Quick, because it will be in the form of embedded tweets and videos. Will Schryver has a very good track record in prognosticating how this conflict will go, so we’ll start with him. There has been some talk recently, including from the pro-Russian camp, of negotiations leading to a partitioned Ukraine that would allow for a NATO presence in Western Ukraine. Like Schryver, I’m very dubious:
You can come up with your random peace plan of choice - partition, plebiscite, whatever, and it all runs aground on the same rock. Washington would have to have limited, achievable war aims that it could articulate and a willingness to impose compromise in the Kiev government. Absent this, diplomacy is over until something changes on the battlefield.
The Zelensky visit was obviously staged with an eye to selling the Omnibus bill, the purpose of which was to avoid debate about the regime's spending priorities. One reason Zelensky was greeted like the second coming of Christ is that by making Ukraine a moral imperative, the regime can avoid any democratic debate on its domestic policies.
The Twitter files provide some insight here. Whatever the actual presence of foreign influence on Twitter, the regime needs a foreign threat, real or not, as a pretext for making criticism of the regime de facto illegal. Ukraine strategy, to the extent that such exists, is now a function of the regime's domestic political agenda.
"There has been some talk recently, including from the pro-Russian camp, of negotiations leading to a partitioned Ukraine that would allow for a NATO presence in Western Ukraine."
I believe this talk began with, of all people, Henry Kissinger in an article written a few days ago for the British Spectator magazine.
I agree with all who believe this outcome is highly doubtful. I also don't believe Russia will give up any hard-fought territory in Eastern Ukraine. I believe Russia will take Odessa and control the entire former Ukrainian Black Sea coast line. I believe Western rump-Ukraine will be subjected to some kind of buffer-like neutrality. Russia will never allow NATO into any version of Ukraine. Not after the cards were shown in 2022.
I would say that it's a mistake that many make to view this as a war over Ukraine being in NATO. Ritter makes clear what this really is: a world war, a global war. Putin understands this. He's winning, and even if the cost is high, there's no halfway point that makes sense, that wouldn't be a defeat or setback. As it is, Russia is in good shape.
I have no expertise to get into such estimates. But it seems neither does the author. Every situation is unique, even though historical precedents do suggest certain ratios. OTOH, one thing seems clear is that the author of the piece is of the school that criticizes Putin for engaging in too much Mr. Nice Guy, as he makes clear at the end. He wants a massive assault, which would inevitably amount to a casualties-be-damned approach. He appears to be arguing that the attrition approach is producing too high casualties so let's go "all in". He does have an agenda.
That's a fair summary. I linked it because of his sources, not because I endorse anything about the author or his agenda. In the fog of war, it's very difficult to get these numbers right, or draw correct conclusions from them. So I try to pay attention to every attempt I come across.
You can come up with your random peace plan of choice - partition, plebiscite, whatever, and it all runs aground on the same rock. Washington would have to have limited, achievable war aims that it could articulate and a willingness to impose compromise in the Kiev government. Absent this, diplomacy is over until something changes on the battlefield.
The Zelensky visit was obviously staged with an eye to selling the Omnibus bill, the purpose of which was to avoid debate about the regime's spending priorities. One reason Zelensky was greeted like the second coming of Christ is that by making Ukraine a moral imperative, the regime can avoid any democratic debate on its domestic policies.
The Twitter files provide some insight here. Whatever the actual presence of foreign influence on Twitter, the regime needs a foreign threat, real or not, as a pretext for making criticism of the regime de facto illegal. Ukraine strategy, to the extent that such exists, is now a function of the regime's domestic political agenda.
"There has been some talk recently, including from the pro-Russian camp, of negotiations leading to a partitioned Ukraine that would allow for a NATO presence in Western Ukraine."
I believe this talk began with, of all people, Henry Kissinger in an article written a few days ago for the British Spectator magazine.
https://archive.vn/tVeQk
I agree with all who believe this outcome is highly doubtful. I also don't believe Russia will give up any hard-fought territory in Eastern Ukraine. I believe Russia will take Odessa and control the entire former Ukrainian Black Sea coast line. I believe Western rump-Ukraine will be subjected to some kind of buffer-like neutrality. Russia will never allow NATO into any version of Ukraine. Not after the cards were shown in 2022.
Why is Lindsey Graham doing this?
What’s in it for him?
Same questions for Mitch McConnell.
My gut feeling is huge amounts of money, re Paul Manafort, to both parties.
This is a worthwhile interview. Ritter knows his stuff, qualifies as a subject matter expert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT8F3W9HvNU&ab_channel=TheLeftLenswithDannyHaiphong
I would say that it's a mistake that many make to view this as a war over Ukraine being in NATO. Ritter makes clear what this really is: a world war, a global war. Putin understands this. He's winning, and even if the cost is high, there's no halfway point that makes sense, that wouldn't be a defeat or setback. As it is, Russia is in good shape.
Added perspective:
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/new-cold-war-has-begun
This emphasizes that America is in its weakest position in decades.
Some recent estimates, from a skeptical pro-Russian source, of how much meat has been ground so far:
https://roloslavskiy.substack.com/p/more-than-a-million-ukrainian-soldiers
(Ignore the "1M" headline, it's just clickbait)
I have no expertise to get into such estimates. But it seems neither does the author. Every situation is unique, even though historical precedents do suggest certain ratios. OTOH, one thing seems clear is that the author of the piece is of the school that criticizes Putin for engaging in too much Mr. Nice Guy, as he makes clear at the end. He wants a massive assault, which would inevitably amount to a casualties-be-damned approach. He appears to be arguing that the attrition approach is producing too high casualties so let's go "all in". He does have an agenda.
That's a fair summary. I linked it because of his sources, not because I endorse anything about the author or his agenda. In the fog of war, it's very difficult to get these numbers right, or draw correct conclusions from them. So I try to pay attention to every attempt I come across.
Right. This isn't guesswork. Putin has made clear what his demands are, and that they're non-negotiable because existential.