Putin might agree to freeze the conflict along the Line of Contact in spite of prior rhetoric against this scenario in the event that Trump threatens to escalate the conflict as punishment if he doesn’t.
At best we would be kicking the ball down the street and form a new NK/SK scenario with the Dnieper River serving as the Han River. If Mr. Putin is willing to accept Trump's proposal (Mr. Putin will negotiate really hard, I am sure) then the Russian forces had better reach Dnieper River, or at least fairly close to the river such that the left bank remaining under Ukraine control but serves as buffer zone. Reaching Dnieper would cost higher casualties and risk NATO escalation. Not reaching Dnieper would mean a viable Ukraine state can survive with the river remaining as a main artery. IMHO, it is better not to trust the hope that Trump's advisors this round would be much better. They are all selected from the same pool, the same universities, the same supervising professors, the same think tanks, or cut their teeth under the same boss. The shades may be different, but the color would be the same. What is actually under Russian military control is the only thing Mr. Putin can count on.
"The shades may be different, but the color would be the same."
And the resulting 'revolution' likewise inevitable (see [my comment] above).
Whether it's five or ten or fifteen or fifty years down the road, long, long after Putin himself has gone, will be of secondary importance to 'Trump's advisors' [your words] or anyone else in the American 'Deep State'.
"Putin might agree to freeze the conflict along the Line of Contact in spite of prior rhetoric against this scenario in the event that Trump threatens to escalate the conflict as punishment if he doesn’t."
That would certainly dovetail most comfortably with the 'Deep-State's' plans for Russia. Even if not in the short term, by undermining and invalidating Putin's authority, it would most certainly corrupt the integrity of his legacy. In the long-term, with the constant drip-drip-drip of such a wide range of instruments, as the Deep State has available to it, the integrity of the Russian state and its associated authority, should be much easier to undermine. That's how colour revolutions are made. It's not an overnight process; Rome wasn't built in a day, and the Wolfowitz Doctrine's original Fats Nuland-and-Moron McCain team may not have been successful in the first instance. (Первый блин — комом.) What you describe here, though, would most certainly be the most likely way for the Americans to prevail in their plans to subvert, undermine and eventually collapse the Russian state with the aim or disassembling to 'influence' and bend ('Balkanise') it to their will.
A lot can happen between now and Jan 20th, and any US response would be on Biden's watch. Meanwhile the line of contact is collapsing as we speak, and Russia has stated many times that they believe the US is incapable of honouring agreements, so why should that change simply because they have a new president? Based on the last Trump administration I would say that's a non-starter, and there are no signs that Trump has learned anything from the experience.
Demilitarization was only one of Russia's goals, denazification being another. Anything that leaves the current Ukrainian leadership in place and beyond the reach of justice is unacceptable at this point. Too high a price has been paid for there to be anything other than total victory, which would take one of two forms. Complete occupation of Ukraine, or a coup which brings an acceptable leadership to power. How likely that is I'm not sure, but I imagine there are still elements within the UAF who are not tainted by war crimes, and who might act to preserve what's left of Ukraine. That's the only condition I can foresee under which negotiations would occur, and not with NATO. They have no place at the table, and I doubt the EU member states would be willing to pursue a military confrontation, given what they're up against.
There's another factor here that has to be accounted for. If Iran is true to their word, then US priorities are going to shift very quickly. Not that the US can do much of anything at this point. Any direct conflict with Iran will end very badly for the US which lacks the means to engage Iran without suffering serious losses. When you're talking about war on the scale involved, the truth is the US simply lacks the means to pull it off. It all boils down to the rate of production of weapons system and their effectiveness, neither of which the US can manage. They can cause some damage no doubt, but there's no path to victory over Iran that can be accomplished before Israel is completely destroyed, which would be the Iranian response should the US get involved. So stalemate, at least in the short run. In the longer run it doesn't look like Israel is going to survive, at least not in its present form.
Yes, it did, actually. The problem arose when Mike 'The Big' Pompeo went to Korea to seal the deal. The Koreans were astounded by the vulgarity of the man. It scuppered the whole deal. The word they used to describe him, and the impression of America he projected, was, 'gangster'.
The devil/god is in the details - depends on who you quote. Trump was there to glad-hand - do the statesman PR schtick for the domestic audience. The standard method. Pompeo, gangster-like projection aside, was delivering/negotiating the terms - either Trump's terms or (conspiracy!) others'. Maybe they thought a good-cop, bad-cop routine would work.
Maybe, but I suspect the Koreans just couldn't believe how they'd suckered themselves (allowed themselves to be suckered) into such an obvious Potemkin-like nonsense-facade: that this man (Pomepeo) could by the wildest stretch of anyone's imagination be considered a 'wholesome' character, deserving or able to fulfil such a honoured (by their understanding) high post... If you look at it from their point of view, you can see how shocked they must have been, 'We thought you were civilised!!!' Wow, what a shock: that slight shadow of doubt they'd allowed to avoid being stamped out turned out to be completely wrong — these people really ARE barbarians, spicky mafiosos with endless dollars to burn! It doesn't matter if they were playing good-cop/bad-cop or whatever else they may have been doing: healthy people would NEVER allow themselves to be perceived in such a manner. It's not a question of 'seeing through them'; it's a question (the unavoidable and incontrovertible evidence) of revulsion at being exposed to them.
So if some1 more like Dale Carnegie ("How to Win Friends and Influence (stroke/pander to) People") had been sent, it would of all worked-out just fine & dandy. Got it.
No, that's just the point: ANY Koreans (and ANYone else) instinctively perceives vulgarity and lack of civility, as displayed by Pompeo, for what it is — lack of respect for the self, manifesting in attitude to others.
In this sense, I don't think Trump would have done much better in Pompeo's place; I suspect a lot of things were allowed to slide in dealing with him due to his position. Had he been any less revered, he probably wouldn't have got anywhere near as far as he did.
How can the US threaten to escalate (to de-escalate). Maybe Mr. Korybko should read into the recently released report of the Kiel institute on the non existent Western capacity for war...
As for sanctions and other financial threats to tighten the screws, yeah, let's see.
It appears that the Korybko prediction of the future to unfold is based on US strength versus Russia weakness.
I disagree with that assumption and therefore would have very different predictions.
To explain my reasons would take a book or two covering the relative state of the economies involved, the size of the military, the amount and usefulness of the military equipment of the 2 sides, the relative logistical situation, and the different tolerance of Americans and Russian to see an ongoing cascade of filled body-bags being repatriated. I believe a US War College simulation of Ukraine war between the US and Russia in Ukraine predicts 100,000 US casualties a month. And how many months would Americans put up with that (and how many months before the US runs out of 155 mm shells and missiles)?
Specifically on the point of Russia accepting a Trump Peace Plan:
There is no need for Russia to officially even officially receive this Peace Plan if preparatory diplomatic contacts suggest that the result would be too unacceptable for Russia to even discuss it. Yes, Russia does not want to disappoint China (and Brazil and others) by refusing Peace talks, but China approved the war, in advance, knowing it is the most attractive target for the US. and knows that a deal between the US and Russia allows the US to more easily focus on making trouble for China. I doubt the Russian people want to agree to a freeze that allows the Americans (or anyone) to rebuild Ukraine and fund its terrorists who have an affinity to attacking Russian nuclear facilities) so it can retake territory.
Meanwhile, between now and the Trump inauguration (assuming that happens), it is easy to predict that Russia will move farther west in Ukraine, yet will become no more trusting of any US undertaking regarding the deal to end the SMO that is not binding, enforceable, and on paper.
As long as the US is involved in multilateral wars and preparation for war in SW and West Asia, running huge deficits, and without a competitive MIC, the US gets weaker with time. Considering the militaries of other NATO countries is a waste of time, unless you are tallying targets.
Do you think Trump would threaten nuking Russia (and becoming the 47th and last President) to act the bully in Ukraine?
Russia goal was NEVER to "win" in 24 hours. Their initial goal was to bring Ukraine to the table to talk peace. Which they did ! Until the UK and US FUCK UP THE DEAL ! ........500,000 TO 1,000,000 DEAD.........BLOOD ON THE UK AND US HANDS ! PURE FUCKING EVIL !!!
Exactly! When waging war, the only objective that matters is victory! Given all of Russia's ostensible advantages, they should have made quick work of the UAF. The fact that they didn't showed the short-sightedness of this "special military operation", so "special" that it is now about to enter its third year! 😒
You FAIL in sensibly explaining the failures. 1 stated aim was to "de-militarize" UKR: The west's response was "don't leave us out!". Have it your way, OTAN gets de-militarized too.
"in a war that Russia should have been able to win decisively in 24 hours." How much catnip have you had to make utter such nonsense? Russians never stated their timeline - they executed an "Israeli" type of opperation, hoping to obtain political concessions. Only in the west one could hear pundits claiming such nonsense. In 2022, Ukraine had the most armed and powerful army in Europe.
It was bound to fail. Russian forces were not the Werhmacht on June 22, 1941. They gambled and they lost. Now they are armed to the teeth, with a huge army, and Ukraine and the west have nothing... You cannot win a war of attrition in 24 hours.
So, you're saying that the plan for the invasion was incompetent. Well, yeah. That's sort of my point.
Now, had Russia used the eight years to actually plan and had taken the war seriously from the outset, done simple, basic stuff like "SEAD" and "destroy bridges, railheads, communications equipment, and not done bonehead things like 'let prisoners go because the war will be over soon!'" they might have won and saved a lot of lives as a result.
You have to remember that the view in Russia towards Ukraine in 2022 was not similar with the view of, let's say Ukrainian nationalists from Western Ukraine towards Russians. There wasn't any hate anymating the Russians to even think in engaging in the actions that you mention. Russians don't see Ukrainians the way Israel and Israelis (only 4% of Israeli respnders to a Pew survey declared that they think the military response in Gaza was over the top or just appropriate...) see the Palestinians.
Hehehe!!! I don't, huh?!?!? I suppose I must "trust the plan" and believe the 5D chessmaster inside the Kremlin has it all under control, amirite?!?!?😒
And because the Russian leadership has failed to take this war seriously, and failed to accept the depths of western sociopathy.
The problem is that Russia doesn't want to destory the West. The Russian leadership wants to join it, and keep telling themselves that this is a misunderstanding that will get smoothed over, even as it is clear that the West seeks to destroy Russia.
I agree completely. Putin had eight full years to prepare for this eventuality when the die was cast for it in the wake of the February 2014 Maidan Putsch. This lack of preparation became painfully evident in the opening days of this “Special Military Operation”, and it has been slow motion debacle ever since.
I wish I were too, given that nothing less than the long term unity & viability of the Russian state is at stake IMHO. Almost thirty three years since the dissolution of the USSR, the longer this war persists may very well precipitate a fracturing of the Russian Federation.
I do not believe the OTAN has grown stronger in any military category since 2022. I believe Russia has grown stronger since '22 structurally, and certainly militarily. It seems you relish to see Russian anti-terrorism/COIN operations in UKR, if not in all of Europe,
MEEEOW! What words did I put in your shite-on-a-shingle hole? Resolute - now that surely sounds like cope! They seem a helluva lot LESS resolute to methan 2 years ago. I surmise I observe with far greater resolution.
Uncle Joe almost lost his war due to failure to understand the war, but it's still early. Maybe if Putin had pulled the rabbit out of the hat, then Russia would have been far more isolated in UN. I've never been much of a fan of alternative history novels, too many possible branches keep popping up.
Mockery, as you say. You've stated "Russia should have been able to win decisively in 24 hours." A way of saying"it was over before it started". A foregone conclusion, in other words.
While the above maybe something that can be a hard sell for Russia, it will be an impossible sell for Trump... the whole US foreign policy establishment is made of cold warriors and he has not the media control Putin holds; he will be shredded to pieces daily and go to lose midterm... I guess a deflection of attention and resources away from Ukraine, rising stakes and tension in Taiwan and SCS, while making mediatically palatable to US public the Ukraine regime fall, Vietnam post-paris accords style, is more likely.
I suspect that Protecting Israel will take the front seat, and Phillippine-China-South China Sea would become the comfort prize for the MIC. The Army and Airforce contractors have had several good years running. Now is the time for Navy subcontractors to get their fair share.
If putin does agree then he is an idiot. Can't solve the issue this way so I highly doubt it will happen...... "the objectives of the SMO will be achieved... "
The wild card is the Biden administration. Biden has a lot of sh*te hidden in his Ukraine closet, but he, his wife, and son are all super vindictive people (look how Hunter treated his own child). The future is unknown, but I would not be surprised if they do something super nasty to make it even harder for Trump to carry off a peace deal, and he'll have the backing of his State Department and maybe a few Neo-nazis in the otherwise restraining Pentagon.
Clearly you have ZERO understanding of Russian Leadership or Russia. Freezing the conflict will NEVER happen ! This War has gone WAY past that. The ONLY way Trump can stop this early, is; ORDER Zelensky to unconditionally surrender to Russia, and then stop giving Ukraine ANY aid. Russia will NEVER allow the West to control (any part of) Ukraine again ! The old Ukraine is GONE, and is NEVER coming back ! Most likely Russia will give Western Ukraine to Poland, and then keep the rest. RUSSIA WOULD ALLOW THE ANTI-RUSSIAN UKRAINE NAZIS TO GO WITH WESTERN UKRAINE INTO POLAND.
1. Russia completely annexes 'Novo-Rossiya' with its historical capital at Odessa, restoring dominance over the Black Sea and making Ukraine a landlocked country, while effectively controlling 43% of Ukraine (as predicted by John Mearsheimer).
2. The 57% of Western Ukraine that's left after this war will inevitably become a dystopian 'rump state', run on annual funds from BlackRock. Ultra-nationalist factions will continue to rule a country where people are locked in a vicious cycle of poverty, stemming from loans they can never afford to repay to their Anglo-Saxon overlords.
3. Zelensky will either flee Ukraine (10% possibility) or be assassinated by the CIA (90% chance) who are ironically protecting him as long as he's politically viable. Once the Deep State accomplish their goals, or are forced to comply to hard Russian terms for a ceasefire, Zelensky will inevitably be removed. (Zelensky knows this, and has already transferred all his illegal wealth to his wife, Olena Zelenska, who's currently the richest person in Ukraine).
4. Donald Trump may speak big to satisfy his domestic audience, but he has no control over the ultimate choice that determines Ukraine's destiny— it lies with Putin. Only Russia can force the terms of negotiation in an attrition war they're winning against the combined war machinery of NATO.
5. Finally, I would like to mention that the Deep State is the winner in the short-term by implementing the "Anglo-Saxon Mission"— the most vile plan of global domination. The Russia-Ukraine War is provoked by the Anglo-Saxons to hurt the interests and divide the Slavic Civilization: 1.1 million Slavs have perished in a war fighting each other in the last 32 months— 1,000,000 Ukrainian and 100,000 Russian. If Russia can fulfil their war aims (that I listed as point number 1), then it is the Russians who'll emerge victorious in the longer run— by effectively dismantling the threat to their sovereign existence and resurrecting the Slavic Civilization.
This reads like the actions of a defeated nation, and given your view from the previous article, I cant argue that it is not consistent with your implication that Russia has lost this war. Either that or the article is tongue in cheek, to piss off the alt-media.
To negotiate with a group of "agreement incapable" nations and with a president who basically tore up the Minsk agreements, made a jackass of every intermediary that attempted to mediate a cease fire, is to lose face; not just Putin, but Lavrov too and every other diplomat who made pronouncements about Russia's determination. No matter how easy Trump makes it for Putin to accept his terms, it is not pragmatism; its plain chickening out.
On the other hand, if Trump arms Ukraine to the teeth as you say, he would be sending the wrong signal to the people who voted for him as an anti war president. It's hardly self defence to support Ukraine to the hilt after campaigning on domestic economics and anti-china slogans. And in my view, it cannot be dressed up as anything other than a show of aggression. The public would approve only if the defeat of Russia was quick and total. But what if Russia didnt cave in to the US military? How would Trump be seen entering office with a real war on his hands? and especially if NATO and the US got a bloody nose out of it?
For Putin, if he were to take your advice, he would also have to resign from office, because he'd be seen as another Gorbachev, childishly believing that any deal he made is worthy of Zelenskyy's signature. Once the ink is dry, the West would pull out all the stops to make the next invasion a permanent and successful one. Those natural resources in Russia beckon.
IMO, both sides have too much at stake not to stand their ground, but let's see what happens. Thanks for the two articles.
The settlement will necessarily include resolution of property rights issues. Almost no one knows much about the property rights or how they relate to other factors. And so it is exceptionally difficult to have any sense as to what the ultimate resolution might look like.
With respect to the bits and pieces we can see, this article is up to Mr. Korybko's usual high standards.
At best we would be kicking the ball down the street and form a new NK/SK scenario with the Dnieper River serving as the Han River. If Mr. Putin is willing to accept Trump's proposal (Mr. Putin will negotiate really hard, I am sure) then the Russian forces had better reach Dnieper River, or at least fairly close to the river such that the left bank remaining under Ukraine control but serves as buffer zone. Reaching Dnieper would cost higher casualties and risk NATO escalation. Not reaching Dnieper would mean a viable Ukraine state can survive with the river remaining as a main artery. IMHO, it is better not to trust the hope that Trump's advisors this round would be much better. They are all selected from the same pool, the same universities, the same supervising professors, the same think tanks, or cut their teeth under the same boss. The shades may be different, but the color would be the same. What is actually under Russian military control is the only thing Mr. Putin can count on.
"The shades may be different, but the color would be the same."
And the resulting 'revolution' likewise inevitable (see [my comment] above).
Whether it's five or ten or fifteen or fifty years down the road, long, long after Putin himself has gone, will be of secondary importance to 'Trump's advisors' [your words] or anyone else in the American 'Deep State'.
"Putin might agree to freeze the conflict along the Line of Contact in spite of prior rhetoric against this scenario in the event that Trump threatens to escalate the conflict as punishment if he doesn’t."
That would certainly dovetail most comfortably with the 'Deep-State's' plans for Russia. Even if not in the short term, by undermining and invalidating Putin's authority, it would most certainly corrupt the integrity of his legacy. In the long-term, with the constant drip-drip-drip of such a wide range of instruments, as the Deep State has available to it, the integrity of the Russian state and its associated authority, should be much easier to undermine. That's how colour revolutions are made. It's not an overnight process; Rome wasn't built in a day, and the Wolfowitz Doctrine's original Fats Nuland-and-Moron McCain team may not have been successful in the first instance. (Первый блин — комом.) What you describe here, though, would most certainly be the most likely way for the Americans to prevail in their plans to subvert, undermine and eventually collapse the Russian state with the aim or disassembling to 'influence' and bend ('Balkanise') it to their will.
A lot can happen between now and Jan 20th, and any US response would be on Biden's watch. Meanwhile the line of contact is collapsing as we speak, and Russia has stated many times that they believe the US is incapable of honouring agreements, so why should that change simply because they have a new president? Based on the last Trump administration I would say that's a non-starter, and there are no signs that Trump has learned anything from the experience.
Demilitarization was only one of Russia's goals, denazification being another. Anything that leaves the current Ukrainian leadership in place and beyond the reach of justice is unacceptable at this point. Too high a price has been paid for there to be anything other than total victory, which would take one of two forms. Complete occupation of Ukraine, or a coup which brings an acceptable leadership to power. How likely that is I'm not sure, but I imagine there are still elements within the UAF who are not tainted by war crimes, and who might act to preserve what's left of Ukraine. That's the only condition I can foresee under which negotiations would occur, and not with NATO. They have no place at the table, and I doubt the EU member states would be willing to pursue a military confrontation, given what they're up against.
There's another factor here that has to be accounted for. If Iran is true to their word, then US priorities are going to shift very quickly. Not that the US can do much of anything at this point. Any direct conflict with Iran will end very badly for the US which lacks the means to engage Iran without suffering serious losses. When you're talking about war on the scale involved, the truth is the US simply lacks the means to pull it off. It all boils down to the rate of production of weapons system and their effectiveness, neither of which the US can manage. They can cause some damage no doubt, but there's no path to victory over Iran that can be accomplished before Israel is completely destroyed, which would be the Iranian response should the US get involved. So stalemate, at least in the short run. In the longer run it doesn't look like Israel is going to survive, at least not in its present form.
His "tough-talking personality" did not get him far in the conflict with North Korea during the first term.
Yes, it did, actually. The problem arose when Mike 'The Big' Pompeo went to Korea to seal the deal. The Koreans were astounded by the vulgarity of the man. It scuppered the whole deal. The word they used to describe him, and the impression of America he projected, was, 'gangster'.
The devil/god is in the details - depends on who you quote. Trump was there to glad-hand - do the statesman PR schtick for the domestic audience. The standard method. Pompeo, gangster-like projection aside, was delivering/negotiating the terms - either Trump's terms or (conspiracy!) others'. Maybe they thought a good-cop, bad-cop routine would work.
Maybe, but I suspect the Koreans just couldn't believe how they'd suckered themselves (allowed themselves to be suckered) into such an obvious Potemkin-like nonsense-facade: that this man (Pomepeo) could by the wildest stretch of anyone's imagination be considered a 'wholesome' character, deserving or able to fulfil such a honoured (by their understanding) high post... If you look at it from their point of view, you can see how shocked they must have been, 'We thought you were civilised!!!' Wow, what a shock: that slight shadow of doubt they'd allowed to avoid being stamped out turned out to be completely wrong — these people really ARE barbarians, spicky mafiosos with endless dollars to burn! It doesn't matter if they were playing good-cop/bad-cop or whatever else they may have been doing: healthy people would NEVER allow themselves to be perceived in such a manner. It's not a question of 'seeing through them'; it's a question (the unavoidable and incontrovertible evidence) of revulsion at being exposed to them.
So if some1 more like Dale Carnegie ("How to Win Friends and Influence (stroke/pander to) People") had been sent, it would of all worked-out just fine & dandy. Got it.
It's a question of balance/compromise.
I think the Norte Koreans aren't so naive.
No, that's just the point: ANY Koreans (and ANYone else) instinctively perceives vulgarity and lack of civility, as displayed by Pompeo, for what it is — lack of respect for the self, manifesting in attitude to others.
In this sense, I don't think Trump would have done much better in Pompeo's place; I suspect a lot of things were allowed to slide in dealing with him due to his position. Had he been any less revered, he probably wouldn't have got anywhere near as far as he did.
There's an old Soviet saying referring to their leadership, but that applies equally to Donald Trump: "He likes to think big thoughts."
How can the US threaten to escalate (to de-escalate). Maybe Mr. Korybko should read into the recently released report of the Kiel institute on the non existent Western capacity for war...
As for sanctions and other financial threats to tighten the screws, yeah, let's see.
It appears that the Korybko prediction of the future to unfold is based on US strength versus Russia weakness.
I disagree with that assumption and therefore would have very different predictions.
To explain my reasons would take a book or two covering the relative state of the economies involved, the size of the military, the amount and usefulness of the military equipment of the 2 sides, the relative logistical situation, and the different tolerance of Americans and Russian to see an ongoing cascade of filled body-bags being repatriated. I believe a US War College simulation of Ukraine war between the US and Russia in Ukraine predicts 100,000 US casualties a month. And how many months would Americans put up with that (and how many months before the US runs out of 155 mm shells and missiles)?
Specifically on the point of Russia accepting a Trump Peace Plan:
There is no need for Russia to officially even officially receive this Peace Plan if preparatory diplomatic contacts suggest that the result would be too unacceptable for Russia to even discuss it. Yes, Russia does not want to disappoint China (and Brazil and others) by refusing Peace talks, but China approved the war, in advance, knowing it is the most attractive target for the US. and knows that a deal between the US and Russia allows the US to more easily focus on making trouble for China. I doubt the Russian people want to agree to a freeze that allows the Americans (or anyone) to rebuild Ukraine and fund its terrorists who have an affinity to attacking Russian nuclear facilities) so it can retake territory.
Meanwhile, between now and the Trump inauguration (assuming that happens), it is easy to predict that Russia will move farther west in Ukraine, yet will become no more trusting of any US undertaking regarding the deal to end the SMO that is not binding, enforceable, and on paper.
As long as the US is involved in multilateral wars and preparation for war in SW and West Asia, running huge deficits, and without a competitive MIC, the US gets weaker with time. Considering the militaries of other NATO countries is a waste of time, unless you are tallying targets.
Do you think Trump would threaten nuking Russia (and becoming the 47th and last President) to act the bully in Ukraine?
In other words, Russia accepts whst is at best a Pyrrhic victory, in a war that Russia should have been able to win decisively in 24 hours.
Russia goal was NEVER to "win" in 24 hours. Their initial goal was to bring Ukraine to the table to talk peace. Which they did ! Until the UK and US FUCK UP THE DEAL ! ........500,000 TO 1,000,000 DEAD.........BLOOD ON THE UK AND US HANDS ! PURE FUCKING EVIL !!!
Even taking that as given, Russia failed. Crying "no fair!" doesn't change that.
Exactly! When waging war, the only objective that matters is victory! Given all of Russia's ostensible advantages, they should have made quick work of the UAF. The fact that they didn't showed the short-sightedness of this "special military operation", so "special" that it is now about to enter its third year! 😒
You FAIL in sensibly explaining the failures. 1 stated aim was to "de-militarize" UKR: The west's response was "don't leave us out!". Have it your way, OTAN gets de-militarized too.
I don't have to explain the failures. Not only does Ukraine have a lot more weapons than it did, the West has since lost all fear of Russia.
Keep up the cope!
"in a war that Russia should have been able to win decisively in 24 hours." How much catnip have you had to make utter such nonsense? Russians never stated their timeline - they executed an "Israeli" type of opperation, hoping to obtain political concessions. Only in the west one could hear pundits claiming such nonsense. In 2022, Ukraine had the most armed and powerful army in Europe.
I did not say that Russia had a timeline, I only stated what they should have been able to accomplish, and which they failed to do.
Doesn't matter why, doesn't matter that the US egged Ukraine on, crying "no fair!" doesn't change the fact that Russia failed.
It was bound to fail. Russian forces were not the Werhmacht on June 22, 1941. They gambled and they lost. Now they are armed to the teeth, with a huge army, and Ukraine and the west have nothing... You cannot win a war of attrition in 24 hours.
So, you're saying that the plan for the invasion was incompetent. Well, yeah. That's sort of my point.
Now, had Russia used the eight years to actually plan and had taken the war seriously from the outset, done simple, basic stuff like "SEAD" and "destroy bridges, railheads, communications equipment, and not done bonehead things like 'let prisoners go because the war will be over soon!'" they might have won and saved a lot of lives as a result.
You have to remember that the view in Russia towards Ukraine in 2022 was not similar with the view of, let's say Ukrainian nationalists from Western Ukraine towards Russians. There wasn't any hate anymating the Russians to even think in engaging in the actions that you mention. Russians don't see Ukrainians the way Israel and Israelis (only 4% of Israeli respnders to a Pew survey declared that they think the military response in Gaza was over the top or just appropriate...) see the Palestinians.
I am abindantly aware of that. It doesn't matter.
And for that matter, Russia's "nice guy just the tip" style of warfare only gets more people killed on both sides.
I agree completely. Russia lost this war within the first few days of it when it failed to capture Kiev.
You have NO CLUE what you are talking about.
Hehehe!!! I don't, huh?!?!? I suppose I must "trust the plan" and believe the 5D chessmaster inside the Kremlin has it all under control, amirite?!?!?😒
Is that you, FF?
And because the Russian leadership has failed to take this war seriously, and failed to accept the depths of western sociopathy.
The problem is that Russia doesn't want to destory the West. The Russian leadership wants to join it, and keep telling themselves that this is a misunderstanding that will get smoothed over, even as it is clear that the West seeks to destroy Russia.
I agree completely. Putin had eight full years to prepare for this eventuality when the die was cast for it in the wake of the February 2014 Maidan Putsch. This lack of preparation became painfully evident in the opening days of this “Special Military Operation”, and it has been slow motion debacle ever since.
I wish that you were wrong.
I wish I were too, given that nothing less than the long term unity & viability of the Russian state is at stake IMHO. Almost thirty three years since the dissolution of the USSR, the longer this war persists may very well precipitate a fracturing of the Russian Federation.
I do not believe the OTAN has grown stronger in any military category since 2022. I believe Russia has grown stronger since '22 structurally, and certainly militarily. It seems you relish to see Russian anti-terrorism/COIN operations in UKR, if not in all of Europe,
OTAN has gotten far more resolute, and has since lost all fear of Russia.
And quit trying to put words in my mouth.
MEEEOW! What words did I put in your shite-on-a-shingle hole? Resolute - now that surely sounds like cope! They seem a helluva lot LESS resolute to methan 2 years ago. I surmise I observe with far greater resolution.
You are the one who makes claims as to what you think I want.
And NATO members now are talking of direct involvement in the war. Two years ago, that was crazy talk.
Absurd. Has every1 gone feral?
Uncle Joe almost lost his war due to failure to understand the war, but it's still early. Maybe if Putin had pulled the rabbit out of the hat, then Russia would have been far more isolated in UN. I've never been much of a fan of alternative history novels, too many possible branches keep popping up.
Honestly, that sounds like cope, or an attempt to put a positive spin on a losing situation.
It only slightly sounds like cope and the "losing situation" is not Russia's relative to the west.
I have no idea what you are on about.
You're probably right but we'll know in another 2 or so years.
I'm shocked your hyperbole didn't have the decisive victory happening by lunchtime.
The irony being that none other than Martyanov published a mock schedule for the war, ending with a victory parade by the evening of Day One.
Mockery, as you say. You've stated "Russia should have been able to win decisively in 24 hours." A way of saying"it was over before it started". A foregone conclusion, in other words.
While the above maybe something that can be a hard sell for Russia, it will be an impossible sell for Trump... the whole US foreign policy establishment is made of cold warriors and he has not the media control Putin holds; he will be shredded to pieces daily and go to lose midterm... I guess a deflection of attention and resources away from Ukraine, rising stakes and tension in Taiwan and SCS, while making mediatically palatable to US public the Ukraine regime fall, Vietnam post-paris accords style, is more likely.
I suspect that Protecting Israel will take the front seat, and Phillippine-China-South China Sea would become the comfort prize for the MIC. The Army and Airforce contractors have had several good years running. Now is the time for Navy subcontractors to get their fair share.
Russia do not give a toss about Trump peace plan.
In the case Trump will decide to escalate the offensive WW3 will begin and NATO will be just annihilated.
If putin does agree then he is an idiot. Can't solve the issue this way so I highly doubt it will happen...... "the objectives of the SMO will be achieved... "
He probably wouldn't last until lunchtime, going all soft in the belly & head like that.
The wild card is the Biden administration. Biden has a lot of sh*te hidden in his Ukraine closet, but he, his wife, and son are all super vindictive people (look how Hunter treated his own child). The future is unknown, but I would not be surprised if they do something super nasty to make it even harder for Trump to carry off a peace deal, and he'll have the backing of his State Department and maybe a few Neo-nazis in the otherwise restraining Pentagon.
Clearly you have ZERO understanding of Russian Leadership or Russia. Freezing the conflict will NEVER happen ! This War has gone WAY past that. The ONLY way Trump can stop this early, is; ORDER Zelensky to unconditionally surrender to Russia, and then stop giving Ukraine ANY aid. Russia will NEVER allow the West to control (any part of) Ukraine again ! The old Ukraine is GONE, and is NEVER coming back ! Most likely Russia will give Western Ukraine to Poland, and then keep the rest. RUSSIA WOULD ALLOW THE ANTI-RUSSIAN UKRAINE NAZIS TO GO WITH WESTERN UKRAINE INTO POLAND.
My analysis of how the Russia-Ukraine War ends:
1. Russia completely annexes 'Novo-Rossiya' with its historical capital at Odessa, restoring dominance over the Black Sea and making Ukraine a landlocked country, while effectively controlling 43% of Ukraine (as predicted by John Mearsheimer).
2. The 57% of Western Ukraine that's left after this war will inevitably become a dystopian 'rump state', run on annual funds from BlackRock. Ultra-nationalist factions will continue to rule a country where people are locked in a vicious cycle of poverty, stemming from loans they can never afford to repay to their Anglo-Saxon overlords.
3. Zelensky will either flee Ukraine (10% possibility) or be assassinated by the CIA (90% chance) who are ironically protecting him as long as he's politically viable. Once the Deep State accomplish their goals, or are forced to comply to hard Russian terms for a ceasefire, Zelensky will inevitably be removed. (Zelensky knows this, and has already transferred all his illegal wealth to his wife, Olena Zelenska, who's currently the richest person in Ukraine).
4. Donald Trump may speak big to satisfy his domestic audience, but he has no control over the ultimate choice that determines Ukraine's destiny— it lies with Putin. Only Russia can force the terms of negotiation in an attrition war they're winning against the combined war machinery of NATO.
5. Finally, I would like to mention that the Deep State is the winner in the short-term by implementing the "Anglo-Saxon Mission"— the most vile plan of global domination. The Russia-Ukraine War is provoked by the Anglo-Saxons to hurt the interests and divide the Slavic Civilization: 1.1 million Slavs have perished in a war fighting each other in the last 32 months— 1,000,000 Ukrainian and 100,000 Russian. If Russia can fulfil their war aims (that I listed as point number 1), then it is the Russians who'll emerge victorious in the longer run— by effectively dismantling the threat to their sovereign existence and resurrecting the Slavic Civilization.
This reads like the actions of a defeated nation, and given your view from the previous article, I cant argue that it is not consistent with your implication that Russia has lost this war. Either that or the article is tongue in cheek, to piss off the alt-media.
To negotiate with a group of "agreement incapable" nations and with a president who basically tore up the Minsk agreements, made a jackass of every intermediary that attempted to mediate a cease fire, is to lose face; not just Putin, but Lavrov too and every other diplomat who made pronouncements about Russia's determination. No matter how easy Trump makes it for Putin to accept his terms, it is not pragmatism; its plain chickening out.
On the other hand, if Trump arms Ukraine to the teeth as you say, he would be sending the wrong signal to the people who voted for him as an anti war president. It's hardly self defence to support Ukraine to the hilt after campaigning on domestic economics and anti-china slogans. And in my view, it cannot be dressed up as anything other than a show of aggression. The public would approve only if the defeat of Russia was quick and total. But what if Russia didnt cave in to the US military? How would Trump be seen entering office with a real war on his hands? and especially if NATO and the US got a bloody nose out of it?
For Putin, if he were to take your advice, he would also have to resign from office, because he'd be seen as another Gorbachev, childishly believing that any deal he made is worthy of Zelenskyy's signature. Once the ink is dry, the West would pull out all the stops to make the next invasion a permanent and successful one. Those natural resources in Russia beckon.
IMO, both sides have too much at stake not to stand their ground, but let's see what happens. Thanks for the two articles.
The settlement will necessarily include resolution of property rights issues. Almost no one knows much about the property rights or how they relate to other factors. And so it is exceptionally difficult to have any sense as to what the ultimate resolution might look like.
With respect to the bits and pieces we can see, this article is up to Mr. Korybko's usual high standards.
Gilbert Doctorow is, or close to, diametrically opposed to this assessment. I think this scenario is a long-shot.