6 Comments
User's avatar
marku52's avatar

Stopping at the Dneiper may not be an option. As a commenter at NC points out, you need to control the entire Dneiper watershed to prevent say, the UKR half of Kiev to dump all it's sewage in it, poisoning the ag lands below. It's a problem....

Expand full comment
Eoin Clancy's avatar

The Russians might just go for this plan. War weariness and the realisation that NATO aren't that much of a force to be reckoned with could clinch the deal.

On top of that, should Russia break through to the Dnieper, what then?

Expand full comment
History Lass's avatar

Go on to Odessa I would think and hope.

I think this idea of land for peace is DOA also. For one it does not even begin to fulfill the oft stated objectives of the SMO.

Denazificatin and demilitaritzation.

Expand full comment
ML's avatar

Absolutely. Nato simply cannot acknowledge it’s been out-manned, out-gunned and out-gamed by Russia, which once proposed joining this group of morons. I think that even if Russia takes the full measure of Nato weakness, peace will be on its own terms. Nyet means nyet.

Expand full comment
History Lass's avatar

Exactly. Russia must take Odessa, for a multitude of reasons.

NATO and US have proven they are agreement incapable.

Thus is just another rearm the Ukraine over a few years proposal.

Nyet. No way

Expand full comment