Realistically, what weapons does Ukraine need to de-occupy this?

Realistically, what weapons does Ukraine need to de-occupy this?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >de-occupy

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, it's occupied by Russian invaders, and Russian funded partisans.

      Something to knock out the kerch bridge and then just a bunch of precision artillery to bleed the vatniks until they leave voluntarily.

      I vote for this.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Manpower. Need at least 250,000 and a combined arms tactic with high mobility.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Manpower wise they are doing alright, however all the new units they form are merely light infantry battalions.

      https://i.imgur.com/QThReue.jpg

      Realistically, what weapons does Ukraine need to de-occupy this?

      They need tanks, IFVs APCs, SPGs and ammo for them, then they could actually make a push.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Direct NATO intervention. They aren’t taking Crimea on their own. Now reply to me delusional morons

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      B..bbut, they just can, chud

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The last sentence kind gives you away as being a vatnik shill.

      B..bbut, they just can, chud

      >replying to yourself

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >acknowledge reality
        >delusional moron accuses me of being a shill
        Pottery

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Send in NATO units and just paint Ukrainian markings on them.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    They need another country to step in because they can't take land back from Russia.
    It has been 8 years. They haven't taken back anything that's been occupied, only deserted.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >It has been 8 years.
      the minsk agreements where basically detentes

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >They haven't taken back anything that's been occupied, only deserted.
      They took back Mariupol near the outset of the Russian spring

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Cut the bridge and let them starve. Keep enough forces there that Russia has to defend it while they focus on the East.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      This. Cut the bridge, cut the water, blow up everything 300km from the front with HIMARS and wait them out. Whoever doesn’t leave in 24 months would be moronic Russian or Ukrainian. Offer NATO/Turkey/UK a permanent military base Sevatospol for their support and BTFO the Russians.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >permanent American base at Sevastopol

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          I'M GONNA CONTOON

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Offer NATO/Turkey/UK a permanent military base Sevatospol for their support
        muh dick

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Would Erdogan crew himself if Turkey were offered a naval base on Crimea? Remind everyone of the glory days if the Ottoman Empire.

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Something to knock out the kerch bridge and then just a bunch of precision artillery to bleed the vatniks until they leave voluntarily.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      how do they leave if you destroy the bridge?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Getting the soldiers out isn't the logistical problem for Russia if the bridge goes down. The problem will be keeping their soldiers supplied enough so that they don't simply die or surrender. The russian army simply sucks at logistics.
        Live by the sword, die by the pallet.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Live by the sword, die by the pallet.
          This is actually a fantastic aphorism, imma quote it where I can

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        It's called surrendering.

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    28th century technology

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    First off they need to destroy the Crimean bridge.
    They could do that with the ATACMs they were promised from the coast line of the Azov sea right at the border, given they recapture their Southern territory.
    And then, considering we haven't seen any noteworthy advances of the Ukranian army unless the Russians straight up abandoned the territory, they would need to focus everything they have to capture it in a very bloody campaign costing many civillian lives.
    The Russians would just come from the East again in the meanwhile.
    It will take years before this becomes an option since Ukraine will need proper arms, men and armor.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >considering we haven't seen any noteworthy advances of the Ukranian army

      Who's "we"? Blind people? VatBlack person shills?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Tell me of those advances.

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Some SRBMs to blow the bridge and AShMs to destroy anything going to it.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Something to knock out the eastern bridge, more long range missiles to take out the air defences and soften ruskies, some planes to establish air superiority, some landing crafts and related stuff so that they are not completely reliant on that bottleneck.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Naval blockade

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      That should be very easy because Russia's navy is ridiculously shit.

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Kick all the military age ukrop draft dodgers the frick out of our countries for starters.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      A story to tell?

  13. 2 years ago
    Based Charlie Magne Poster

    short of the US volunteering to do it, they aren't "de-occupying" anything but their own colons.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      cope vatnik

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Siege it.

    Just cut off the land and bridge routes, and all utilities. So Russia has to sea and air lift to support the area. The vatnik will not be able to support both the civilian population and the war. They'll cut their loses and relocate their black sea naval forces to elsewhere. Abandoning the Crimeans. Many vatnik loyalists will flea Crimea by what ever means. Then the rest will accept their reunification with Ukriane.

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It's not about the weapons, they can't do it, until they liberate south of Kherson oblast, on the other hand once they do Crimea itself becomes nigh indefensible. It is impossible to supply a fighting force there (not to mention russians would have to assemble one so failure to supply it even becomes an issue), when the enemy controls the single (!) supply route, which is the reason germans had such an easy time taking the thing during WWII, and with weapons already on the field that control can be achieved without even crossing into the peninsula.

    Additionally consider that this campaign would essentially be decided by crossing one bottleneck and doesn't involve any urban combat, against an enemy who cannot reinforce or resupply.

    Once Melitopol is liberated taking Crimea is significantly less challenging than liberating Donbass, that's all assuming that russian army doesn't disintegrate after Kherson, which is not a trivial assumption, considering the circumstances.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Crimea isn't as flat as the rest of Ukraine

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Is there a sufficient stockpile of armor and munitions hidden in those mountains? To conduct prolonged defensive operations? Because if not having fire control over Kerch destroys any chance of a successful defence.

        It would probably be possible to haul supplies to south cost of Crimea using what remains of russians black sea fleet, though at a cost of constant losses and in quantities that would make the whole enterprise just prolong the inevitable for inconsequential amounts of time.

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Disruption of bridge between Crimea / Russia to cut off supplies

    Then destruction of radar sites for missile strikes against headquarters to destroy all the HVT

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Drones and grenades. Drop enough grenades on enough vatnik occupiers and they'll flee over the bridge. Eventually the surviving residents of Crimea will welcome their Ukrainian brothers with open arms.

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It's not a matter of some single wunderwaffe.

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Precision strike weapons to destroy the bridge, AShMs to sink any ships that try to resupply by sea. Air Superiority to prevent airlift and destroy defenses. Manpower to take the highway along the North side of the Peninsula down to Feodosiya, isolating Kerch from Simferopol and Sevastopol, then choke them out with a 3 pronged advance from North, Northeast, and East.

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks. Lots and lots of tanks. How else are you going to advance in the steppes?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >How else are you going to advance in the steppes?

      https://twitter.com/Kiborgzzz/status/1542494761268936706

      flood the plains with Banderamobiles

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        CGI

  21. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    A few wrenches should do the trick.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      how did the Crimea get water in the years 2014-2022? Wasn't it already stopped during this period?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Its surrounded by water

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Expensive imports from mainland Russia

          Russia built a water pipeline from the mainland

          Why not just build a desalination plant

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Because they're very expensive.

            • 2 years ago
              Anonymous

              Not very expensive.

              Desalinated water costs ~2-3X as much, its more expensive than natural fresh water, but not so expensive that no one can afford it. Its certainly much less expensive than not having water at all and much less expensive than fighting a war over it

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >Desalinated water costs ~2-3X as much
                lolno moron

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >let's build a desalination plant in a matter of weeks/months in a war zone while being sanctioned by everyone who has the technology
                Stupid doesn't even begin to describe this moronation.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                I mean, yes, but also, no.
                That's a lot of excess cost to make farming not worth it.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I come on /k/ and read the deepest insights into military and society, and then posts like these pop up, and I find myself wondering how these people even manage to breathe.

            But then I remember /misc/ exists.

            • 2 years ago
              Anonymous

              What? It’s a genuine question you asshat

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                Seriously kys

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                No homosexual

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Russia struggles with the concept of pallets and you here are telling me they can build a desalination plant.
            Lmao

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            because russia

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Expensive imports from mainland Russia

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Russia built a water pipeline from the mainland

  22. 2 years ago
    Sage

    They need 2 b2s to roll across the island and shit 160 500lb jdams across it

  23. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Cripple the Crimean forces' Logistics. Deprive them of food, fuel, and ammo.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Seriously, forget about a "fair fight". Be like the anaconda and slowly strangle the occupation forces.

  24. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    A well placed bomb on the a certain bridge

  25. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Ukraine can borrow some black people from the USA and just airlift thousands of them there, just drop them from a plane with parachutes, the land will become ungovernable and unhabitable, Ukraine won't have it but so won't Russia.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Let's not deploy bioweapons

  26. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It would be hard for Ukraine to take back Crimea but very easy to deny its use to russia, they already deny the use of some of the ports there, as well as recently one of the airports. They also control the water supply for crimea, and could probably destroy the bridge. Basically actually mounting an offensive there would be a nightmare, but sieging it would be very easy.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Cut Crimea off from Russia and see how long it can last, lol.

      BUT, Ukraine needs a damn Navy first.

  27. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Are you guys sure that Russia would even bother evacuating Crimea if Ukrainians chose the siege option? 2 million dead civilians doesnt sound too good for the good guys.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      They would evacuate on their own, all the tourists already left because of the airbase strike.

  28. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    their best bet is to somehow blow up the bridge and when they take Kherson, cut off the water supply of the peninsula

    the ruskies will be forced to either

    a) retreat
    b) significantly reduce their deployment there
    c) significantly divert resources to the peninsula, weakening their other positions

  29. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Those moronic FORT rubber bullet pistols they make.

  30. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I doubt Ukraine has the power to take back Crimea AND hold the line on the other fronts.
    So the age old tradition of siege warfare shall prevail. This includes a naval blockade. Look at Operation Starvation by /ourman/ Curtis Le May for inspiration. Shoot down anything trying to get in or out. Strategic bombing of towns, cities, bases, anything if value with available means, so HIMARS and SRBM's. BUT Crimea is a large agricultural land. So degrading the ability to farm will be a must.
    All this will take a lot of time. The naval blockade of Germany in WW1 only started bearing fruit towards 1917/1918. The blockade of Japan by America through unrestricted submarine warfare and prolific mine laying took something like 2 years to start seeing success, if we consider the start date to be when the Navy starting getting its shit together with submarine warfare. The Battle of Atlantic lasted 3 years and failed.
    Sieging and starving Crimea is possible. But it will take A LOT of time.

  31. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    2 more weeks and Kherson will surely fall to the 6 gorrilianth counter offensive

  32. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Steppe power

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      but Crimea isn't a steppe. it is very hilly and craggy.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        This would make it harder for Russia to continue to invade crimea then

  33. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Girkin got arrested, lol.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      No, not the pickle man...

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Yup. Putin put him in a jar.

  34. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The US works a WW2 style lend-lease agreement where we give them infinite HIMARS and they give us a 99 year lease on Crimea.

  35. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    nukes so they can blow Russia off the map

  36. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Blow the bridge and continue to not supply anything. Let Russia foot the bill, realize how expensive it is, and they will want to give it back. Although Russian pride means they will keep it at all costs, militarily and financially. So let things take their course.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      At the minimum, force Russia to be drained a frickton just keeping Crimea.

  37. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    As I keep trying to explain to you people, it’s not a matter of weapons. It’s a matter of Ukraine even having the CAPABILITY to counterattack and eject invaders. Weapons is a part of that capability but it’s NOT the factor which keeps them on the defensive.

    The issue is that they don’t have the training, organization or C4 to do a real counterattack. They lack any real combined arms maneuver warfare capability. Their force structure in reality are guys with man-portable weapons (light infantry) sitting in shallow trenches and basements. These guys have almost no fire support of any kind. Zelensky said that the war would transform into something like WW2 with massed tank formations running into each other etc but that clearly hasn’t happened. If a Ukrainian soldier sees a friendly tank it’s only a solo vehicle trying to snipe at some position or other tank. They’re just incapable of mounting an offensive in the face of any meaningful defense.

    For some reason you people dislike reality and are only interested in viewing the world via circlejerks and memes.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *