The British Ministry of Defence provided an intelligence update regarding the ongoing situation in Ukraine via their official Twitter account on 31 July 2023.
The Russian government, as per the tweets, is expediting amendments to their military legislation to allow more men to be quickly conscripted.
The Ministry of Defence tweeted, “In mid-July 2023, the State Duma increased the maximum age of liability for conscription from 27 to 30, while retaining the current lower limit at 18.”
Latest Defence Intelligence update on the situation in Ukraine – 31 July 2023.
Find out more about Defence Intelligence's use of language: https://t.co/JwzC8RArTO
🇺🇦 #StandWithUkraine 🇺🇦 pic.twitter.com/UrTZTL8hzn
— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) July 31, 2023
The additional conscripts are intended to free up professional soldiers and mobilised troops from duties within Russia, although the new recruits are not being deployed directly to Ukraine.
On July 24, 2023, President Putin signed a bill increasing the upper age limit for reservist call ups. “Senior officers can now be mobilised up to 70,” the Ministry stated.
The reservist call-up strategy has already been used once in Autumn 2022 during a ‘partial mobilisation.’ It is believed this approach could potentially speed up the process of bolstering the numbers of combatants available for deployment in Ukraine.
(5/5) The increased chance of being compelled to fight, drone attacks on Moscow, exceptional level of domestic repression, and the recent Wagner mutiny combine to highlight the Russian state’s failure to insulate the population from the war.
— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) July 31, 2023
The tweets conclude with the Ministry underlining several indicators of the struggle the Russian government is having in shielding its population from the impact of the war. The pressures include an increased likelihood of compulsory military service, drone attacks on Moscow, a heightened level of domestic repression, and a recent mutiny involving the private military company, the Wagner Group.
According to the tweets, these factors collectively “highlight the Russian state’s failure to insulate the population from the war.“
2025. Putin is gone. His successor demands peace talks. He accepts Ukraines destiny is to become westernised, and is willing to withdraw all forces from Ukraine. Russias demands are a land bridge to Crimea. That is the end game.
Till the demands, it sounded reasonable
Can you see any other way? Natos weapons will push out Russia on the long term? What if a non nato military was to help Ukraine?
2025. Putin is gone. His successor demands peace talks. He accepts Ukraines destiny is to become westernised, and is willing to withdraw all forces from Ukraine.
Ukraine will eventually push Russia out although maybe not Crimea, at that point Russia can either choose to accept it and look at an end to sanctions or just stay in a Korean style permanent war with the sanctions in place as their hermit kingdom slowly starts to fall to pieces.
Unlike N Korea, Russia lacks a homogenous population and it won’t be long until China warmly accept the rights of independent Siberian republics to break away.
This is Chinas end game, it knows the only way for it to become a true super power is to annex eastern Siberia.
Putin has based the justification of his war on a claim of territorial and ethnic unification.
He can’t agree to any deal that was less than what he started with, in that regard, unless utterly defeated: and if that were the case why would Ukraine clutch defeat from the jaws of victory by giving them access to Crimea?
For this to happen Putin would have to fall out of a window.
but Crimea is Ukraine so why would Russia need a land bridge to it having withdrawn all forces? 😛
That bit is unfortunately where the wheels of the peace cart fall off. Crimea is a very difficult issue to sort out. Russia will never negotiate away the Crimea it is their real Red line.
The biggest issues are the demographics where it has been predominantly Russian for centuries. Then the small matter of it only being designated as part of the Ukrainian SSR in 1956 as an administrative move. Before that it had been part of Russia for centuries.
And to cap it all there is the little issues involving a Treaty that actually recognised Ukraine as being part of Russia. And the U.K, France, Italy, Turkey, Austria and Russia signed it. That treaty ended the Crimean war ! Not sure what happens when you tear up a peace treaty but I bet it wouldn’t be good.
To give Ukraine the Crimea without the consent of the population is just starting them next Bomb. Would the west be happy watching the local Russian population being expelled probably by force.
If peace is to last then IMHO there has to be a compromise Russia gets back to its pre 2014 borders, but keeps a demilitarised Crimea. No land bridge to it just the Kerch bridge and Ferries. Ukraine is allowed to join NATO and subject to meeting the criteria the EU or EFTA.
But we give Russia some acknowledgement of their long term fear of NATO encroachment, So maybe a 100 mile wide DMZ on the borders (50/50).
Everyone forgets one thing about Russia in the last 211 years they have been invaded by armies from France three times, Germany Twice, Britain twice, Turkey Twice, Japan Twice and the US once.
Not good really.
Good post. I like learning of the underlying historical background here. And from the other posters above. All this may not be enough to contain the current Ukrainian forces desire to reclaim “their” territory. They’ve been too bloodied. I don’t know if this is even feasible, but what about the construction a shipping canal through the north of Crimea to give a second access route for from the Asov to the Black Sea?
Mate. I have said similar, but not in as much detail or as well as you, so many times here. I was shot down saying that it “rewards aggression”
Bullshit.
I agree with everything you said and there needs to be an off ramp here. Crimea being taken by the Ukrainian army is when the tactical nukes start flying I fear.
Using tactical nukes would be a really gross act by Russian forces. They will deserve all the retaliation they’ll get if they choose to go down that path. And the West also will need to show restraint in this area too. Hope Ukraine is getting enough SAM coverage and supplies. If things warm up further I think the powers that be really need to have a bit more urgency with UK’s GBAD which is practically non-existent.
One of the purposes of the current drone attacks on Moscow is to find out just what Putin meant when he said that any in he event of any attack on Russian sovereign territory, Russia would take “all necessary means” to defend itself. So far, an incursion into Belgorod and a couple of small drone attacks on the capital have elicited no obvious response.
As you might expect, RN has spent most of the last year thinking very hard about how we defend the realm with what we have. It has also been thinking about how it can improve the situation in both the immediate future and the short and medium terms.
I have no specific knowledge, but I would imagine that both the Army and the RAF have been undertaking exactly the same exercises.
A demilitarised Crimea and Donbas ( with Donbas being UN controlled) and Russian forces withdrawing to the pre war boundaries, is the only way this can potentially be switched off.
This can all be cemented in place with Ukraine then joining NATO, shutting down Russian territorial ambitions forever (in the West anyway).
A deep Ukrainian push into Crimea is worrying for many reasons, as much as I would dearly love to see the Russians driven out…
Remember that one of the catalysts for the current turmoil was Ukraine’s decision in 2012 to end the Russian lease of Crimean naval ports. It is still not clear whether Putin’s real goal is to confirm Crimea as Russian or to take over the entire Ukraine nation. I would surmise that he decided both were worthwhile outcomes and that he would take whatever he could get. Putin is an opportunist and a warmonger and the West needs to recognise that he (and probably his successors) will continue with the quest regardless of what treaties they sign. In the latter we must therefore offer him as little as we possibly can.
Do you think there is ANY solution to the Crimea problem that would leave both parties happy ? I am mindful of the solution to the Irish problem.
IMHO there is a solution but it has to be genuinely ratified by a genuine independently overseen referendum of the people who live in Crimea. One thing for is that both sides will need to have their feet held over a fire to accept a real referendum and recognise the results,
Your post misses out on some important details – in particular,
“predominantly Russian for centuries” is misleading, and describing how the Crimean war ended ignores completely more recent events, including the Russian revolution, World War 2 and the break-up of the Soviet Union.
Crimea first became Russian territory in 1783, during the reign of Catherine the Great. It changed hands many times during the Russian civil war before becoming an autonomous republic within Russia (1921). At the end of WW2, Stalin forcibly deported the majority Tatar community and replaced them with (Caucasian) ethnic Russians. He then turned the Crimean republic into a Russian oblast without consultation with the Crimean people.
One of the consequences of deporting the Tatars is that it wrecked the prosperous agricultural economy they had established, so that by the time Krushchev dumped Crimea on Ukraine, it was a poor and run-down territory.
Sine Ukraine became a sovereign nation the people of Crimea have on three occasions voted to remain part of the country in preference to either a high degree of autonomy or a return to Russian dominion. Legally the territory belongs to Ukraine, and it would be very foolish to trust the results of any referendum organised by Russia.
Have you actually looked at the UN recognised Demographic makeup of Crimea since WW2 to present day.
You are perfectly correct about the Tartars being evicted by Stalin but that is only if the tip of the Iceberg, he was a complete Psychopath.
If you tried to undo Stalins mass movements and redrawing borders then you would have to give NW Ukraine back to
Poland, Polands former East Prussian (including Kaliningrad) back to Germany and parts of Russia and Belorussia back to Poland.
As for the referendums I’d suggest you look at what questions were asked in the 1991 and 1994 ones they were never asked if they wanted to remain as part of Ukraine.
1991 “Do you wish to reestablish the Autonomous Ukrainian SSR?”
1994 was for more Autonomy for Crimea within the Ukraine and dual nationality.
And as for the 2014 one well it is just a Russian Sham.
I would talk about it as a bargaining chip but to be decided in a UN overseen Referendum and both sides recognise that.
TBH if Crimea voted to join Russia in return for the rest of Ukrainian occupied territory pre 2014 back to Ukraine and a 100 mile wide DMZ for the entire NATO / Russia border it would be a bargain.
FYI that means that all of the Russian enclave in Kaliningrad is in that DMZ as not one single inch of if isn’t more than 50 miles from a NATO border.
There’s still the issue of the fresh water supplied by the North Crimean Canal.
The two possibilities are either Russia annexing all of Ukraine South of the Dnieper, or full reunification of Ukraine: anything in between will just be a time bomb.
That said perhaps a dual administration or a complete return to the pre-Maidan map?
Why would they need a land bridge through hundred’s of miles of Ukraine territory when they have already constructed a actual bridge from Russia to Crimea.
And if the Russian fleet are currently on port in Crimea that must be being considered as targets when in range of Ukrainian forces. I suppose a partition of Crimea wouldn’t really be workable. Maybe a border control on the Russian landside if they don’t want it blown up? I believe it’s height is also restrictive for some larger taller vessels.
The submarines and some surface ships have fled to Novorossiysk, but there is still a significant naval presence in Sevastopol. Crimea is Ukraine sovereign territory and any Russian military materiel in the territory is a legitimate target,
You don’t he is being a Prat ! All Russia needs is a 2nd bridge.
Boring article but interesting comments, all it really shows is you have no idea about Russia or Russian thinking. Talking between yourselves and making your own plans or theories does not make you understand Russia any better and if you dont bother trying to understand the core problems you will never understand the out come or how to find peace
Sometimes peace comes because everyone agrees it’s the best option. Sometimes it comes because nobody can agree on an alternative option. Korea is a great example. Technically both sides are still at war, yet resumption of war has been avoided (with a few close calls) for 70 years.
The notion of a just peace is extremely important. Does the situation in Korea favour one side over the other ?
NATO pushed too far East? So who should it have rejected for membership to placate Russia? Name names. You seem to be arguing for a Russian sphere of influence where countries are not allowed to make independent decisions and have to do what the Russian President says, right? Was NATO expansion too far East for Russia to be able to attack the Baltic states so instead it had to settle for invading Moldova, Georgia and many years later Ukraine? Oh no, that can’t be right, because Yeltsin invaded Transnistria before NATO enlarged past East Germany.
If Putin invades countries that declared neutrality and had already joined the Russian-led Commonwealth of Independent States, like Georgia, why wouldn’t anyone with sense prefer NATO?
USA and Russia have very different ways of influencing smaller countries. In general, USA uses social and economic levers, Russia uses political and military levers. The real crux is that both sides reject the other’s approach, and the only sensible choice faced by every country east of Berlin is to side with one or the other. The only countries not yet fully decided are Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Moldova and Ukraine. It is inevitable that in these countries there will be an ugly imperialistic struggle between USA/NATO and Moscow.
The core problem seems to be that Putin wants what he wants and anyone who stands in his way is the problem.
It wasn’t as you have suggested in the past that Russia was tired of waiting for Ukraine to implement the Minsk Protocols. Putin annexed Crimea and funded the insurrection in the Donbas before that happened, and continued to fund the separatists afterward against the same accords.
Poroshenko may have been a problem, but let’s face it, Putin likes to get his kicks in first, taking Crimea and the Donbas immediately after Poroshenko’s election, and like it or not, some of Poroshenko’s subsequent hardline stance was a direct reaction to that. Then when Ukraine elects a Jewish Russophone as President, Putin invades, calling him a Nazi anti-Russian.
Putin lies about the why. The war is not about Russian thinking. It’s about Putin’s thinking.
Neutral question – are you accusing Putin of anti-Semitism ? Putin is a playground bully and he will take whatever he can get. In the same way that there exists American exceptionalism, there also exists Russian exceptionalism – unfortunately for the Russians, we view the latter less benignly than the former.
What a load of self serving rubbish. Why should anyone contort themselves trying to “understand ” Putin’s twisted and demented thinking. All that Russia has ever brought to its neighbours is war, destruction, bloodshed and genocide. Russia needs to understand that the continent of Europe and beyond does not want to ruled by Russia’s malevolent influence and occupation. Then there will be peace.
Perfect answer, thank you Posse
Thank you for your wonderfully enlightening comment. The situation at present is that it is extremely unlikely that Russia will be able to dictate the terms of any peace settlement so speculation on the Western approach to the problem is perfectly reasonable. You would receive a much better welcome if you made yourself part of the solution and not part of the problem. Why not start by telling us what it is that we don’t understand.
Putin is, and has always been, cold and rational. A frozen war with de facto control of Crimea and a large land bridge suits him far better than it does Ukraine and/or the West. His only losing position is complete expulsion from all Ukrainian territory.
IMHO I don’t think a negotiated peace is an option at present, but if the stalemate continues and they both get more tired of conflict it may be possible (in Autumn or Winter).
Someone up in the ethos of the “Powers that be” has at some point got to ask both sides the same 2 simple questions.
And I think that person has to be a US / NATO representative and they need to waggle 2 different but VERY LARGE STICKS at each of them when they ask.
I think they should be something like.
”With no preconditions. What does a meaningful, acceptable, sustainable and internationally recognised peace settlement look like to you. And what are you willing to concede to get that ?”
It’s called diplomacy but meanwhile “let slip the dogs of war”.
Tally Ho!! 👏👌👍Like it my son.✌🏻