I hope Putin goes for the “bird in hand”.
Russian MIC will make a lot of (foreign) money stopping the war now.
The costs of an army of occupation in Ukraine and the internal political cost of that. The demographics south of the Dnieper are different; it was posted here (I think).
What is the point of a parade in Kiev if Putin gets an “independent” Donbas, a recognized Crimea and a DMZ south of the Dnieper? (For example.)
I cannot believe that the ambition was a conquered Ukraine (200.000 men invading eastern Ukraine?), it was a friendly (puppet, if you like; taking care of its own internal -a lot of - problems) regime.
Is it better to get lot more troubles now than, maybe, in the future?
The results of a war are always uncertain, the price to pay even more.
I strongly disagree with (his opinion in that article) S. Radchenko.
Edit
Probably, Ukraine should start abandoning Girnik while Russia is busy clearing Selidove.
I sure disagree with some of his thought process - near-fatal blow to NATO’s credibility in particular - but I also agree with some of it.
“Near-fatal blow to NATO’s credibility” is clearly an overstatement. In fact, as much as there is talk about NATO involvement, there is very little of it, if any. Individual members of the Alliance are, of course, involved and some are “balls deep”, as they say, and deeper. NATO as an Alliance has nothing to do with it, really. Stolnberg made some strong statements, there was an attempt to transfer the coordination of aid to the Alliance, etc (which are all valid arguments from Putin’s perspective, by the way), but beyond that the decisions were made by the individual countries.
Furthermore, Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO. Regardless of what happens in Ukraine, it should have no effect on the credibility of NATO as an alliance. No NATO members were attacked and in all likelihood won’t be in the foreseeable future (unless one counts a few lost drones and Ukrainian lost missiles killing a man in Pollard and, of course, sabotage). While there are guarantees to the members of the Alliance, no one owes anything to Ukraine. There was no reason for the invocation of the Article 5.
The thing is, as I see it, with many loud statements from various parties, including Stoltenberg, created great confusion in the minds of many that Ukraine should be viewed as all other allies, which dilutes the purpose of NATO and makes it look “weak” to a casual observer, as well as some experts. There should be no such confusion though: NATO is collectively stronger than it was few short years ago and the Article 5 still exists and serves its purpose. Will it be tested to see if it is just a bluff? I highly doubt and certainly hope not. Provided some sanity remains, no one is going to go to war with Russia over Ukraine and there will be no Yugoslavia scenario either (talking about involvement of NATO, not fragmentation of Ukraine). Trump’s comments in regard to NATO and “nonpaying allies”, for example, have little to do with Ukraine and I doubt those statements are more than a talking point, but cause more credibility issues than the war in Ukraine would ever do.
I would be more inclined to conclude that NATO is using Ukraine as meat and time to strengthen itself in the current geopolitical situation, with little regard to what actually happens to Ukraine, as long as some of it remains (or none?). However, this argument would likely be just as invalid, perhaps.
Austin said the other day something along the lines of “if Ukraine falls under Putin’s shoe, Europe would collapse under his push” or something like that. That’s the same rubbish and fear-mongering, provided the United States is planning to remain in NATO, which it needs as much as anyone else and likely more. But anyway, I deviated a bit (though maybe not really?). That’s the point in the article I (strongly) disagree with.
As to your point, rsemmes, I agree and stated as much previously: I do not believe there was a plan to “conquer” Ukraine. Even “friendly regime” was probably beyond the scope of the “special military operation”. What happened in Georgia in 2008 was likely the plan: pull in, defeat - ie project strength - probably independence of LNR/DPR as a result, and a safe (maybe controlled) land bridge to Crimea, opening water supply to the peninsula, etc. Maybe we will know one day.
I do believe, however, the author has a valid argument. The fact that Russia is “winning” likely doesn’t need to be discussed further. I also previously talked about the shift of goals as the situation progresses. It is clear that none of the captured territories will be returned to Ukraine and I do believe that they want more than they currently occupy. If Russia keeps advancing, I do believe that they will not stop at the Donbas border. This is evident by their persistent offensive/actions in the Kharkov Region (not talking about Vovchansk), but it is also a logical progression, which I think stops at the river (Dnipro). Odessa and Mykolaiv is something they would want as well, of course, but not sure if this is feasible. Note, however, that a year ago and less we were assuming that capture of Donbas to be a likely an unachievable goal.
I also tend to agree with the author’s argument about the loaded gun, which I believe I also mentioned previously: Russia’s budget and decisions indicate that they mean business and are ready to go a mile. All this talk about collapse and whatever is nonsense. In the short and medium terms they will likely do just fine (not to be confused with “could be much better”).
Trouble now vs trouble maybe later… It could be argued that the trouble now vs likely more trouble later just as well. The thing is that if this continues the way it does, Ukraine will collapse and not only on the front. The author says that the dividends are beginning to pay. I would say that the actual dividends are in clear sight instead, though I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with his wording either. He also says chips are down, but I think chips have been down from the beginning, then antes went up and Russia immediately went all in. Lots of resources were used up and even more blood was spilled. I don’t think it would be reasonable to stop now. For Russia that is. They will take what they can and the expense (or investment, as the author calls it?) is now rather marginal. To this point and a side note, there is some confusion on the subject of costs here as well: there is an idea of forcing Russia to come to the realization that it is too expensive to continue the war in Ukraine. What is lost in this theory? The simple fact that the sunk costs are incomparable to the marginal costs of continuing as they were. This is fairly trivial but appears to be lost in the “daily” discussion.
So yes, while I do not fully agree with the author, I think he has a valid argument and I do believe that from the Russian perspective the best current course of action is to continue and potentially cause a complete collapse of Ukraine. With Zelensky’s proposals, I also do no see what Ukraine currently has to offer for the insanity to stop, but maybe it is getting closer (?).
It's also about the fairly large open fields north of Ugledar that Russia took since Oct 1st. In the Kurakhovo area it's fair to note that much of these gains come from Ukraine's withdrawal from the area north of Krasnogorovka. So the gains are real but they are less the result of attacks more a product of Russian forces threatening encirclement. The rapid capture of Maksimil'yanovka and the area immediately south of it helped too.
The dividends are beginning to pay. There should be many more open fields and encirclements if this continues. The map with fortifications I cited 2-3 weeks ago:
Here is another version of the Selidove/Kurakhove direction map that we discussed earlier today and has since been posted. This one is from War Mapper.
Source:
x.com
A report from the Wall Street Journal today suggests that Russia is supplying Houthis with their satellite and targeting data. No subscription to the WSJ, but here is a link to the discussion of the article elsewhere:
The Houthis' anti-shipping campaign diverted a lot of attention from Russia's war in Ukraine.
www.twz.com
tvpworld.com
