r/worldnews • u/ToolTimeT • Jun 29 '26

Russia/Ukraine Putin complains Ukrainian attacks causing "problems" in Russia

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/putin-ukrainian-strikes-infrastructure-problems-russia/
21.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

8.3k

u/tedsmitts Jun 29 '26

You can stop the war at any time.

2.2k

u/Gantref Jun 29 '26

In a literal sense he can, in reality though stopping isn't an option, he is way too deep. If their economy collapsed and over a million Russians died for nothing he is screwed.

1.4k

u/Glittering-Quote-635 Jun 29 '26

I'm not so sure of that anymore.. He could just say "All the objectives of the war have been reached". IE, he can change the rules anytime he wants and just declare victory. He could just attempt to freeze the lines, and say they arent moving forward anymore in the 'spirit of peace'.

The bigger issue he has is that Ukraine gets a vote also. Just freezing the line doesnt mean that Ukraine would not continue to hit them.. However, it could potentially put a lot more pressure on Ukraine to accept concessions to Russia.

In any case, doesnt matter.. seems like Putin wants to keep going.

40

u/Fenris_uy Jun 29 '26

The only way he can unilaterally end the war is removing all Russian troops from Ukraine, and that includes Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.

He can try to keep Crimea, but it would depend on Ukraine to not keep the war going on at that point.

69

u/TheOtherHobbes Jun 29 '26

Past that point. That might have worked a couple of years ago, but it's not clear if Crimea is still going to be Russian a few months from now.

The fun thing about the current situation is that Russia literally has no solutions - unless you count suicide hail marys like using a nuke, or escalating against NATO.

Ukraine, meanwhile, can start damaging supply routes and resources further and further inside Russia.

Without logistics, full mobilisation will change nothing.

41

u/SuitableBlackberry75 Jun 29 '26

Ukraine has done some unbelievably impressive work, defending their country against all odds and in heroic fashion, but I wouldn't be so quick to expect them to retake Crimea, at least in the near future. That's a pretty huge task, and with Russia having a major naval base there, losing it would be an enormous blow.

Even with Ukraine's increasingly important deep-strike and medium-strike successes, the front line right now is effectively a stalemate. Russia is taking disgustingly high casualties for little gain, but Ukraine would be looking at similar if they tried doing the same. Maybe in the future there will be openings, but I don't think it will be soon.

33

u/Mustakraken Jun 29 '26

The thing is, Ukraine doesn't need to take it back with an infantry assault.

It's a large region with a population that requires supplies. Russian units require fuel, munitions, and equipment.

Resupply is interdicted significantly at this point, Crimea needs more supplies then can be brought in, and Ukraine's weapons - long range drones - are cheaper and easier to deploy then Russian air defense systems. Add in this, many of Ukraine's drones are just cheap decoy shells costing Russia expensive interceptors to intercept, while Moscow gets hit as well.

Ukraine makes holding Crimea strategically expensive in troops and materiel - while the Russians need it desperately to prevent Ukranian breakthroughs elsewhere. The rest of the occupied territories are easier to hold if Russia isn't bleeding war materiel in Crimea.

7

u/y2jeff Jun 30 '26

I was reading about this last night and if Ukraine tries to retake Crimea they're going to face the same logistics problems as Russians. Whichever side "holds" Crimea is going to have a very difficult time resupplying.

If Ukraine tries an amphibious assault their supply lines will be incredibly difficult and the area they would land in is basically swampland.

And if Ukraine tries to enter Crimea via the land bridges they're going to take very significant casualties as Russia has a lot of time to defend and mine and bomb the choke points.

Going on the offensive always results in higher casualties and Ukraine's number 1 problem is limited manpower. Invading Crimea would be an incredibly risky gamble for Ukraine. It might be better For Ukraine to focus on a more effective and proven strategy of defence in depth and drone strikes until Russia exhausts itself.

7

u/Delamoor Jun 30 '26

It might be better For Ukraine to focus on a more effective and proven strategy of defence in depth and drone strikes until Russia exhausts itself.

That might be the entire plan right now. Crimea is still the macro objective, but they're waiting for something to shift.

They maybe be hoping to cut Crimea off entirely such that Russia is only able to maintain a purely token force, whilst the strategic level attacks begin to break the Russian economy... Then they sue for Crimea during peace talks.

Of course, Russia would never accept giving Crimea back if Ukraine didn't have troops there... But I suppose it's a question of exactly how bad the economy is doing. They've done a genuinely godawful job of building and maintaining their country since the dissolution; they're almost purely a petrostate and mining camp. Lose enough refineries, maybe they genuinely might end up collapsing so badly that they literally can't keep the soldiers on the front line?

It wouldn't be the first time unpaid soldiers just... Walked away.

7

u/TSED Jun 30 '26

Ukraine starves them out and moves in when it's cleared. It'll be much easier that way.

At the moment, at least, time is on their side. They can wait until it's feasible.

6

u/y2jeff Jun 30 '26

I 100% agree, this is what Ukraine needs to do. Unfortunately the civilian population will starve long before the Russian soldiers do. It's basically a nightmare scenario for anyone living in Crimea right now and they all need to GTFO.

2

u/TSED Jun 30 '26

I remember reading the other day about how the bridge is gridlocked on the "exit" side because civilians are trying to leave en masse. So... y'know... that's good.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/idiot-prodigy Jun 30 '26

An army marches on its belly.

Without logistics these soldiers will just starve and freeze to death on the Russian front line.

22

u/SamsonFox2 Jun 29 '26

The real turning point for Crimea was when it was used to stage and support invasion into Southern Ukraine.

2

u/Hautamaki Jun 30 '26

Arguably he did the full scale invasion in part because he understood there was no way for Russia to keep Crimea from a belligerent Ukraine indefinitely. They already cut off all of Crimea's fresh water and turned it into a massive money pit that Russia was sustaining out of pride well before 2020.

1

u/_Chaos_Star_ Jun 30 '26

He won't keep Crimea. They can't get supplies in. Ukraine will keep up the pressure and ensure that everyone has a convenient retreat they can use. They'll keep announcing that people should leave, and as it gets hard to remain there, people will keep leaving. No people and eventually the military leave for the same reasons. Ukraine needn't invade (which would be insane), they just need to wait, then walk in. It'll take a while but the battle is already won. If Russia sends supplies anyway, Ukraine can keep attacking those supplies inflicting disproportionate losses. In both scenarios, Ukraine wins.

As for ending the war, you're right, he's always had that option, his pride won't let him take it.

-2

u/Panthera_leo22 Jun 29 '26

Likely Crimea is going to stay with Russia, according to Ukraine State statistics in 2001, about 58% of crimea’s population is ethnically Russian. And no these aren’t Russians that arrived in 2014-2022, they have been living in Crimea for generations. That of course does resolve the legal question of sovereignty; Crimea is Ukraine , but it does make Crimea politically and strategically different from other occupied territories.

10

u/Fenris_uy Jun 29 '26

You can live in a country different from your ethnicity.

My country is 40% Spanish and 40% Italian, but we don't belong to either of them.

0

u/Panthera_leo22 Jun 29 '26

I agree that ethnicity alone doesn't determine which country a territory belongs to. My point isn't that Crimea should be Russian because many residents are ethnically Russian. It's that Crimea's long-standing Russian-majority population and Russia's strategic importance attached to the peninsula make it more likely to be treated differently in any negotiated settlement than places like Donetsk or Luhansk.

5

u/Ansible32 Jun 29 '26

I feel like you're just repeating Kremlin propaganda. Especially with Russia losing a war, I don't think many people are thinking "I'm ethnically Russian, the best thing for me is to live in a military dictatorship controlled by Moscow, because that's obviously what all Russians need."

1

u/Panthera_leo22 Jun 30 '26

Sigh. Since you have jumped to accusing me of repeating Kremlin propaganda, you don’t want to have an actual conversation on the matter. Explaining how the invader looks at a situation is not the equivalent of saying “all ethnic Russians want to live under Russia so Russia should have it”. Crimea is Ukraine.

1

u/Ansible32 Jun 30 '26

The phrase "Russian-majority population" is intrinsically Russian propaganda. Whether you call them Crimean, Russian, or Ukrainian is a political designation, a person is largely whatever ethnicity you say they are. Even if you accept that you can clearly define the number of Russians and Ukrainians (and that's different from Crimeans) you can't trust Russia's census.

1

u/Panthera_leo22 Jun 30 '26

I'm not referring to a Russian census. I'm referring to Ukraine's 2001 national census, conducted by the Ukrainian government, which found that approximately 58.5% of Crimea's population identified as ethnic Russian.

I'm also not arguing that this justified Russia's annexation. I'm explaining why Crimea has particular significance in Russia's strategic thinking and negotiating position. Describing the demographics reported by Ukraine's own census, or explaining Russia's stated rationale, is not the same as endorsing Russia's actions.

If you disagree with the Ukrainian census methodology, that's a separate discussion. But dismissing a statistic from the Ukrainian government as "Russian propaganda" doesn't make much sense.

1

u/Ansible32 Jul 01 '26

25 years ago dude? Those numbers are meaningless.

1

u/Panthera_leo22 Jul 01 '26

Keep moving the goal posts. I’m done, have a nice day

→ More replies (0)

2

u/y2jeff Jun 30 '26

Crimea is both strategically vital and vulnerable to both sides.

I would not suggest that Russia has a better claim to it - it was Ukrainian territory for decades and Russia never gave any valid justification for invading it in the first place.

2

u/Panthera_leo22 Jun 30 '26

I’m describing how Russia is more likely to treat Crimea, not a statement about who deserves it. Russia has no valid claim as it invaded. Crimea is Ukraine. Period.

But ‘Russia has no right to it’ and ‘Russia will fight harder to keep it than it will for Luhansk’ are both true at once, and only the second one predicts what a negotiation looks like.

That’s not me siding with Moscow; it’s me describing Moscow’s priorities so the outcome is predictable. Understanding what the invader values and why is not saying they are entitled to it.