The value I get from this commentary isn't only measured in better understanding - it's personal. My LinkedIn feed and most of the popular media I scan through is awash with propaganda. But I remember the manipulation of public opinion (including mine) for the invasion of Iraq. Very few people now remember how they felt about that. This is one of a handful of places which have kept me out of the emotional trap of pro war sentiment this time. That's why I support SF's writing.
One paradoxical outcome of the first two weeks of this war, it seems to me, is that Putin now has an objective (if not subjective) interest in Zelenskyy's safety. Zelenskyy now has far more moral authority to make difficult compromises as part of an agreement than any likely immediate replacement. Let alone one put in place by Russia.
An unfortunate barrier to a negotiated peace is the intense war propaganda in the West. The American media has willingly become a tool for Ukrainian propaganda. Because Ukrainian successes and Russian failures attract audiences. American politicians race to see who can be tougher on Russia, which creates conditions that make it very difficult for America to push for any peace deal that Ukraine might reject. All Zelensky has to do is utter the word "appeasement" and any peace deal will die.
America is at war with Russia. We are using every tool except our troops. But we are still at war. I do not know what our war aims are. I do not think we know what our war aims are.
To me what would be reasonable is an independent Ukraine with a moratorium on joining NATO and the EU. A rollback on the sanctions in return for minimal Russian territorial gains, e.g., Crimea and a negotiated line in the eastern provinces. The right peace deal, whatever the details, will be something that no one particularly likes.
Are we as a country mature enough to accept that some times the "bad guys" get away with something in return for all the benefits of peace?
Russia ensured that Ukraine would never join NATO by occupying Crimea and the Donbas. This did not solve the problem for Russia, as its influence in Ukraine was declining as Ukraine turned westwards. Since 2014, exports to Russia have declined from 25% to 9%, Ukraine has visa-free travel to Schengen (unlike Russia), and ties we Europe are growing. Your idea of a peace deal gives Russia a veto over Ukraine's actions, and will invariably embolden Russia to interfere more forcibly in other "near abroad" countries. In essence, you are saying that Russia has the unalienable right to forcibly create an empire. The west made a huge mistake in not challenging Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014, and failure to challenge it now could easily lead to the destruction of the EU and NATO.
NATO is useless and should have been abolished after 1991. Personally, I would not want to be a part of the EU but it is their problem and the US should stay out of the issue. If I were Ukrainian, I would have serious reservations about joining absent a direct threat from Russia because of repeated EU attempts to strongarm member states such as they are doing right now with Hungary and Poland even with the war on.
NATO membership primarily is a guarantee of territorial integrity. No NATO country has ever been invaded. This guarantee of stable political conditions made NATO members more attractive for companies to invest in these countries, thus wealth and prosperity developed much better than in comparable countries outside NATO.
One can argue that the US has and is being invaded. Trudeau claimed that Canada was invaded by Russia no less. It was a ridiculous claim but he made it. One can argue that most of the European members of NATO, except Poland and Hungary are being invaded. No armies are involved in any of this so it is like the invasions of the Western Roman empire.
I don't think there is really any peace deal that is acceptable to both sides. Over time, turning Russia in to a bigger Iran (weaker militarily than pre-war with a basketcase economy) is more acceptable to the West than rewarding Putin in any way for invading another sovereign country because that would deter any other autocrats from trying the same stunt. You have to think long-term. If Putin wins in any way from this war, plenty of autocrats would feel incented to invade other countries.
Included with William's point about Putin actually having a reason not to try to remove Zelinsky, which give Zelinsky a moral authority to negotiate a compromise, along with David's comment above about our media here failing to report in an accurate way, ginning up the drumbeat of war like we did with Iraq, both times we invaded, is the author's point about the 1973 war of Israel and its Arab neighbors. Putin's actions are not similar to Hitler's, they are most similar to Israel with its neighbors since '67, and this article's point about holding land taken by force as a negotiating tactic, and a buffer zone of security, even the more recent incidents of Israel invading the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, or even Lebannon and Syria in previous decades. As terrible as those events were, we heard the views of both sides, and a negotiated peace did occur, and more recently, the Abraham Accords point a way to a lasting peace of mutual benefit that could be extended to more countries. Something similar could happen for Ukraine and Russia.
Worst idea ever. Only the Russians can remove Putin. Regime change must be from within, by the cynical interest groups around him. The west taking out Putin is the quickest conceivable route up the escalation ladder.
The Russian oligarchal/criminal clans are perfectly capable of doing just that should they decide that it furthers their collective or individual interests
An interesting article but it all comes down to the question of how Putin sees things. I can't see him giving up hope for a maximum victory and my feeling is that his ego and probable lack of advisors/new givers prepared to report unpalatable things is going to mean things are going to have to get to really bad for a really long time for Russia before he makes compromises. Up to now I would think he would only offer cease fire because he likes the idea of some time to re-supply, rest up and rotate his troops. Of course the sanctions will continue to inflict damage but my guess is he's confident he can keep his population in the dark or at least cowered indefinitely.
Two weeks of war in Ukraine allow us to vindicate the NATO planning and procurement processes from the 1970s/80s. Faced with potentially-overwhelming Soviet armoured strength, NATO aimed to give the infantry sufficient ATGM to at least slow down their advance until. FOFA could take effect. That seems entirely vindicated in Ukraine today, although I doubt any of us expected Russia to be using T-72 derivatives as late as 2022.
.....although of course NATO planning was for a significantly more hostile air environment, which simply doesn't seem to have happened in Ukraine so far. So there are some limits to the historical analogy I was making!
Did NATO think they would lose air superiority in Europe during a Soviet invasion during the Cold War era? The Soviets may have had the numbers but I doubt the skill and technology advantage.
And yes, NATO has amassed an absolutely silly number of ATGMs, a lot which they are sending to Ukraine. Ukraine likely has enough now to take out everything on wheels that can fire (and plenty that just have wheels) that Russia can send to Ukraine.
NATO planning was for a strongly-contested air environment, certainly. But your point about AT and AA systems (particularly manportable/shoulder-borne) is a good one. My understanding is that provision of these are the priority, and make an NFZ even less useful than it would otherwise be. Critical threats on the ground are from artillery and MLRS.
I didn't think that it was the sanctions "devastating" Ukraine. Bombs do a much better job. If you mean that they are making the bombing worse...i would doubt it...rather the loss of face for Putin generated by the unexpected resistance and Russian military and intelligence failures.
The option that you don't mention is that Putin's clan, and currently allied clans, decide they have a further option to maintain their wealth and power and that is to say that it isn't Russia's fault but Putin's...and replace him. They can then cease military confrontation and get back to making money.
Good point. However, my instinct is that regime change in Moscow would have to be brought about by the Military and security leadership. Possibly encouraged by the "oligarchs" elsewhere, but primarily by the military/security factions jockeying for position and seeking to preserve their own positions and influence within the system. Not a given, by any means, but the rumours (if they can be believed) about unhappiness within the FSB and possible scapegoating of Shoigu are at least.....interesting. In the governance system Russia currently operates, factions around the leader are frequently kept in opposition to each other on the divide and rule principle. If more than one faction sees itself as a potential scapegoat with associated loss of privilege and influence, that could be a spur to acting in concert with others, albeit only temporarily.
When their collective interests are threatened, they negotiate a ceasefire and a post-coup agreement that gets rid of the "disturbance" but maintains their respective priviledges. The military might be happy to blame Putin for their defficiencies
The Russian military would be right to blame Putin et al for their deficiencies: as has been pointed out elsewhere, a kleptocracy isn't noted for it's efficiency, and the military modernisation programmes suffered hugely because of corruption. Not that the military leadership are themselves blameless in all of this, but how far would or could they go in publicly blaming the entire kleptocratic and corrupt nature of the regime in explaining away their defeat?
Also, can Putin continue to play off interest groups against each other to avoid any developing notion of their 'collective' privileges and interests? My assumption is that he can for a while, but not indefinitely.
While there have been specifically military weaknesses associated with the SMO, perhaps especially in force capability estimations and contingency anticipation, the generals can show that much of the shortfall in achieving targets is due to political and intelligence weaknesses: poor understanding of Ukrainian capacity and disposition to resist, which is an FSB failure contributing to the unrealistic political framework for war objectives and strategy. So they're all in it, and Putin will need to sort these things out as they've shown him up.
I know some will say in a regime like that they're all yes men, but it courts of complacency to treat them as some kind of 'other' with generic weaknesses unlike ours.
They all need Réné Girard's "scapegoat" to avoid going down with him. I also come back to the lack of succession process and the story of the massacres related to taking the seat of first Tzar Vlad on his death a millenium ago; 17 dead contenders and counting.
If the scapegoat mechanism acts against Putin, all well and good, frankly! There would then be a lot of internecine warfare between factions......unless they can agree some form of coalition/.committee to agree a climbdown and rapid removal or relaxation of sanctions.
Another possible factor will be whether the Russian govt can continue to pay its military and security forces. The people at the top will be OK, but if their people aren't getting paid and their authority starts to evaporate, will that be a significant factor in concentrating their minds?
At least he is real even if i don'tagree with everything he says..but it's not likely to happen. We'll see what happens over the coming weeks. There is a very strong aversion generally to Micron but the other candidates are somewhat mediocre and/or intensely marginal. A conundrum!
He is on the money for the immigration/islam and security issues that he has imposed on the campaign but not necessarily any better than the others on economics but one would tend to trust him to do what he says at least which hasn't been the case here for a long time. He is perhaps also the only one that actually cares about all of the French, their identity and their culture. He at least isn't in it for the money and the personal power trip. He is actually extremely well-read, self deprecating and often funny; he listens! His thoughts on international politics are formed from his penchant for European history in which Russia played an integral part...but that has hardly been the case for the last century. Otherwise he tends largely to misunderstand America and follow the standard french denigration of of their contribution. He fails to see the dangers represented by the follies of Trump.
Yes, Zelensky is offering some compromise, but Putin will not accept it. He is all in and can't admit even the semblance of stalemate or defeat.
The US & NATO should have and still can tell Putin that everything would be negotiable--under UN auspices in Geneva--including Ukraine staying out of NATO, territorial concessions & relief from the sanctions--IF there is an immediate ceasefire & cessation of the Russian attacks.
If Putin will not agree to that--and no one expects that he will--then the transference of more weapons to Ukraine should proceed--including the MiGs that Poland wanted to send them. It makes no sense to withhold the MiGs out of fear of 'escalation' but think sending Stingers & Javelins to Ukraine to take out Russian tanks and kill Russians from the ground is fine. What matters is not the weapons themselves but that it is Ukrainians wielding them and flying the MiGs fighting for their own country, not US or NATO pilots.
Waiting around for Putin's forces to reduce Kyiv to rubble, kill Zelensky and tens of thousands more Ukrainians, while producing several million more desperate refugees fleeing to Europe is not a strategy. But that is where we are headed given Putin's brutality and the US administration's fecklessness, weakness and stupidity, which led to this in the first place.
The killing and destruction will stop only when Putin's war machine is no longer capable of killing and destruction. Sanctions will not do this. Only giving the Ukrainians what they need to do it will end this.
How does Russia's military failure in north Ukraine vs relative success in the south feed into these calculations? Is a strip from DNR round to Odessa likely to be viewed by Putin as sufficient to save face and present this to Russia as a success justifying the entire operation? Does it then embolden Russia to try again in a few years, gradually nibbling away at the Ukrainian state piece by piece (almost certainly how Ukraine would view such an outcome)? Alternatively, does the failure in north Ukraine lead Putin to conclude more military effort is needed to achieve the original objectives, despite sanctions crippling the Russian economy?
It's also unclear what happens to the Russian forces in north Ukraine. If they're clearly beaten and have to straggle back minus much of their equipment, for how long can Putin disguise this, and wat will be the wider impact on the Russian armed forces? Are there historical parallels with Adwa in 1896 (post-defeat) and the German transfer of troops to the west in 1918 (pre-defeat)?
If it goes all the way from the Donbas to Odessa, doesn't that strip leave Ukraine with only 1 or 2 small seaports in the far southwest of the country (which I don't think are connected to Ukraine's river network)? I don't see Ukraine accepting that as a viable settlement. And not accepting could take the form of a long-term insurgency after a ceasefire or treaty.
From the Russian perspective, that area also looks like a nightmare for border security: long, thin stretch of land without any natural barrier on the inland side. Maybe Putin currently doesn't care about that reality, but it sets up for a cross-border insurgency that's covertly supported by the Ukrainian government (or at least not suppressed by it in any meaningful way). Or maybe Putin likes that border for now because he sees the cross-border attacks going the other way?
In any case, I think it's a settlement that would be inherently unstable. Even in the absence of specific near-term Russian designs for more territory, I could see a cycle of pro-Ukrainian insurgency met by Russia (1) trying to respond in kind across the aforementioned porous border and (2) engaging in economic retaliation via its stranglehold on Ukrainian sea access.
Very good points. I was thinking primarily from the Russian perspective, ie how does initial failure inform what they do next? But you're absolutely right: the Ukrainian govt seems very unlikely to accept a settlement on these sort of terms, and even if they could be persuaded to do so (I think unlikely?), it would be both politically and militarily unstable. Nothing short of a rapid and complete takeover of Ukraine would give Putin/Russia any kind of 'successful/positive' outcome, and they failed to achieve that.
IMO, I don't think Russia can hold a strip all the way from the Donbas to Odessa. They can probably only securely hold areas around the Donbass, Crimea (up to the lower reaches of the Dnieper), and _maybe_ a land bridge between the 2.
The extraordinary thing about this war is how much it is costing Russia for so little apparent gain. Russia is a huge country and stands to benefit very little by winning a few more square miles.
Is the continuation of the war simply a product of Putin's personality? As long as it persists he can threaten the west with a reality as predicted in Russian fairy tales. With his conventional military shown to be largely ineffective he can still talk up his nuclear weapons at every opportunity.
Putin enjoys intimidating people, that is clear from the smirk on his face when he scares Angela Merkel with the dog.
And yet indulging this man's ego is costing his country plenty.
How does one man have this much power? In this day and age? Who is it that is scared of him in Russia? Who is backing him? It has to be an illusion. It is ONE man.
Putin is a murderer and war criminal, probably the worst in Europe since Hitler. How many thousands of innocent civilians has he killed.? How many towns and cities, homes, hospitals and businesses has he decimated? These were not collateral damage. They were all targets of his army of barbarians. He deserves to be tried and hanged if found guilty of exactly what he did.
The value I get from this commentary isn't only measured in better understanding - it's personal. My LinkedIn feed and most of the popular media I scan through is awash with propaganda. But I remember the manipulation of public opinion (including mine) for the invasion of Iraq. Very few people now remember how they felt about that. This is one of a handful of places which have kept me out of the emotional trap of pro war sentiment this time. That's why I support SF's writing.
One paradoxical outcome of the first two weeks of this war, it seems to me, is that Putin now has an objective (if not subjective) interest in Zelenskyy's safety. Zelenskyy now has far more moral authority to make difficult compromises as part of an agreement than any likely immediate replacement. Let alone one put in place by Russia.
An unfortunate barrier to a negotiated peace is the intense war propaganda in the West. The American media has willingly become a tool for Ukrainian propaganda. Because Ukrainian successes and Russian failures attract audiences. American politicians race to see who can be tougher on Russia, which creates conditions that make it very difficult for America to push for any peace deal that Ukraine might reject. All Zelensky has to do is utter the word "appeasement" and any peace deal will die.
America is at war with Russia. We are using every tool except our troops. But we are still at war. I do not know what our war aims are. I do not think we know what our war aims are.
To me what would be reasonable is an independent Ukraine with a moratorium on joining NATO and the EU. A rollback on the sanctions in return for minimal Russian territorial gains, e.g., Crimea and a negotiated line in the eastern provinces. The right peace deal, whatever the details, will be something that no one particularly likes.
Are we as a country mature enough to accept that some times the "bad guys" get away with something in return for all the benefits of peace?
Russia ensured that Ukraine would never join NATO by occupying Crimea and the Donbas. This did not solve the problem for Russia, as its influence in Ukraine was declining as Ukraine turned westwards. Since 2014, exports to Russia have declined from 25% to 9%, Ukraine has visa-free travel to Schengen (unlike Russia), and ties we Europe are growing. Your idea of a peace deal gives Russia a veto over Ukraine's actions, and will invariably embolden Russia to interfere more forcibly in other "near abroad" countries. In essence, you are saying that Russia has the unalienable right to forcibly create an empire. The west made a huge mistake in not challenging Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014, and failure to challenge it now could easily lead to the destruction of the EU and NATO.
NATO is useless and should have been abolished after 1991. Personally, I would not want to be a part of the EU but it is their problem and the US should stay out of the issue. If I were Ukrainian, I would have serious reservations about joining absent a direct threat from Russia because of repeated EU attempts to strongarm member states such as they are doing right now with Hungary and Poland even with the war on.
I think the usefulness of NATO has just been proven beyond doubt. The problem is that Ukraine and Georgia did not join it in time.
NATO membership primarily is a guarantee of territorial integrity. No NATO country has ever been invaded. This guarantee of stable political conditions made NATO members more attractive for companies to invest in these countries, thus wealth and prosperity developed much better than in comparable countries outside NATO.
One can argue that the US has and is being invaded. Trudeau claimed that Canada was invaded by Russia no less. It was a ridiculous claim but he made it. One can argue that most of the European members of NATO, except Poland and Hungary are being invaded. No armies are involved in any of this so it is like the invasions of the Western Roman empire.
What peace terms do you think are realistic and acceptable?
I don't think there is really any peace deal that is acceptable to both sides. Over time, turning Russia in to a bigger Iran (weaker militarily than pre-war with a basketcase economy) is more acceptable to the West than rewarding Putin in any way for invading another sovereign country because that would deter any other autocrats from trying the same stunt. You have to think long-term. If Putin wins in any way from this war, plenty of autocrats would feel incented to invade other countries.
Probably right.
And what do you do to the Ukrainian people living on the Sea of Azov who see their access to the Black Sea controlled by the Russians in Crimea?
Included with William's point about Putin actually having a reason not to try to remove Zelinsky, which give Zelinsky a moral authority to negotiate a compromise, along with David's comment above about our media here failing to report in an accurate way, ginning up the drumbeat of war like we did with Iraq, both times we invaded, is the author's point about the 1973 war of Israel and its Arab neighbors. Putin's actions are not similar to Hitler's, they are most similar to Israel with its neighbors since '67, and this article's point about holding land taken by force as a negotiating tactic, and a buffer zone of security, even the more recent incidents of Israel invading the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, or even Lebannon and Syria in previous decades. As terrible as those events were, we heard the views of both sides, and a negotiated peace did occur, and more recently, the Abraham Accords point a way to a lasting peace of mutual benefit that could be extended to more countries. Something similar could happen for Ukraine and Russia.
Historical analogies are always fraught.
I do not see any similarity between Israel's actions in 1967/after to Russia's actions.
That said, peace after bitter and long conflicts are possible; Ireland is a case in point.
I agree with the 2014 mistake but not the "results" you predict. The opposite seems to be happening.
nah let's just take out Putin 🤪
Worst idea ever. Only the Russians can remove Putin. Regime change must be from within, by the cynical interest groups around him. The west taking out Putin is the quickest conceivable route up the escalation ladder.
The Russian oligarchal/criminal clans are perfectly capable of doing just that should they decide that it furthers their collective or individual interests
for dinner?
Maybe Kamaia can giggle him to death.
An interesting article but it all comes down to the question of how Putin sees things. I can't see him giving up hope for a maximum victory and my feeling is that his ego and probable lack of advisors/new givers prepared to report unpalatable things is going to mean things are going to have to get to really bad for a really long time for Russia before he makes compromises. Up to now I would think he would only offer cease fire because he likes the idea of some time to re-supply, rest up and rotate his troops. Of course the sanctions will continue to inflict damage but my guess is he's confident he can keep his population in the dark or at least cowered indefinitely.
Yes but they can nolonger lunch on coke and MacDo!😂
Can't wait to see what the menus will be like when McDo is nationalised
Borsch burgers and wheatie fries washed down with a Vodka Lemonade.
Could this also unleash a lot of previously-suppressed tensions within the Russian Federation?
Two weeks of war in Ukraine allow us to vindicate the NATO planning and procurement processes from the 1970s/80s. Faced with potentially-overwhelming Soviet armoured strength, NATO aimed to give the infantry sufficient ATGM to at least slow down their advance until. FOFA could take effect. That seems entirely vindicated in Ukraine today, although I doubt any of us expected Russia to be using T-72 derivatives as late as 2022.
.....although of course NATO planning was for a significantly more hostile air environment, which simply doesn't seem to have happened in Ukraine so far. So there are some limits to the historical analogy I was making!
Did NATO think they would lose air superiority in Europe during a Soviet invasion during the Cold War era? The Soviets may have had the numbers but I doubt the skill and technology advantage.
And yes, NATO has amassed an absolutely silly number of ATGMs, a lot which they are sending to Ukraine. Ukraine likely has enough now to take out everything on wheels that can fire (and plenty that just have wheels) that Russia can send to Ukraine.
NATO planning was for a strongly-contested air environment, certainly. But your point about AT and AA systems (particularly manportable/shoulder-borne) is a good one. My understanding is that provision of these are the priority, and make an NFZ even less useful than it would otherwise be. Critical threats on the ground are from artillery and MLRS.
Return of all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.
My observation is that many people feel that the only priority is to punish Russia no matter the devastation to Ukrainians.
I didn't think that it was the sanctions "devastating" Ukraine. Bombs do a much better job. If you mean that they are making the bombing worse...i would doubt it...rather the loss of face for Putin generated by the unexpected resistance and Russian military and intelligence failures.
A nation of slaves. Their national ethos is its own punishment.
The option that you don't mention is that Putin's clan, and currently allied clans, decide they have a further option to maintain their wealth and power and that is to say that it isn't Russia's fault but Putin's...and replace him. They can then cease military confrontation and get back to making money.
Good point. However, my instinct is that regime change in Moscow would have to be brought about by the Military and security leadership. Possibly encouraged by the "oligarchs" elsewhere, but primarily by the military/security factions jockeying for position and seeking to preserve their own positions and influence within the system. Not a given, by any means, but the rumours (if they can be believed) about unhappiness within the FSB and possible scapegoating of Shoigu are at least.....interesting. In the governance system Russia currently operates, factions around the leader are frequently kept in opposition to each other on the divide and rule principle. If more than one faction sees itself as a potential scapegoat with associated loss of privilege and influence, that could be a spur to acting in concert with others, albeit only temporarily.
The Tuvan has got his work cut out to avoid being the scapegoat here.
When their collective interests are threatened, they negotiate a ceasefire and a post-coup agreement that gets rid of the "disturbance" but maintains their respective priviledges. The military might be happy to blame Putin for their defficiencies
The Russian military would be right to blame Putin et al for their deficiencies: as has been pointed out elsewhere, a kleptocracy isn't noted for it's efficiency, and the military modernisation programmes suffered hugely because of corruption. Not that the military leadership are themselves blameless in all of this, but how far would or could they go in publicly blaming the entire kleptocratic and corrupt nature of the regime in explaining away their defeat?
Also, can Putin continue to play off interest groups against each other to avoid any developing notion of their 'collective' privileges and interests? My assumption is that he can for a while, but not indefinitely.
While there have been specifically military weaknesses associated with the SMO, perhaps especially in force capability estimations and contingency anticipation, the generals can show that much of the shortfall in achieving targets is due to political and intelligence weaknesses: poor understanding of Ukrainian capacity and disposition to resist, which is an FSB failure contributing to the unrealistic political framework for war objectives and strategy. So they're all in it, and Putin will need to sort these things out as they've shown him up.
I know some will say in a regime like that they're all yes men, but it courts of complacency to treat them as some kind of 'other' with generic weaknesses unlike ours.
My dismal take is that Communist leaders are virtually never overthrown from within.
Except of course by their "friends" and that happened everwhere
Please name the cases.
They all need Réné Girard's "scapegoat" to avoid going down with him. I also come back to the lack of succession process and the story of the massacres related to taking the seat of first Tzar Vlad on his death a millenium ago; 17 dead contenders and counting.
If the scapegoat mechanism acts against Putin, all well and good, frankly! There would then be a lot of internecine warfare between factions......unless they can agree some form of coalition/.committee to agree a climbdown and rapid removal or relaxation of sanctions.
Another possible factor will be whether the Russian govt can continue to pay its military and security forces. The people at the top will be OK, but if their people aren't getting paid and their authority starts to evaporate, will that be a significant factor in concentrating their minds?
The revenge of the "little people" !
Fine thanks except for an prolongation of the macronite winter which hopefully will end this spring.
At least he is real even if i don'tagree with everything he says..but it's not likely to happen. We'll see what happens over the coming weeks. There is a very strong aversion generally to Micron but the other candidates are somewhat mediocre and/or intensely marginal. A conundrum!
The public know what's the lesser evil.
He is on the money for the immigration/islam and security issues that he has imposed on the campaign but not necessarily any better than the others on economics but one would tend to trust him to do what he says at least which hasn't been the case here for a long time. He is perhaps also the only one that actually cares about all of the French, their identity and their culture. He at least isn't in it for the money and the personal power trip. He is actually extremely well-read, self deprecating and often funny; he listens! His thoughts on international politics are formed from his penchant for European history in which Russia played an integral part...but that has hardly been the case for the last century. Otherwise he tends largely to misunderstand America and follow the standard french denigration of of their contribution. He fails to see the dangers represented by the follies of Trump.
A lot of words with not much enlightenment.
Yes, Zelensky is offering some compromise, but Putin will not accept it. He is all in and can't admit even the semblance of stalemate or defeat.
The US & NATO should have and still can tell Putin that everything would be negotiable--under UN auspices in Geneva--including Ukraine staying out of NATO, territorial concessions & relief from the sanctions--IF there is an immediate ceasefire & cessation of the Russian attacks.
If Putin will not agree to that--and no one expects that he will--then the transference of more weapons to Ukraine should proceed--including the MiGs that Poland wanted to send them. It makes no sense to withhold the MiGs out of fear of 'escalation' but think sending Stingers & Javelins to Ukraine to take out Russian tanks and kill Russians from the ground is fine. What matters is not the weapons themselves but that it is Ukrainians wielding them and flying the MiGs fighting for their own country, not US or NATO pilots.
Waiting around for Putin's forces to reduce Kyiv to rubble, kill Zelensky and tens of thousands more Ukrainians, while producing several million more desperate refugees fleeing to Europe is not a strategy. But that is where we are headed given Putin's brutality and the US administration's fecklessness, weakness and stupidity, which led to this in the first place.
The killing and destruction will stop only when Putin's war machine is no longer capable of killing and destruction. Sanctions will not do this. Only giving the Ukrainians what they need to do it will end this.
Negotiate a peace ?
Not going to happen.
If someone kidnapped two of your seven children would you agree the kidnapper can keep them provided he promises not to kidnap more ?
How does Russia's military failure in north Ukraine vs relative success in the south feed into these calculations? Is a strip from DNR round to Odessa likely to be viewed by Putin as sufficient to save face and present this to Russia as a success justifying the entire operation? Does it then embolden Russia to try again in a few years, gradually nibbling away at the Ukrainian state piece by piece (almost certainly how Ukraine would view such an outcome)? Alternatively, does the failure in north Ukraine lead Putin to conclude more military effort is needed to achieve the original objectives, despite sanctions crippling the Russian economy?
It's also unclear what happens to the Russian forces in north Ukraine. If they're clearly beaten and have to straggle back minus much of their equipment, for how long can Putin disguise this, and wat will be the wider impact on the Russian armed forces? Are there historical parallels with Adwa in 1896 (post-defeat) and the German transfer of troops to the west in 1918 (pre-defeat)?
If it goes all the way from the Donbas to Odessa, doesn't that strip leave Ukraine with only 1 or 2 small seaports in the far southwest of the country (which I don't think are connected to Ukraine's river network)? I don't see Ukraine accepting that as a viable settlement. And not accepting could take the form of a long-term insurgency after a ceasefire or treaty.
From the Russian perspective, that area also looks like a nightmare for border security: long, thin stretch of land without any natural barrier on the inland side. Maybe Putin currently doesn't care about that reality, but it sets up for a cross-border insurgency that's covertly supported by the Ukrainian government (or at least not suppressed by it in any meaningful way). Or maybe Putin likes that border for now because he sees the cross-border attacks going the other way?
In any case, I think it's a settlement that would be inherently unstable. Even in the absence of specific near-term Russian designs for more territory, I could see a cycle of pro-Ukrainian insurgency met by Russia (1) trying to respond in kind across the aforementioned porous border and (2) engaging in economic retaliation via its stranglehold on Ukrainian sea access.
Very good points. I was thinking primarily from the Russian perspective, ie how does initial failure inform what they do next? But you're absolutely right: the Ukrainian govt seems very unlikely to accept a settlement on these sort of terms, and even if they could be persuaded to do so (I think unlikely?), it would be both politically and militarily unstable. Nothing short of a rapid and complete takeover of Ukraine would give Putin/Russia any kind of 'successful/positive' outcome, and they failed to achieve that.
IMO, I don't think Russia can hold a strip all the way from the Donbas to Odessa. They can probably only securely hold areas around the Donbass, Crimea (up to the lower reaches of the Dnieper), and _maybe_ a land bridge between the 2.
The extraordinary thing about this war is how much it is costing Russia for so little apparent gain. Russia is a huge country and stands to benefit very little by winning a few more square miles.
Is the continuation of the war simply a product of Putin's personality? As long as it persists he can threaten the west with a reality as predicted in Russian fairy tales. With his conventional military shown to be largely ineffective he can still talk up his nuclear weapons at every opportunity.
Putin enjoys intimidating people, that is clear from the smirk on his face when he scares Angela Merkel with the dog.
And yet indulging this man's ego is costing his country plenty.
How much more pain will Russia tolerate?
How does one man have this much power? In this day and age? Who is it that is scared of him in Russia? Who is backing him? It has to be an illusion. It is ONE man.
Peace always is better than war. I hope the two sides can find it soon.
Putin is a murderer and war criminal, probably the worst in Europe since Hitler. How many thousands of innocent civilians has he killed.? How many towns and cities, homes, hospitals and businesses has he decimated? These were not collateral damage. They were all targets of his army of barbarians. He deserves to be tried and hanged if found guilty of exactly what he did.