Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday reiterated his goal of taking back Crimea from Russia, saying Ukraine will do so by any means necessary. Zelensky made the comments during a summit on Crimea that was attended virtually by about 60 nations.
“I know that Crimea is with Ukraine, is waiting for us to return. I want all of you to know that we will return. We need to win the fight against Russian aggression. Therefore, we need to free Crimea from occupation,” Zelensky said. “It began with Crimea, it will end with Crimea.”
Zelensky still insists that Ukraine will take back all the territory Russia has captured since it invaded on February 24, as well as Crimea, which Russia has controlled since 2014. But capturing the territories would require a massive military operation, and Ukraine has yet to launch any sort of successful counter-offensive.
In recent weeks, there have been several blasts inside Crimea at Russian military facilities. Official, Kyiv hasn’t taken credit, but Ukrainian officials have hinted at their involvement, and media reports attributed some incidents to Ukraine’s special forces. A US official told Politico last week that Washington supports Ukraine striking Crimea.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken addressed Tuesday’s summit and said the “international community” should put pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin until all Russian troops leave the peninsula. “Crimea is Ukraine. That was our position in 2014, and it remains in 2022,” he said.
While Zelensky and the US portray Russia’s control over Crimea as an “occupation,” the people of the peninsula voted overwhelmingly in 2014 to join the Russian Federation. The US has denounced the referendum as a sham, but plenty of polls have been held after 2014 that show Crimeans are happy they joined Russia.
32 thoughts on “At Crimea Summit, Zelensky Again Vows Ukraine Will Take Back the Peninsula”
Cocaine is a drug which can give delusions of grandeur, isn’t that correct Mr. Coke Head Zelensky..
Blinken is about as delusional as Zelenskyy. Probably shares the same cocaine habit which he probably gets from Biden’s son.
I wish it could be explained as cocaine. It is far worse. This guy just stone cold sober is a warmonger and fool.
He can be bold and say that, so long as US/UK are forklifting billions in weapons aid. Too bad, he isn’t the one in the front line.
He said that twice last week and several times over and over before that, so it’s worth to clarify, again that, he obviously doesn’t want Crimea as is, i.e with majority Russian population except of course for whatever they’ve built and renovated since 2014, something the Nazi’s and the oligarchs never did since (in) dependence.
That goes for the southern half of the country too. But being Nazi’s, they’ve always has a “final solution” to such problems, something Vicki Nudelman and her 44 something biolabs probably were going to assist them with..
One thing that is consistent in relations between Ukraine and Crimea since the fall of the Soviet Union is that nobody in Kyev or D.C., cares about what the people of Crimea want.
Well, he also “promised” Ukraine would retake all of Kherson “by September”, and that has gone exactly nowhere. Ukraine lacks the ability to launch any serious offensive action. Despite considerable numerical superiority in the Kherson sector, and “HIMARS-HIMARS-HIMARS” their entire achievements to date are to damage a bridge, and retake some outlying, largely destroyed (by Ukrainian shelling) border villages.
And, even if they did, by some miracle, “retake” Kherson city, they would face further serious obstacles in the form of the river and “rotten sea” that divide the city from much of Kherson Oblast and then from Crimea itself.
Zelensky’s attitude toward “retaking Crimea” is reminiscent of the allies toward offensive action on the western front in 1915-1917; unrealistic hubris accomplishing nothing but piling up their own casualties.
Zelensky should do his people a favor and shut the hell up.
Taking Crimea needs a naval landing. which, in turn, needs cover from our navy.
U.S. navy ships have no defense against Russian hypersonic missiles, an attempt by any US. ship to provide air cover for an invasian of Crimes would be attacked and most likely sink. End of story.
It would be like shooting fish in a barrel for Russia to take on the US Navy in the Black Sea because of the Turkish Straits.
That would lead to a massive crisis within NATO. It’s Turkey’s policy NOT to facilitate the entry of warships through the straits in a war in which they are neutral. But, the idea that the US navy could facilitate a landing against a defended shoreline is laughable; our horrendous performance against a much more poorly armed Iraq in the gulf war, where simple magnetic mines nearly crippled an Aegis Cruiser and a Helicopter Carrier, forcing the Navy to abandon any thought of a marine landing, should serve as a warning. For all its brave talk, the US Navy hasn’t actually fought anyone who might shoot back since 1945. All war games against Iran in the Persian Gulf indicate we would have our collective ass handed to us in close waters.
Where did you get the idea that a Marine landing on the Kuwaiti coastline was something that the US Navy was “forced to abandon?”
From my perspective, admittedly limited precisely because it was from in the middle of that very operation, it never seems to have been considered. There would have been trainups in CONUS priort to deployment to the theater of operations, followed by rehearsals on similar coastlines. There would have been logistics buildups to maximize troop and resource inflow after the establishment of a beachhead.
None of that happened. All that happened were rinky-dink deception operations to make it appear that it might happen. The entirety of troop and equipment placement and training was for a “hey diddle diddle, right up the middle” use of Marine ground troops against the bunker belt on the Kuwait-Saudi border, theoretically to distract Iraqi forces while the army’s armored component went around the Iraqi defenses’ landward flank (that “failed” to the extent that the Marines punched right through instead of merely “distracting” the Iraqis, and were sitting in Kuwait City asking the army “where ya been?” when it finally arrived).
Read The Generals War, among other accounts. describing the clusterF surrounding mine clearing off the Kuwaiti coast; describes the original strategy., the difficulties, and the abandonment of the plan
Also see here: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10176/chapter/10, Amphibious Planning in the Gulf.
It was Very Much a preferred operation by the Marines, not so much by Schwartzkopf; but the complete failure in mine clearing (nearly losing two large, very expensive vessels) killed that – and, the military being what they are, then buried the truth with a shovel, then buried the shovel, and trumpeted to the world how their “brilliant deception” was a huge success. In truth, the marines very much wanted to launch an amphib assault, to “prove” (to congress, in the never ending budget battles) their worth; in the same way the 82nd Chairborne (errr..”Airborne”) begged to be allowed to conduct a “show of force” parachute drop into Iraq proper (a totally meaningless operation, as they would have landed behind the forward line of the 24th Mech) – something Schwartzkopf also wouldn’t allow.
Your review of the land attack is also a bit off; the marines did punch two lanes through the obstacle belt, using Israeli-supplied breaching equipment, and that is properly the job of engineers supported by infantry (in the VIIth Corps sector, that job was done by the 1st Infantry Division) – but the spearhead of the advance to Kuwait City was the “Tiger Brigade” of the Army 2nd Armored Division, under Marine Command, which comprised most of the tank strength in the sector. VIIth Corps also did not “go around” anything; just like the marines, they easily punched through the “bunker belt”, then advanced – it was their slow, methodical advance once in the clear that delayed them, not any Iraqi resistance. The force that “went around” was 24th Mech ID and one ACR of 18th Airborne Corps.
The idea that the “threat” of an amhibious landing diverted anyone on the Iraqi side is just silly; no forces were withdrawn from the “Saddam line” in response.
You can count on the Marine brass to pitch amphibious landings. It’s well beyond “fighting the last war.” It’s fighting World War Two all over again. McArthur couldn’t resist getting the band back together at Inchon, and they even did an (unopposed) amphibious landing at Da Nang in 1965.
At the moment, the Marine Corps is apparently going all-in on getting back to a primarily amphibious mission. They’re cutting out tanks and most artillery in favor of light infantry and landing craft. Their excuse is that the next war will be a Pacific Island war against China. Imagine that. Of course, in the 1980s the next war was going to be western Europe vs. the Soviet Union, and instead I ended up in the Middle East. Go figure.
And, one more, see here https://www.jstor.org/stable/43987973
Both the Navy and the Marines were embarrassed and humbled (unfortunately, not for long) by the mine debacle (errr…”mishaps”) and the inability of the foremost naval power in the world to conduct an amphibious landing with the foremost marine force in the world, with complete air supremacy, against a third world enemy. But with the overall hype and euphoria following the end of the conflict, they’ve all gone back to believing they are “world beating heroes” once again. Until, of course, the next failure happens.
Like I said, I was in the middle of the buildup as an infantry NCO and thus not privy to the higher-ups’ ambitions. But based on what I saw of asset placement and train-up exercises, it never seemed like amphibious landing was an option being seriously considered.
It wouldn’t have made a lot of tactical sense and its only plausible purposes would have been to distract from the point of main effort and/or to show off.
Amphibious landings only make sense in certain situations. The main one is “there’s no plausible landward approach.” An unusual secondary one is “it’s an opportunity to get into the enemy’s rear from the start.” Neither of those applied.
I agree it made no sense, from a warfighting perspective; neither did the 82nd’s crybaby wailing over requesting they be allowed a “combat jump”, or SOC’s request to allow more SF operations in Iraq proper in order to “search for SCUDs”; but in the context of grabbing credit for winning the war, and therefore laying claim to a bigger share of the budget, these silly proposals were ways for “niche” capabilities to get big exposure and therefore big bucks.
But to accept the post war spin that the naval operations off the Iraqi coast were “just a deception” means you have to accept that the Navy would risk the loss of a (then) Billion Dollar Aegis cruiser and a multi-Billion Dollar Helicopter carrier for absolutely nothing. And, for as much contempt as I have for them, even I have a hard time accepting they would be THAT stupid.
A deception is not “absolutely nothing.” And that cruiser and helicopter were “at risk” the minute they went into service.
Is it possible that the “deception” explanation was just a cover-up for sour grapes? Sure. But there would have been military value to causing the Iraqis to worry about an amphibious landing in any case. Troops watching the beach can’t be watching something else. Troops building and deploying beach obstructions/mines can’t be building/deploying something else. Attention put on one area is attention that isn’t on another area.
It was a given that every branch and specialty would lobby for the war to be waged in ways that showcased its capabilities and made the case for inflating its future budgets. But ultimately the approach was going to be decided at and above the level of Schwarzkopf (who was not immune to said showcasing, of course).
The plan he settled on ended up working out fairly well, although not quite as he intended (he was apparently pretty pissed that the Marine Corps’ frontal assault on the bunker line actually breached it instead of just acting as a distraction to his end-run). He was probably smart to reject an amphibious operation.
I’ve always wondered why there wasn’t more public embarrassment for the Marine Corps over getting its ass kicked out of Khafji. I wasn’t there, but I I ran into a bunch of troops streaming south from there after they got caught completely by surprise with their pants down.
I would quibble with that. Those two ships were employed in mine clearing, operations they were clearly not suited for, and for which they posed far more potential loss than potential gain. One only does that if they have no choice; there needs to be a potential payoff. If this was just a “deception”, even admirals are smart enough to come up with a better plan then that.
And again, there is no real evidence that this naval tomfoolery caused the Iraqis t do anything different, so it was all for nothing anyway.
Schwartzkopf was definitely pissed, but more so with Franks, for moving in such an old lady fashion when he had by far the single most powerful and mobile command in military history to that point under him – FIVE heavy armored divisions, and an ACR, and the All-MLRS field artillery brigade, AND 5 divisional and 1 separate aviation brigades, and he’s dilly-dallying waiting to get his units to “form a fist”, whatever the F that means. Meanwhile, the 24th Mech ID was sprinting all out to his west, and the marines (with the 2d Armored Division’s Tiger Bde) were routing the Iraqis in Kuwait.
The Marines get a “sort-of” pass for Khafji, only because the GCC (Saudis and their Lackeys) were titularly in control of that sector, and “demanded” (as long as Schwartzkopf agreed to cover their asses with the full weight of coalition air power) the “honor” of ejecting the Iraqi incursion. But you’re right, it was an intelligence and command failure; we were lucky the Iraqis were so pathetic. The air force deserves a fair share of blame as well; they had their vaunted “J-Stars” aircraft deployed, supposedly capable of providing instantaneous intelligence of large ground force movement, yet somehow “missed” a two division thrust. Yet, in their after action report, the air force claims J-Stars was a success.
The war is degenerating like predicted. I am antiwar.
I think we have reached the point where all sides are considering desperate measures. I have no details. But anxiety, especially in Kiev, is very high right now. Something huge is expected tomorrow.
I am anti war too. But in some dire and dangerous situations, it becomes necessary for patriots to defend their homeland. When there is a looming threat that a neighbor state, intends a military alliance with a hostile alliance which by joining the neighboring state looses control of its ability to pick and choose how their neighbors peace and security is affected. That time has arrived to come to some understanding or to take action to prevent any hostile actions. To do otherwise endangers the very existence of citizens, sovereignty and their peace and tranquillity.
Zelensky dosen`t have the infantry numbers to do anything , as for what he has being trained by the US / UK arn`t these the same soldiers who had their asses kicked by a bunch of ragged assed hill billies in AFGHANISTAN , the best soldiers the US / UK have have are all criminally INSANE and should be locked away for every ones safety .
Boris Johnson says tough sh*t Brits must suck it up and pay £5000 for household energy bills because Ukrainians are paying in blood. But regular people see energy companies and countries reaping gargantuan profits. How long will people put up with this stuff?
It just might be possible for Europeans to seize control of Europe! One thing seems certain. Propaganda isn’t going to cut it much longer.
This will never happen, and saying it amounts to a declaration of war by the US against Russia. Blinken is a fool, or worse a criminal.
No criticism of IsraHell’s occupation of Palestinian lands?
Can the Amerikkkan regime get any more hypocritical?
Btw ZelBoy; good luck with that.
“‘[W]e need to free Crimea from occupation,’ Zelensky said”…
What?? Crimea was freed from occupation in 2014. How did Blinken miss that.
“‘I know that Crimea is with Ukraine, is waiting for us to return’…Zelensky said.”
“Waiting”? For sure those Crimeans are yearning to have their native Russian language devalued or removed in schools and govt, like in the rest of Ukraine.
Specially now, after Z stated in an independence speech that – in the NYT’s words – Ukraine now “has a renewed sense of cultural and political identity that is now wholly separate from Russia.”
“According to the 2001 census, 77% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language, 11.4% – Crimean Tatar, and 10.1% – Ukrainian.”
from “Demographics of Crimea”
“Who is cheap: you can spend a week in Crimea from 6.8 thousand rubles”
Volodymyr Elensky should visit now while the prices are reasonable.
Comments are closed.