The path to peace will predictably be paved by a ceasefire, which will itself likely require some territorial concessions on Ukraine’s part in order for Putin to agree to compromise on his associated demands, then new elections can be held for legitimizing peace talks.
A cease fire, seriously? No way Russia will ever trust that again. I don't know what Putin has in mind. Has he forgotten about the three main goals? Doubt it. Russia is in the catbird seat and will end this very soon with the complete capitulation of Ukraine/NATO/the EU/and the USA. Putin has to know they are all in disarray and imminent collapse.
You have a knack for repeating official talking points, whether China or Russian, but they don't always ultimately align with reality. Russia hasn't even captured an entire region after over 1,000 days of fire. It's doubtful that it can force a complete Ukrainian surrender AND that the US wouldn't intervene in some way to salvage part of Project Ukraine.
This comment is unprecise. There is no doubt whatsoever that, current situation standing, the Ukrainian army will collapse. It is strictly talking only a matter of time, but - one more year? Two more years? - there is no doubt whatsoever that the crash is coming. So, any peace talks rotate around these two points: 1) can Russia, in case of maximum sanctions, manage to keep its economy up for the time necessary to force Ukraine to capitulation and 2) would Nato, with or without the US, really intervene in Ukraine?
For point 1), i think it might but the pain would be so great that Putin would prefere a compromise, even if flawed. After all, he conducted this war with great attention to the involvement of Russia's civil society, keeping it as low as possible.
For point 2), i find it extremely unlikely bar a low level expedition corps gathered from what professional soldiers are already available. There is NO appetite for total war among western societies. Their populations do not believe in their government anymore, or their fairness, and all governments are already reeling under high level of debts.. The idea of of a complete cutting of social welfare on the economic side, and military age men being packed and sent to the barracks on the civil side, is preposterous. It just wouldn't happen without protests so huge any government would collapse instantly.
My comment is deliberately unprecise because I'm concisely responding to someone by pointing out the trend in their posts, not writing an article-length rebuttal that would in any case reiterate points that I've made in my work.
As I've written but which you're presumably unfamiliar with, my view is that the US will not stand by and let Russia achieve its maximum goals in Ukraine, which could hypothetically take the form of planting boots on NATO's border with that country.
I don't believe that Trump will let nearly $200 billion worth of taxpayer funds expended under his predecessor go to waste without trying to salvage some of Project Ukraine, to which end he might escalate to brinksmanship in that scenario.
I also don't believe that Putin would risk WWIII over control of ultra-nationalist Western Ukraine, which could turn into 1980s Afghanistan on steroids in terms of its credible insurgency risk and associated costs, ergo why he'd likely back down.
We also know for a fact that Russia repeatedly declines to reciprocally escalate and continues to exercise self-restraint, thus reducing the chances that it would sprint towards Kiev with the goal of conquering it even if the road to there reopened.
Even if Putin jumped out of character and inexplicable threw his stereotypical caution to the wind by doing so, he might not authorize strikes against a symbolic NATO intervention force whose purpose would be to serve as a tripwire.
Attacking them en route to their potential occupation of Western Ukraine west of the Dnieper would instantly provoke a Cuban-like nuclear brinksmanship crisis that could predictably end with Ukraine's de facto partition along the river.
This forecast is premised on a close reading of Russian behavior thus far, Putin in particular, and my knowledge of Russian policymaking calculations. The idea that Russia will conquer all of Ukraine is a talking point and political fantasy.
It's unrealistic to expect Russia to achieve that, yet many leftists and activists (oftentimes but not always one and the same) insist otherwise, and that's because most like the original poster enjoy parroting talking points for ideological reasons.
They're free to do so, but I personally discourage it under my posts, which are analytical and not propagandistic. I don't care much for talking points, political fantasies, and wishful thinking, but about how the world really works.
Many of these same leftists and activists are going to be deeply disappointed if the conflict ends with anything other than the full achievement of Russia's maximum goals. I know that none of them will recognize that they were wrong though.
Nowhere i wrote about annexation. I said capitulation. Even Russian hardliners often talks of annexing Odessa, maybe Kiev, but not western Ukraine. Honestly, a de facto partition along the Dniepr is vastly better than anything else Trump could offer - Russia keep the territories that have more russian-speaking citizens and are economically valuable, plus a strong border. If Russia's security dilemma revolves around NOT having Nato troops on its borders, having them - in a omnipresent ISR enviroment - behind a main river could be considered "good enough" and worth suffering in the middle term being aware that, due to Trump's desired pivot to asia, the sanctions and a normalization of relationships would arrive eventually anyway.
As for how the situation is, it seems to me we wrote similar things - Russia doesn't seem interested to go all the way, NATO pretty much can't - but we disagree on what might be seen acceptable as a compromise. For me, the idea that Russia's compromise is keeping what they already conquered plus some sanction reliefs - that might be reapplied at any time - in exchange for a persistent Ukrainian government is preposterous. Politically, is a terrible defeat, and security wise it leaves them open to Minsk-like rearment. I just can't see Putin accepting such a deal unless forced by terrible economic pressure. But full-on secondary sanctions might not develop the way the US might hope, either.
As to your point 1), "maximum sanctions" are nebulous and very unlikely. RU can play harder with CHN & IND via effects of such cowardly & thoughtless actions. If RU is truly in an economically-induced existential crisis - which is near impossible with wise domestic political moves/policies - ALL will surely lose, 1 way or another. This is not the 90s when the political reality was near neo-lib-anarchy.
And nobody will ask western populations whether they want to take to the streets, but if the EU try to introduce conscription - as they will have to if they want a credible military - then the streets it will be - plus plus.
RU can certainly increase the "fire", and not just in the "regions". It is more doubtful that they play the Atlanticists' games at this point, I suspect. You propose the best outcome for the West given the current reality, and a complete collapse of India's & China's quasi-support in the face of funky American threats.
"I'm a Moscow-based American political analyst" - and it shows. God help Russia if she has compradors like you making decisions. You will of course dismiss this as an ad-hominen insult, but frankly, your defeatism directed towards Russia, and indulgence towards and promotion of US aims should disqualify you from credibility on the subject of the SMO.
I mentioned that neither side would likely be requested to rescind their claims to the other at this initial point. I also don't take for granted that Ukraine will officially cede Crimea to Russia, not that it makes any difference in terms of the ground reality, though.
Andrew I appreciate your daily input but this reeks of an amateurish military analysis of captured land vs destroyed materiel. Germany was never even significantly penetrated in WW1, it would do you good to listen to Putin rather than Washington Post.
Thanks for your interesting and perceptive analysis.
A couple of comments:
A financial blockade of Russian oil would likely send prices sharply higher, and would rapidly impact Trump’s base, and not in a good way. The only way of offsetting this would be to convince the Saudis to maximally boost their own output. Do you think they would play ball?
Both India and China would be seriously ticked off by being in effect made parties to the conflict and seeing their own economies suffer while the US economy benefits.
I think Russia could probably do without oil export revenue for three months or so without suffering unduly. I’m not sure that everyone else could say the same.
Russia's bargaining leverage increases within the time it takes for the US to make a proposal, and thus far US proposal's reflect the denial of a dying hegemon in its initial descent. That which Trump's Administration considers "unmarketable" to the voters only becomes more so as Russia acquires more and more territory and establishes increasing dominance in the conflict. Comments from the Kremlin reflect their understanding of the timing.
The usual reason offered for Zelensky's reluctance to hold elections is that he fears falling from power. But there is another possible wrinkle, which is the question: "Who gets to vote?" If Crimea and the four annexed regions are not given the opportunity to participate in the election (which seems almost certain), that would be tacit acknowledgement that they are no longer part of Ukraine.
Regarding the idea of a cease fire, Russia's obvious concern would be that Ukraine would take that opportunity to re-arm, or perhaps NATO might try to quietly deploy a force into the country during that time, so that if fighting later started up again, it could be claimed that they were not sent to fight, but that Russia attacked them. Maybe a very short-term cease fire could be arranged that included posting non-Western observers at all Ukrainian entry points that would inspect anything incoming to ensure it was non-military in nature. Just a thought.
People don't realize that real goal of SMO is to bring Yakonovych administration back to power after the illegal coup (Maidan Revolution). If Yakonovych is not up to the job again, then Zelensky administration must be exiled. If that goal is accomplished, Russia will see the mission being successful. Under the new administration, Ukraine will be on the path of joining Union State with Belarus.
Whichever way the SMO ends, and it has to end sometimes, anything short of a full defeat of ukronazis would amount to defeat of Russia, kicking the can of problems (and worms) just a few short years ahead and a waste of Russian lives so far. It will cause many more lives to be lost in the next phase in war on Russia. It will be a signal to encumbent hegemon that what they did in vain for last few years (sanctions) actually works over longer periods (instead of almost instantly as in past experience) and they will ramp it up.
Another war of attrition parallel to current, waged by the westworld since 1990, would've won another battle and pickup the speed. This means rerun of ukraina scenario every few years for decades to come, centuries even.
If Putin started SMO without thinking that the westworld will not throw kitchensink in this military conflict, then he may not be that smart any more as he was in the past.
US going nuclear on the rest of the world against Russian energy is the physical limit of what they can do, which is a huge risk for them if it blows (and it has massive chance to fail).
A truce, no matter how wrapped up and the thickness of chocolate coating, is not same as peace. Not even resembling a peace
What PEACE Negotiations, which DO NOT INTEREST Russia in the SLIGHTEST, now finally and firmly convinced that NOTHING the United States, the European Union, or Ukraine Say, Promise, or Sign can be TRUSTED?
NOT AN INCH of Ukrainian territory can remain in the hands of the Banderite Regime that has ruled Ukraine since the CIA-orchestrated Maidan Coup, led at the time by Victoria "F**k the EU" Nuland, who had $5 billion in cash ready to bribe anyone necessary. This regime, brainwashed since the days of Stepán Bandera with the concept of Racial Superiority over Slavs (Russians), whom they consider subhuman (calling them "Orcs") and utterly despise to death (this is no exaggeration), will inevitably regroup, rearm, with support from the U.S./NATO or the EU, and strike again. Much of Europe’s leadership and population also harbors a visceral hatred toward Russia.
Thus, Russia must act without mercy to achieve the CLEAR OBJECTIVES set from the beginning by its Supreme Commander, Vladimir Putin: "DEMILITARIZE and DENAZIFY Ukraine" !!
Examples of Lies and Deception Against Russia:
1. NATO’s "Not One Inch East" Promise:
In exchange for Gorbachev allowing German reunification, NATO pledged "NOT TO expand even an inch eastward" beyond West Germany. This has been thoroughly documented, even though the promise was verbal.
Approved by the UN Security Council (thus binding under international law), these agreements were later admitted by Merkel, Hollande, and Poroshenko to have been a HOAX designed to buy time for Ukraine’s then-weak military to rearm, train, and prepare to attack Donbas and retake Crimea.
3. April 2022 Peace Deal:
Ukraine and Russia reached a preliminary peace agreement, initialed on every page. Putin presented this document to African delegates visiting Moscow (and Kyiv) to mediate peace. However, Zelensky abruptly rejected it after Boris Johnson’s visit, sent by Biden to Kyiv.
4. Putin’s 2021 Security Proposal:
In November 2021, Putin submitted a serious European Security Proposal to the U.S. and NATO.
They mocked it, refusing even the courtesy of a formal rejection. The U.S. and NATO knew Russia had no alternatives, as noted by the U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in 2008.
THEY WANTED WAR !!
A fabulous business for the U.S. Military Industrial Complex (MIC), selling overpriced fighter jets, tanks, air defense systems, and missiles to terrified very rich Northern European nations thanks to CIA fearmongering about a Russian invasion, as if the defunct (since 1991) Soviet Union still existed. WHAT A BUSINESS !!
I seriously doubt any Russian would agree to anything like this, which could be called "Minsk III - The Final Hoax".
If putin should agree to these conditions, he ought to be replaced for squandering blood and treasure for nothing.
A cease fire, seriously? No way Russia will ever trust that again. I don't know what Putin has in mind. Has he forgotten about the three main goals? Doubt it. Russia is in the catbird seat and will end this very soon with the complete capitulation of Ukraine/NATO/the EU/and the USA. Putin has to know they are all in disarray and imminent collapse.
The path to peace will predictably be paved by a ceasefire?
After giving Ukraine several chances, Russia will insist on complete surrender. Capitulation, in other words.
You have a knack for repeating official talking points, whether China or Russian, but they don't always ultimately align with reality. Russia hasn't even captured an entire region after over 1,000 days of fire. It's doubtful that it can force a complete Ukrainian surrender AND that the US wouldn't intervene in some way to salvage part of Project Ukraine.
This comment is unprecise. There is no doubt whatsoever that, current situation standing, the Ukrainian army will collapse. It is strictly talking only a matter of time, but - one more year? Two more years? - there is no doubt whatsoever that the crash is coming. So, any peace talks rotate around these two points: 1) can Russia, in case of maximum sanctions, manage to keep its economy up for the time necessary to force Ukraine to capitulation and 2) would Nato, with or without the US, really intervene in Ukraine?
For point 1), i think it might but the pain would be so great that Putin would prefere a compromise, even if flawed. After all, he conducted this war with great attention to the involvement of Russia's civil society, keeping it as low as possible.
For point 2), i find it extremely unlikely bar a low level expedition corps gathered from what professional soldiers are already available. There is NO appetite for total war among western societies. Their populations do not believe in their government anymore, or their fairness, and all governments are already reeling under high level of debts.. The idea of of a complete cutting of social welfare on the economic side, and military age men being packed and sent to the barracks on the civil side, is preposterous. It just wouldn't happen without protests so huge any government would collapse instantly.
My comment is deliberately unprecise because I'm concisely responding to someone by pointing out the trend in their posts, not writing an article-length rebuttal that would in any case reiterate points that I've made in my work.
As I've written but which you're presumably unfamiliar with, my view is that the US will not stand by and let Russia achieve its maximum goals in Ukraine, which could hypothetically take the form of planting boots on NATO's border with that country.
I don't believe that Trump will let nearly $200 billion worth of taxpayer funds expended under his predecessor go to waste without trying to salvage some of Project Ukraine, to which end he might escalate to brinksmanship in that scenario.
I also don't believe that Putin would risk WWIII over control of ultra-nationalist Western Ukraine, which could turn into 1980s Afghanistan on steroids in terms of its credible insurgency risk and associated costs, ergo why he'd likely back down.
We also know for a fact that Russia repeatedly declines to reciprocally escalate and continues to exercise self-restraint, thus reducing the chances that it would sprint towards Kiev with the goal of conquering it even if the road to there reopened.
Even if Putin jumped out of character and inexplicable threw his stereotypical caution to the wind by doing so, he might not authorize strikes against a symbolic NATO intervention force whose purpose would be to serve as a tripwire.
Attacking them en route to their potential occupation of Western Ukraine west of the Dnieper would instantly provoke a Cuban-like nuclear brinksmanship crisis that could predictably end with Ukraine's de facto partition along the river.
This forecast is premised on a close reading of Russian behavior thus far, Putin in particular, and my knowledge of Russian policymaking calculations. The idea that Russia will conquer all of Ukraine is a talking point and political fantasy.
It's unrealistic to expect Russia to achieve that, yet many leftists and activists (oftentimes but not always one and the same) insist otherwise, and that's because most like the original poster enjoy parroting talking points for ideological reasons.
They're free to do so, but I personally discourage it under my posts, which are analytical and not propagandistic. I don't care much for talking points, political fantasies, and wishful thinking, but about how the world really works.
Many of these same leftists and activists are going to be deeply disappointed if the conflict ends with anything other than the full achievement of Russia's maximum goals. I know that none of them will recognize that they were wrong though.
Nowhere i wrote about annexation. I said capitulation. Even Russian hardliners often talks of annexing Odessa, maybe Kiev, but not western Ukraine. Honestly, a de facto partition along the Dniepr is vastly better than anything else Trump could offer - Russia keep the territories that have more russian-speaking citizens and are economically valuable, plus a strong border. If Russia's security dilemma revolves around NOT having Nato troops on its borders, having them - in a omnipresent ISR enviroment - behind a main river could be considered "good enough" and worth suffering in the middle term being aware that, due to Trump's desired pivot to asia, the sanctions and a normalization of relationships would arrive eventually anyway.
As for how the situation is, it seems to me we wrote similar things - Russia doesn't seem interested to go all the way, NATO pretty much can't - but we disagree on what might be seen acceptable as a compromise. For me, the idea that Russia's compromise is keeping what they already conquered plus some sanction reliefs - that might be reapplied at any time - in exchange for a persistent Ukrainian government is preposterous. Politically, is a terrible defeat, and security wise it leaves them open to Minsk-like rearment. I just can't see Putin accepting such a deal unless forced by terrible economic pressure. But full-on secondary sanctions might not develop the way the US might hope, either.
As to your point 1), "maximum sanctions" are nebulous and very unlikely. RU can play harder with CHN & IND via effects of such cowardly & thoughtless actions. If RU is truly in an economically-induced existential crisis - which is near impossible with wise domestic political moves/policies - ALL will surely lose, 1 way or another. This is not the 90s when the political reality was near neo-lib-anarchy.
Nobody will ask western populations whether they want war or not.
And nobody will ask western populations whether they want to take to the streets, but if the EU try to introduce conscription - as they will have to if they want a credible military - then the streets it will be - plus plus.
Don't kid yourself. Europeans are meek and sheeplike.
Everything has its end. No dentists, few doctors, year long hospital waits - it all adds up. There is such a thing as a tipping point.
RU can certainly increase the "fire", and not just in the "regions". It is more doubtful that they play the Atlanticists' games at this point, I suspect. You propose the best outcome for the West given the current reality, and a complete collapse of India's & China's quasi-support in the face of funky American threats.
"I'm a Moscow-based American political analyst" - and it shows. God help Russia if she has compradors like you making decisions. You will of course dismiss this as an ad-hominen insult, but frankly, your defeatism directed towards Russia, and indulgence towards and promotion of US aims should disqualify you from credibility on the subject of the SMO.
Absolutely no mention of Crimea?! It would certainly have to be officially ceded to Russia.
I mentioned that neither side would likely be requested to rescind their claims to the other at this initial point. I also don't take for granted that Ukraine will officially cede Crimea to Russia, not that it makes any difference in terms of the ground reality, though.
It's population has already voted, by a landslide, to secede and join the Russian Federation.
That would require US Congressional approval. I'm not sure they'll ever be ready to choke that one down.
And what is the point if a ceasefire exactly? To give time for NATO to refit the Ukrainian army?
No point to that.
Andrew I appreciate your daily input but this reeks of an amateurish military analysis of captured land vs destroyed materiel. Germany was never even significantly penetrated in WW1, it would do you good to listen to Putin rather than Washington Post.
Nope. Putin won't accept any "cease fire" agreement. Those are never honored.
Finally, a realistic hope that isn't more mere copium.
Thanks for your interesting and perceptive analysis.
A couple of comments:
A financial blockade of Russian oil would likely send prices sharply higher, and would rapidly impact Trump’s base, and not in a good way. The only way of offsetting this would be to convince the Saudis to maximally boost their own output. Do you think they would play ball?
Both India and China would be seriously ticked off by being in effect made parties to the conflict and seeing their own economies suffer while the US economy benefits.
I think Russia could probably do without oil export revenue for three months or so without suffering unduly. I’m not sure that everyone else could say the same.
LF
How does one blockade pipelines?
Russia's bargaining leverage increases within the time it takes for the US to make a proposal, and thus far US proposal's reflect the denial of a dying hegemon in its initial descent. That which Trump's Administration considers "unmarketable" to the voters only becomes more so as Russia acquires more and more territory and establishes increasing dominance in the conflict. Comments from the Kremlin reflect their understanding of the timing.
The usual reason offered for Zelensky's reluctance to hold elections is that he fears falling from power. But there is another possible wrinkle, which is the question: "Who gets to vote?" If Crimea and the four annexed regions are not given the opportunity to participate in the election (which seems almost certain), that would be tacit acknowledgement that they are no longer part of Ukraine.
Regarding the idea of a cease fire, Russia's obvious concern would be that Ukraine would take that opportunity to re-arm, or perhaps NATO might try to quietly deploy a force into the country during that time, so that if fighting later started up again, it could be claimed that they were not sent to fight, but that Russia attacked them. Maybe a very short-term cease fire could be arranged that included posting non-Western observers at all Ukrainian entry points that would inspect anything incoming to ensure it was non-military in nature. Just a thought.
Just very sharp thinking, actually. Now, get ready to negotiate my daily deals!
In Ukraine elections "can’t be conducted during times of marital [sic] law."
People don't realize that real goal of SMO is to bring Yakonovych administration back to power after the illegal coup (Maidan Revolution). If Yakonovych is not up to the job again, then Zelensky administration must be exiled. If that goal is accomplished, Russia will see the mission being successful. Under the new administration, Ukraine will be on the path of joining Union State with Belarus.
Whichever way the SMO ends, and it has to end sometimes, anything short of a full defeat of ukronazis would amount to defeat of Russia, kicking the can of problems (and worms) just a few short years ahead and a waste of Russian lives so far. It will cause many more lives to be lost in the next phase in war on Russia. It will be a signal to encumbent hegemon that what they did in vain for last few years (sanctions) actually works over longer periods (instead of almost instantly as in past experience) and they will ramp it up.
Another war of attrition parallel to current, waged by the westworld since 1990, would've won another battle and pickup the speed. This means rerun of ukraina scenario every few years for decades to come, centuries even.
If Putin started SMO without thinking that the westworld will not throw kitchensink in this military conflict, then he may not be that smart any more as he was in the past.
US going nuclear on the rest of the world against Russian energy is the physical limit of what they can do, which is a huge risk for them if it blows (and it has massive chance to fail).
A truce, no matter how wrapped up and the thickness of chocolate coating, is not same as peace. Not even resembling a peace
Russia: NOT AN INCH !!
What PEACE Negotiations, which DO NOT INTEREST Russia in the SLIGHTEST, now finally and firmly convinced that NOTHING the United States, the European Union, or Ukraine Say, Promise, or Sign can be TRUSTED?
NOT AN INCH of Ukrainian territory can remain in the hands of the Banderite Regime that has ruled Ukraine since the CIA-orchestrated Maidan Coup, led at the time by Victoria "F**k the EU" Nuland, who had $5 billion in cash ready to bribe anyone necessary. This regime, brainwashed since the days of Stepán Bandera with the concept of Racial Superiority over Slavs (Russians), whom they consider subhuman (calling them "Orcs") and utterly despise to death (this is no exaggeration), will inevitably regroup, rearm, with support from the U.S./NATO or the EU, and strike again. Much of Europe’s leadership and population also harbors a visceral hatred toward Russia.
Thus, Russia must act without mercy to achieve the CLEAR OBJECTIVES set from the beginning by its Supreme Commander, Vladimir Putin: "DEMILITARIZE and DENAZIFY Ukraine" !!
Examples of Lies and Deception Against Russia:
1. NATO’s "Not One Inch East" Promise:
In exchange for Gorbachev allowing German reunification, NATO pledged "NOT TO expand even an inch eastward" beyond West Germany. This has been thoroughly documented, even though the promise was verbal.
Sources:
- National Security Archive: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early - Der Spiegel: https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nato-osterweiterung-aktenfund-stuetzt-russische-version-a-1613d467-bd72-4f02-8e16-2cd6d3285295
2. The Minsk Agreements:
Approved by the UN Security Council (thus binding under international law), these agreements were later admitted by Merkel, Hollande, and Poroshenko to have been a HOAX designed to buy time for Ukraine’s then-weak military to rearm, train, and prepare to attack Donbas and retake Crimea.
3. April 2022 Peace Deal:
Ukraine and Russia reached a preliminary peace agreement, initialed on every page. Putin presented this document to African delegates visiting Moscow (and Kyiv) to mediate peace. However, Zelensky abruptly rejected it after Boris Johnson’s visit, sent by Biden to Kyiv.
4. Putin’s 2021 Security Proposal:
In November 2021, Putin submitted a serious European Security Proposal to the U.S. and NATO.
They mocked it, refusing even the courtesy of a formal rejection. The U.S. and NATO knew Russia had no alternatives, as noted by the U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in 2008.
THEY WANTED WAR !!
A fabulous business for the U.S. Military Industrial Complex (MIC), selling overpriced fighter jets, tanks, air defense systems, and missiles to terrified very rich Northern European nations thanks to CIA fearmongering about a Russian invasion, as if the defunct (since 1991) Soviet Union still existed. WHAT A BUSINESS !!