia all the trade that transits the Sea of Azov. That will hurt. Also, Sevastopol is a much better port than Novorossiysk. That is why Russia wanted it so bad. Ukraine would not have nearly the same problem as Russia does defending Crimea. Russia has to supply the place by sea (or the infamous bridge). Ukraine has to cross a river. Granted, it is a big river but lots easier. Ukraine can also base aircraft and missiles in South Kherson which is close to Crimea. Russia has no nearby place to base similar forces and worse still would need to conduct an amphibious landing. That is why seizing Crimea by treachery was so necessary in 2014. If it were defended it is a tough nut to crack from the Black Sea, even if you land to the west and attack down the coast. Taking Crimea from the "land" side is orders of magnitude easier than doing so from the sea.

No matter what happens, Ukraine is always going to be in danger from Russia. That was true in 1991 and it is true today. Once again, it is the intent vs capability problem. As long as Russia has the capability, they are a problem, no matter what their "intent" may be. Unfortunately Ukraine hasn't had the financial strength to prepare accordingly. Somehow, they will have to do so if they survive the current calamity.