The top takeaway isn’t that Ukraine might soon develop nukes, which it couldn’t make any progress on without Russia detecting it, but that Ukraine might soon build its own long-range ballistic missiles and thus lead to Russia compromising on its goal of demilitarizing Ukraine if it’s unable to stop this.
Russia needs to continue to press on until Ukraine's inevitable surrender. There is nothing to negotiate with Trumpster while Russia is destroying Nazi-led AFU forces at attrition rates of about 5 to 1. Remember that the US and its cuck proxy NATO and AFU forces have tried to destroy Russia economically by blowing up Nordstream and through sanctions. One could say that NATO's main function was to destabilize Russia and force it to concede its autonomy so that it could be torn apart to give up its natural wealth. That was then. Now Russia dominates and will determine Ukraine's fate and there's nothing that Trumpster and his European stooges can do to change that. Trump will find out that escalating to de-escalate will only strengthen Russian resolve to force Ukraine's unconditional surrender. Russia won't cave into Trump's buffoon theatrics. If Trump threatens to escalate so be it. Russia will escalate too. After all, the best way to defend against a bully is to knock him out. Russia knows it can't negotiate with the West whose central philosophy is to lie, cheat, and steal, and that might is right. There will be plenty of time for negotiations after Russia has destroyed AFU forces and determines Ukraine's fate as it deems fit. There is no alternative (TINA)
No, it really couldn't be any more simple: 1) de-militarisation, 2) de-nazification, 3) neutrality; point 1). What could be 'unclear' about that?
"...if Trump successfully ‘escalates to de-escalate’..."
It will be long past escalation before he's allowed to do that: Biden, in response to his Chinese 'talking-to', has already now pipped Trump to the escalation post (long-range (satellite) targeting of ATACMS).
"...possibly leading to more compromises on other goals too."
There is nothing to do about it. All they have to do is extract some nuclear fuel from a power plant, surround it with ANFO, and hey presto, you have a dirty bomb. The most difficult part is getting it to the target.
Make Ukraine disappear or shrink so much into a dwarf that it no longer matters. Since Russians are to pivot east and leave the western side mostly as buffer zones, and that central and western Ukraine are not strategically important from Russian point of view besides the buffer space, then bombing Ukraine back to the stone age is an option. If the military actions continue into Q1 2025, the buffer zone will be larger, and the devastation deeper. After the shooting war stops, USA is to look more inwardly while EU is bankruptcy-bound without cheap energy. I wonder who will foot the bill to rebuild the remaining Ukraine rump state. If Ukraine does develop and deploy nuclear weapons, it cannot be too many. Russians will absorb the hit and wipe Ukraine off the map and can do so without really hurting the West (some missile strikes into Poland and Romania is possible if these two countries host missiles shooting into Russia or Belarus.)
I think Russians have started large-scale offensive. The difference is the force density of the attack front: very high during WW2, very low in Ukraine. Large strategic envelopments like WW2 have become more difficult without force concentration, but small local envelopments will happen a lot more. Attacks on power grid is relatively easy to fix as long as they can buy transformers and copper cables. However, as ATACMs goes in deeper, the missile strike scope would enlarge to include more targets previously off limit or intentionally avoided, such as bridges over Dnieper, railroad stations, and perhaps NATO communication centers.
Operation Michael was the last putsch by the German Army. Some of the 50 divisions saved from the eastern front had already been dissipated, but the bulk of them were committed in this set of operations and they were Germany's last strategic reserve in WW1. And these are not truly well-rested troops. In comparison, Russia today has not called general mobilization. Existing forces in training are mostly uncommitted and still in peak condition (as peak as can be given their ages) although some have joined the recent attacks along the whole front line.
By 1918, UK and France were also exhausted. French had suffered at least one rebellion (troop refused orders) but Americans were fresh. Americans were not really involved in Operation Michael as the bulk of US forces had not arrived. Therefore, the Allied still had a strategic reserve of approximately half a million of fresh US troops, who were inexperienced but also well fed, reasonably trained, and fairly eager to fight. Today's Ukraine and the West do not have such a strategic reserve.
German choice of attacking fronts in 1918 were all old battle sites, where both sides had deep trenches and multi-layers of trenches and machine gun nests, pre-registered artillery. Few areas of the Ukraine fronts are as well prepared lines as what the Allied had in early 1918. The whole Donbas defense belt managed since 2014-2015 and greatly enhanced during 2020-2021 has almost been penetrated but not yet. However, at multiple points, the belt is close to penetration. Beyond the belt, only the Dnieper provides a strategic obstacle and defense line. Asking the current Ukraine force, even beefed up with a general mobilization and another 30K Polish volunteers, to hold the defense belt from Kharkov to Kherson is not reasonable. At this point, I am not sure even Russians know where they can achieve the penetration. However, they have clear ideas where they should go to once they breach the defense belt: they will be well known cities at historical river crossings. I am not sure how far the Russian forces can go. It would be a contest for the next generation Russian militay leaders, the battalion and company commanders, to make history by daring actions. Operation Bagration went according to plan mostly. The coming Russian operation would be more like breaking through the Meuse line in 1940. Germany paid with long time and high casualty to breach the line. But once the line was breached, France had no prepared defense lines. The resultant battle would be highly fluid even with modern C3I.
There are lots of differences between 1918 and 2024.
The point is a Russia that lacks strategic focus and thus dissipates its advantages. And yes, as Russia dithers, the call will go out to Send In The Poles. It won't be popular in Poland, but nobody will ask Poles what they think, nor does anyone care.
The Times are fake news and western propaganda They didn’t mention that before 6 months Russia have defeated Ukraine USA NATO EU. Or Trump have ended the war The solution will be that Russia keep Crimea and Donbas and other part of east Ukraine. And the rest of Ukraine will be a neutral zone and they will not become member of the terror organization NATO So Ukraine and the west haven’t achieved anything Millions are killed many more millions have escaped and will not come back. Billion of $ are wasted and Ukraine are totally destroyed for decades If USA UK haven’t sabotaged the peace agreement that Putin and Zelensky agreed on in marts 2022 in Istanbul there would not have been a war and Ukraine would have been saved. But they thought they could weaken Russia instead they have weakened them self and especially EU Germany are in recession Big industry companies are leaving the country VAG have to close factories and fire up to 20.000 employees Because they no longer have cheap energy from Russia. UK and France have debt on more than 120 % of their BNP and are close to bankruptcy NATO countries in Europe don’t have weapons and ammunition Their weapon stocks are nearly empty because they have send it all to Ukraine So NATO will not be able to defend themselves if Russia attacks Europe If USAs target was to heard EU the war have been a big success for them and a disaster for EU. And Russia have become stronger both militarily and financially and they have become close allies with China and other BRICS countries so they can damage the West and really heard their economy It’s 1 degree stupidity
Russia needs to continue to press on until Ukraine's inevitable surrender. There is nothing to negotiate with Trumpster while Russia is destroying Nazi-led AFU forces at attrition rates of about 5 to 1. Remember that the US and its cuck proxy NATO and AFU forces have tried to destroy Russia economically by blowing up Nordstream and through sanctions. One could say that NATO's main function was to destabilize Russia and force it to concede its autonomy so that it could be torn apart to give up its natural wealth. That was then. Now Russia dominates and will determine Ukraine's fate and there's nothing that Trumpster and his European stooges can do to change that. Trump will find out that escalating to de-escalate will only strengthen Russian resolve to force Ukraine's unconditional surrender. Russia won't cave into Trump's buffoon theatrics. If Trump threatens to escalate so be it. Russia will escalate too. After all, the best way to defend against a bully is to knock him out. Russia knows it can't negotiate with the West whose central philosophy is to lie, cheat, and steal, and that might is right. There will be plenty of time for negotiations after Russia has destroyed AFU forces and determines Ukraine's fate as it deems fit. There is no alternative (TINA)
"It’s unclear how that would work..."
No, it really couldn't be any more simple: 1) de-militarisation, 2) de-nazification, 3) neutrality; point 1). What could be 'unclear' about that?
"...if Trump successfully ‘escalates to de-escalate’..."
It will be long past escalation before he's allowed to do that: Biden, in response to his Chinese 'talking-to', has already now pipped Trump to the escalation post (long-range (satellite) targeting of ATACMS).
"...possibly leading to more compromises on other goals too."
Possibly.
Ukraine will seek to develop nuclear weapons. The West, at a minimum, will do nothing to stop this.
What does Russia propose to do about it?
There is nothing to do about it. All they have to do is extract some nuclear fuel from a power plant, surround it with ANFO, and hey presto, you have a dirty bomb. The most difficult part is getting it to the target.
This is the inevitable result of Russian dithering.
Make Ukraine disappear or shrink so much into a dwarf that it no longer matters. Since Russians are to pivot east and leave the western side mostly as buffer zones, and that central and western Ukraine are not strategically important from Russian point of view besides the buffer space, then bombing Ukraine back to the stone age is an option. If the military actions continue into Q1 2025, the buffer zone will be larger, and the devastation deeper. After the shooting war stops, USA is to look more inwardly while EU is bankruptcy-bound without cheap energy. I wonder who will foot the bill to rebuild the remaining Ukraine rump state. If Ukraine does develop and deploy nuclear weapons, it cannot be too many. Russians will absorb the hit and wipe Ukraine off the map and can do so without really hurting the West (some missile strikes into Poland and Romania is possible if these two countries host missiles shooting into Russia or Belarus.)
So, what has Russia been waiting for?
I think Russians have started large-scale offensive. The difference is the force density of the attack front: very high during WW2, very low in Ukraine. Large strategic envelopments like WW2 have become more difficult without force concentration, but small local envelopments will happen a lot more. Attacks on power grid is relatively easy to fix as long as they can buy transformers and copper cables. However, as ATACMs goes in deeper, the missile strike scope would enlarge to include more targets previously off limit or intentionally avoided, such as bridges over Dnieper, railroad stations, and perhaps NATO communication centers.
The question is whether that offensive is enough, or whether they'll again get bogged down and get distracted.
Operation Michael in WWI comes prominently to mind.
Operation Michael was the last putsch by the German Army. Some of the 50 divisions saved from the eastern front had already been dissipated, but the bulk of them were committed in this set of operations and they were Germany's last strategic reserve in WW1. And these are not truly well-rested troops. In comparison, Russia today has not called general mobilization. Existing forces in training are mostly uncommitted and still in peak condition (as peak as can be given their ages) although some have joined the recent attacks along the whole front line.
By 1918, UK and France were also exhausted. French had suffered at least one rebellion (troop refused orders) but Americans were fresh. Americans were not really involved in Operation Michael as the bulk of US forces had not arrived. Therefore, the Allied still had a strategic reserve of approximately half a million of fresh US troops, who were inexperienced but also well fed, reasonably trained, and fairly eager to fight. Today's Ukraine and the West do not have such a strategic reserve.
German choice of attacking fronts in 1918 were all old battle sites, where both sides had deep trenches and multi-layers of trenches and machine gun nests, pre-registered artillery. Few areas of the Ukraine fronts are as well prepared lines as what the Allied had in early 1918. The whole Donbas defense belt managed since 2014-2015 and greatly enhanced during 2020-2021 has almost been penetrated but not yet. However, at multiple points, the belt is close to penetration. Beyond the belt, only the Dnieper provides a strategic obstacle and defense line. Asking the current Ukraine force, even beefed up with a general mobilization and another 30K Polish volunteers, to hold the defense belt from Kharkov to Kherson is not reasonable. At this point, I am not sure even Russians know where they can achieve the penetration. However, they have clear ideas where they should go to once they breach the defense belt: they will be well known cities at historical river crossings. I am not sure how far the Russian forces can go. It would be a contest for the next generation Russian militay leaders, the battalion and company commanders, to make history by daring actions. Operation Bagration went according to plan mostly. The coming Russian operation would be more like breaking through the Meuse line in 1940. Germany paid with long time and high casualty to breach the line. But once the line was breached, France had no prepared defense lines. The resultant battle would be highly fluid even with modern C3I.
You have impressive historical military insights. You should call yourself General Nakayama. It sounds legit. lol
There are lots of differences between 1918 and 2024.
The point is a Russia that lacks strategic focus and thus dissipates its advantages. And yes, as Russia dithers, the call will go out to Send In The Poles. It won't be popular in Poland, but nobody will ask Poles what they think, nor does anyone care.
The Times are fake news and western propaganda They didn’t mention that before 6 months Russia have defeated Ukraine USA NATO EU. Or Trump have ended the war The solution will be that Russia keep Crimea and Donbas and other part of east Ukraine. And the rest of Ukraine will be a neutral zone and they will not become member of the terror organization NATO So Ukraine and the west haven’t achieved anything Millions are killed many more millions have escaped and will not come back. Billion of $ are wasted and Ukraine are totally destroyed for decades If USA UK haven’t sabotaged the peace agreement that Putin and Zelensky agreed on in marts 2022 in Istanbul there would not have been a war and Ukraine would have been saved. But they thought they could weaken Russia instead they have weakened them self and especially EU Germany are in recession Big industry companies are leaving the country VAG have to close factories and fire up to 20.000 employees Because they no longer have cheap energy from Russia. UK and France have debt on more than 120 % of their BNP and are close to bankruptcy NATO countries in Europe don’t have weapons and ammunition Their weapon stocks are nearly empty because they have send it all to Ukraine So NATO will not be able to defend themselves if Russia attacks Europe If USAs target was to heard EU the war have been a big success for them and a disaster for EU. And Russia have become stronger both militarily and financially and they have become close allies with China and other BRICS countries so they can damage the West and really heard their economy It’s 1 degree stupidity