Trump’s reported plan for a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine places Russia in the dilemma of either preempting this with another large-scale nationwide offensive, targeting those forces after they enter at the risk of sparking World War III, or tacitly accepting this endgame.
I like this thought-provoking article. Russia should make clear that there is nothing to negotiate until the Zelensky regime has been annihilated and surrendered. Neither NATO nor Trump has anything to do with this. This conflict is between Russia and Nazi Ukraine. Russia must seize this golden opportunity while it can. Ukraine poses too much of an existential threat to Russia. If Russia wants to be a world leader then act like it. NATO would never compromise with Russia if the roles were reversed. It's high time for Russia to assert itself and not cave in while it has the upper hand. And to hell with what Trumpster thinks. Russia will crush Ukraine fair and square. If NATO wants to intervene go ahead and threaten Russia with WW3. They'll lose that one too. Once NATO steps into Ukraine there is nothing to stop Russian allies from sending millions of freshly well-trained and equipped troops there.
I swear I just heard Putin laughing at you, and maybe saying "if only." Putin will do everything he can to avoid a nuclear war without sacrificing Russia's vital interests, whatever he thinks those are because he's a Russian patriot.
It's kind of hard to be patriotic if your country no longer exists.
so, what you re saying is that MiracleWorker and Kellog are willing to go full Nuclear If MiracleWorker and Associates don't get the benefit to Western StakeHolder way?
Isn,t this the barbaric, backwater, cave-dwelling hegelian drama that got the world in this mess to begin with? So you're okay with nukes flying? fascinating.
Well, paper tiger Trump can propose whatever peace plan he wants but Russia should be very careful not to get caught up in agreements of any kind only to get minsked again and again. Fool me once shame on you but fool me twice shame on moi. NATO's tomfoolery led them to go shark fishing dangling their weenies as bait leading to a colossal fatal miscalculation to Russia's epic advantage. What peace can Trumpster offer? None at all. It would only be a delaying tactic to fool Russia again. Rather Russia should set the terms of peace after Nazi Ukraine's unconditional surrender and there's nothing NATO can do about it. I can't think of a better time that Russia has had in its past to gain so much militarily, in real estate, financially and politically now. So Trumpster's biggest obstacle to making some kind of a peace deal could very well be Russia's hinted polite response to shove it up his ass. My concern is that Russia doesn't go all the way turning one of its potential greatest triumphs into one of its greatest failed opportunities. Here lies Russia's defining moment in the 21st century. Yet I sense they'll come up short. I hope that I'm wrong.
Trumps order of dispatching NATO peacekeepers to Ukraine to check Putins goals for demilitarizing and denazifying Ukraine .Im quite sure Trump does not honor or respect these goals and I his idea is to force an ending to the conflict as a one and done deal that is a diplomatic farce. Trump does not want to contradict his critics that he is soft on Putin, and really wants a harmonious relationship with Russia, so he will play arrogant and tough dealmaker to confirm an oppositional position by the US
"...millions of freshly well-trained and equipped troops."
Good God, I bet the (N.) Koreans would just love it — what a godsend: after continually shooting itself in the foot for so many embarrassing years (decades), the Americans finally get it right and put the gun into their mouth! (Aim for the top of the spine through the roof of the mouth.)
There is China, too. Russia and China have a mutual-support defence alliance. One will not let the other fall, or they both will fall. So if NATO enters Ukraine China backs Russia on its home turf.
Correct, they don't have a mutual defense pact, and what you're confusing everything with is February 2022's "no-limits" partnership pact that actually does indeed have very clear limits as I proved.
Neither China nor Russia is going to send their troops to die for the other on the opposite side of Eurasia. China's voluntary compliance with many Western sanctions speaks volumes about its real attitude towards this conflict.
Russia didn't start the SMO to gain more territory. If the deep security needs of Russia are not acknowledged, there is no point in freezing anything. That would end up being Putin's legacy and he would ultimately become a second Gorbachev.
What I find missing in this analysis is the actual balance of existing and potential forces that could be employed in the theatre. Russians still can attract volunteers which are on long term contract. Ukrainians are hunting down individuals. Russian army gets strengthened while Ukrainian army is on a downward spiral.
Now what can Europe provide, really? Totally untrained troops, all green between their ears. 2-3 weeks of ammunition? Extra long supply lines? Populations that are absolutely unwilling to engage and participate in such a confrontation. All the while Russia can continue pressing ahead and can even intensify certain things... The only threat to Russia are these longer range more precise cruise missiles. But there are not that many of those either, as Jack Sullivan admitted.
Given the actual balance of forces and the existing short and medium range potential (see the Kiel Institute report or its summary done by Simplicius the Thinker a couple of postings ago), I think there are flaws in your analysis, because it takes Trumpian bluster at at face value, when in fact the US cannot really escalate (or escalate much) to threaten the Russian combine. I don't see the manpower available and if NATO engages with troops, which nobody wants except Ukrainians and the Baltic States, then we are in different ball games and as soon as missiles start raining on European capitals for PR purposes, very likely governments will fall - especially since no American skin will be in the game.
I think that there will be no negotiations because ultimately US will not want to conceed anything and Russia cannot accept to live with Damocles' sword above her head. The Stingers and the Javelines that Mr Korybko mentions will need sholders to sit upon and fingers to pull the trigger and eyes to aim... It is hard to do that when one is tired, demoralized and swarmed by fast soldiers on motorbikes, eh?!
The other missing point in the analysis it that Javelins were easily countered in the first 6 months of the SMO. Russia found a workaround to them and added to that is the fact they had a high failure rate and were too complex for most Ukies. Remember the i'views with Ukies saying this? And the reports of them being dumped and left on the ground as too big and clumsy, and too complex.
Stingers of course are a different matter but also are not a wunderwaffen.
"The Stingers and the Javelines that Mr Korybko mentions will need sholders to sit upon and fingers to pull the trigger and eyes to aim..."
Well yeah, but Babushkas' eyes haven't failed (completely, yet); and there's no reason why two or three Babulyas working together couldn't haul Stingers and Javelins onto the battlefield... You're too cynical — a defeatist: there's still hope for the Ukraine!
The babushkas, especially east of the Dnieper river are likely ethnic Russians and they will target or rat on the Ukrainian rezistence.
Also, Russia can still leave Ukraine in big blackouts. See what becomes then the priority? To be able to flush the toilet in all those highrises, or to win the war? A theory about Marathon that I read was that the Persians were blocked from fully debarking and kept for days in the confines of that little plain, until, given their own shit and piss, they decided to leave. At which moment the Athenian hoplites attacked...
"...given their own shit and piss, they decided to leave."
I like it — very human strategy; yes, it sounds like just the sort of approach Putin might favour.
I was joking about Babulyi. I know exactly who they were/are, where they come from and how likely they are to do anything to make it any more difficult for the Russians to help them. But, they will soon be the only people alive, with the exception of множества геев, who have managed to avoid being press-ganged into service, in the Ukraine.
A compelling argument for Russia's dilemma. However, the clock is ticking on U$a's ability to strong-arm anyone. To impose a "peace deal" imposed by Trump & Musk without (as far as we know) any consultation with Russian leaders is a mistake. Russia will do whatever it needs to do to protect its sovereign existence, period. Meanwhile, U$a & NATO are running out of war materiel, public support & legitimacy of any sort. Getting bogged down in Ukraine will torpedo Trump's presidency.
I'm assuming that Russia still considers (rightly) any NATO presence in Ukraine to be an existential threat. I'm also assuming that the Russians have seen enough of the west, especially the United States, to know that they'll remain aggressive and dangerous. Therefore, immediate escalation is necessary. Pushing to the Dnieper and securing the entire Black Sea coast is a minimum. Losses will be high but the price of failing to act while holding the initiative will be higher.
Russia does not need to negotiate anything whilst it is sanctioned. No negotions should start until all santions are lifted, foreign reserves unlocked, and full access to swift made available, plus damages for the theft that took place.
Trump no va "a entrar" en Ucrania de motu propio. ¿Con qué tropas? ¿Bajo qué amparo legal?. ¿Tropas norteamericanas? Nada probable. ¿Tropas europeas? hay mil razones para pensar que eso es muy difícil que suceda. La OTAN siempre ha luchado con "enemigos" infinitamente más débiles y usando sobre todo su superioridad aérea. No está claro que en este caso eso le vaya a salir ni medio bien. Las tropas de la OTAN tienen una falta de coordinación y experiencias reales en guerras cuerpo a cuerpo que no van a poder suplir. ¿Cree Trump que se va a arredrar el derecho a imponer algo que los rusos no quieran o no puedan admitir? . Europa para poder sostener una guerra en Ucrania directamente con Rusia no está preparada ni materialmente ni siquiera psicológicamente. Su economía hace aguas por todos lados, tendrían que aprobar inversiones gigantescas, sus fábricas de armamento actuales no están ni de lejos preparadas y habrá que ver cómo le meten a su población el discurso de que tienen que gastar muchos cientos de miles de millones ... y ya no se trata de dinero: Es que no fabricamos suficiente material bélico para emprender esta acción, ni de aquí a cinco años y no tenemos suficiente ejercito en soldados formadas y preparados. Europa lo tiene crudo y EEUU, después de la pifiada de Ucrania, también.
I think there is no other way. There is a window of about two months to do it. Conisdering the minimal prep the operation would require, at least one to two weeks are needed to concentrate forces and ammo to the launching point. Hopefully General Gerasimov have already prepared troop this way. Then, make Operation Bagration great again. Russia needs that kind of achievement to buy enough buffer zone.
"As such, there are really only three options left for Russia:..."
That's assuming the 'such' you posit above doesn't include NATO's military participation for the past 1,000 days. In fact, NATO's direct participation in making and supplying conflict in the Ukraine goes back much, much further than that, to AT LEAST 2014, as everyone is all-too-painfully aware (and, arguably, much further back than that). In military terms, what difference would it make if NATO openly admitted the extent of its participation? I don't think very much would change, at all. They (NATO) might feel compelled to expend munitions more quickly but I don't think that would be a great problem for Russia. It would just mean the NATO economies' demise becomes even more rapid than it already is. So? That's no skin off Russia's nose.
As to this idea that the Americans will resort to nukes when they're really REALLY mad... Sounds like something every schoolyard bully who's ever 'borrowed' a zombie-knife or set of knuckle-dusters from a degenerate father or 'uncle' to scare lunch-money (or dime-bag) paying 'clients' back into line always says. So?
Like being stuck at the side of the interstate, out of gas, with a beat up old car.
What do you do?
You call the turnpike authority, and say ‘OK, You have only 3 options’:
-Come here with a jerry can and give me gas
-Provide me with an alternative vehicle
-Close the turnpike to all traffic
The monumentally delusional character of these rantings (which represents the farthest they dare fantasize)!
-To appease Putin [who has no political considerations; all Russians are virtual avatars]
who doesn't want NATO in the Ukraine, we insert NATO troops in Ukraine -- Brilliant!
-Insert the enemy as peace-keepers.
-But only Europeans without Americans: BOOM, there goes NATO.
Instead of the old deal (Ukrainian meat + Western arms)
here comes the new deal (European meat - guns or ammunition -- the stocks have been depleted)
There was just an exchange: 683 UA KiA exchanged for 37 Russian.
And it's the elite brigades they are sacrificing in Kursk to the old Varangian battlefield ancestor gods.
NATO can't even get 1 mechanized brigade into Lithuania before 2027.
How on earth do these people expect to do battle?
-The Russians will wipe them out when they try to muster.
-The Russians will start attacking their logistics in Poland and Romania before they set foot in UA.
-If Americans try to move forces, the Russians will target the ships, harbors, and logistics.
These people are such inbred supremacists that they think their thoughts are like God's -- thought and action are the same. They are proposing nuclear armageddon because that is the only NATO power at their disposal.
All you are saying is that Trump and NATO will declare war on Russia. A "peacekeeping" force is no such thing if BOTH sides have not agreed to it in advance, it is simply an attack on Russia at that point. This is idiocy and WWIII and NOT started by Putin but by the "West."
The Clock is ticking for America, to receive what it exports at will. Death & destruction. Being attacked by a barrage of powerful missiles. Not being able to defend itself as it has hardly any air defences. America to be a victim of this kind of attack or the severe threat of it. Stops it right dead in the water, any chance it has of trying to dictate anything to Russia. Russia isn't running out of time, America is it can't compete with Russia on the battlefield. It's impossible for it to do so on European soil. Logistics make that do if nothing else. Russia has a much more modern missile force than America. Why would it copitulate?
I keep coming back to the idea of how nuking Washington could be the answer: the election demonstrated doing so would certainly enjoy the support of the vast majority of the US electorate. If the Russians were careful to contain the damage, as much as possible, to the 10-mile squared diamond, the basis of which Washington was built on, I'm sure the American people welcome it as delightful liberation.
Moreover had decided on a policy as to one the WSJ reports on
Moreover had put into place......a strategy without, as far as one knows, talking to the Pentagon
Yet you speak as if this was 'likely
And that the RF is hence staring defeat in the eye
All this sounds very very unreasonable - and quite unlike your general reports
'It’ll still take some time for the US to get key stakeholders like Poland on board, where 69% of the public is against dispatching troops to Ukraine in any capacity, so this likely won’t happen by mid-January.'
You haven't contradicted a single one of the points that I made about why Russia is presently unable to obtain its maximum goals in the conflict despite 2,5+ years, almost 1,000 days now, of trying. I also didn't characterize a compromise as a "defeat", those are your words.
From your response, I assume that you get your insight from the "usual suspects" in the Alt-Media Community (Pepe, Ritter, Martyanov, MacGregor), all of whom are "5D chess master plan" conspiracy theorists whose takes have repeatedly been discredited.
They regularly spin every setback and challenge as part of some "master plan", going on and on about how Russia is always supposedly on the brink of achieving its maximum goals. I simply don't see that happening anytime soon, I explained why, and the clock is now ticking.
There is no precedent thus far of Putin reciprocally escalating in response to yet another "red line" being crossed or egregious provocation being made such as the dispatch of conventional Western/NATO forces to Ukraine as peacekeepers.
To the contrary, every precedent from 24 February 2022 to this day suggests that he'd accept that in order to avoid World War III. To date, Russia won't even strike bridges across the Dnieper and rarely if ever intercepts NATO arms crossing the country en route to the front.
Quite clearly, with these informal rules being adhered to (not to mention letting Zelensky and company continue to live lives of luxury and safety), it would be a totally unexpected break from character and precedent for Putin to risk World War III over such an escalation.
It's possible that he could, after all, maybe he's finally had enough and wants to put his foot down once and for all. I don't rule it out, which is why I included that scenario in my analysis. But I personally very much doubt that he'd do that. What I foresee is an inevitable compromise.
“There is no precedent thus far of Putin reciprocally escalating in response to yet another "red line" being crossed or egregious provocation being made such as the dispatch of conventional Western/NATO forces to Ukraine as peacekeepers.”
There are least two such precedents. First is the Munich speech, where President Putin openly declared that Russia will pursue sovereign policy, also in then sphere of security. The other was the SMO itself, which was not cancelled even in the face of full scale economic war and enormous military involvement of the NATO resources.
The policy we see is to avoid unnecessary escalation and avoid waste of resources. Eg. the drone attack on Kremlin - the best response was to continue the SMO unabated. Any attack on Zelensky’s palace or similar place will be waste of Iskander or Kindzal missile, one less missile to target actual military target in order to achieve attrition.
If Russia will target American AWACS planes over Poland or Romania, it may be easily a Perl Harbor moment for the Neocons. However, when NATO troops will intervene in UA, the western societies won’t consider it as war declaration.
If there are indeed red lines, likely they were made known to the Americans via their own channels. But all the red lines crossed, where those promulgated by the west as red lines.
And we all remember the strikes that killed soo many French "instructors" that really upset Macron... I don't yet see material evidence convincing enough for Russians to accept compromising their position.
I like this thought-provoking article. Russia should make clear that there is nothing to negotiate until the Zelensky regime has been annihilated and surrendered. Neither NATO nor Trump has anything to do with this. This conflict is between Russia and Nazi Ukraine. Russia must seize this golden opportunity while it can. Ukraine poses too much of an existential threat to Russia. If Russia wants to be a world leader then act like it. NATO would never compromise with Russia if the roles were reversed. It's high time for Russia to assert itself and not cave in while it has the upper hand. And to hell with what Trumpster thinks. Russia will crush Ukraine fair and square. If NATO wants to intervene go ahead and threaten Russia with WW3. They'll lose that one too. Once NATO steps into Ukraine there is nothing to stop Russian allies from sending millions of freshly well-trained and equipped troops there.
I swear I just heard Putin laughing at you, and maybe saying "if only." Putin will do everything he can to avoid a nuclear war without sacrificing Russia's vital interests, whatever he thinks those are because he's a Russian patriot.
It's kind of hard to be patriotic if your country no longer exists.
so, what you re saying is that MiracleWorker and Kellog are willing to go full Nuclear If MiracleWorker and Associates don't get the benefit to Western StakeHolder way?
Isn,t this the barbaric, backwater, cave-dwelling hegelian drama that got the world in this mess to begin with? So you're okay with nukes flying? fascinating.
Not at all, but thanks for clarifying your lack of understanding of basic English.
Classic. Moving the goalpost. Something many wokees do when they are confronted with opposite or alternative views or perceptions of events.
tattle tale signs of an inferiority complex.
"Once NATO steps into Ukraine there is nothing to stop Russian allies from sending millions of freshly well-trained and equipped troops there"
Too right! And that is the reason Russia created new 'armies' and have held them in reserve, while rotating to the front to blood them.
They have to strike and give the Jewkies (and their handlers) an overwhelming, crushing defeat.
Well, paper tiger Trump can propose whatever peace plan he wants but Russia should be very careful not to get caught up in agreements of any kind only to get minsked again and again. Fool me once shame on you but fool me twice shame on moi. NATO's tomfoolery led them to go shark fishing dangling their weenies as bait leading to a colossal fatal miscalculation to Russia's epic advantage. What peace can Trumpster offer? None at all. It would only be a delaying tactic to fool Russia again. Rather Russia should set the terms of peace after Nazi Ukraine's unconditional surrender and there's nothing NATO can do about it. I can't think of a better time that Russia has had in its past to gain so much militarily, in real estate, financially and politically now. So Trumpster's biggest obstacle to making some kind of a peace deal could very well be Russia's hinted polite response to shove it up his ass. My concern is that Russia doesn't go all the way turning one of its potential greatest triumphs into one of its greatest failed opportunities. Here lies Russia's defining moment in the 21st century. Yet I sense they'll come up short. I hope that I'm wrong.
Trumps order of dispatching NATO peacekeepers to Ukraine to check Putins goals for demilitarizing and denazifying Ukraine .Im quite sure Trump does not honor or respect these goals and I his idea is to force an ending to the conflict as a one and done deal that is a diplomatic farce. Trump does not want to contradict his critics that he is soft on Putin, and really wants a harmonious relationship with Russia, so he will play arrogant and tough dealmaker to confirm an oppositional position by the US
"...millions of freshly well-trained and equipped troops."
Good God, I bet the (N.) Koreans would just love it — what a godsend: after continually shooting itself in the foot for so many embarrassing years (decades), the Americans finally get it right and put the gun into their mouth! (Aim for the top of the spine through the roof of the mouth.)
There is China, too. Russia and China have a mutual-support defence alliance. One will not let the other fall, or they both will fall. So if NATO enters Ukraine China backs Russia on its home turf.
China and Russia do not have a mutual defense pact, and China actually complies with many of the West's anti-Russian sanctions:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/alt-media-is-in-shock-after-the-brics
https://korybko.substack.com/p/this-chinese-companys-compliance
https://korybko.substack.com/p/russia-and-chinas-us-provoked-payment
https://korybko.substack.com/p/chinas-voluntary-compliance-with
"...China actually complies with many of the West's anti-Russian sanctions..."
And when NATO declares war on Russia? Puts the ball into rather a different court, doesn't it?
RF and China do not have a mutual defence pact? Not one titled as such
But the Joint Declaration is one
Correct, they don't have a mutual defense pact, and what you're confusing everything with is February 2022's "no-limits" partnership pact that actually does indeed have very clear limits as I proved.
Neither China nor Russia is going to send their troops to die for the other on the opposite side of Eurasia. China's voluntary compliance with many Western sanctions speaks volumes about its real attitude towards this conflict.
Why would China send troops, when there are more than enough, and more than willing, just raring to go from (N.) Korea?
Would China retain its willingness to humour Trump in a manner similar to which it tolerated Blinken's visit? (Embarrassing, or what?!)
Thanks for the added info, Andrew. I'll read this later.
Well... mutTrump knows that but he also knows Trillions!
https://voza0db.substack.com/p/morons-just-dont-get-it-c33
https://slavlandchronicles.substack.com/p/will-trump-end-the-war-in-ukraine
Russia didn't start the SMO to gain more territory. If the deep security needs of Russia are not acknowledged, there is no point in freezing anything. That would end up being Putin's legacy and he would ultimately become a second Gorbachev.
What I find missing in this analysis is the actual balance of existing and potential forces that could be employed in the theatre. Russians still can attract volunteers which are on long term contract. Ukrainians are hunting down individuals. Russian army gets strengthened while Ukrainian army is on a downward spiral.
Now what can Europe provide, really? Totally untrained troops, all green between their ears. 2-3 weeks of ammunition? Extra long supply lines? Populations that are absolutely unwilling to engage and participate in such a confrontation. All the while Russia can continue pressing ahead and can even intensify certain things... The only threat to Russia are these longer range more precise cruise missiles. But there are not that many of those either, as Jack Sullivan admitted.
Given the actual balance of forces and the existing short and medium range potential (see the Kiel Institute report or its summary done by Simplicius the Thinker a couple of postings ago), I think there are flaws in your analysis, because it takes Trumpian bluster at at face value, when in fact the US cannot really escalate (or escalate much) to threaten the Russian combine. I don't see the manpower available and if NATO engages with troops, which nobody wants except Ukrainians and the Baltic States, then we are in different ball games and as soon as missiles start raining on European capitals for PR purposes, very likely governments will fall - especially since no American skin will be in the game.
I think that there will be no negotiations because ultimately US will not want to conceed anything and Russia cannot accept to live with Damocles' sword above her head. The Stingers and the Javelines that Mr Korybko mentions will need sholders to sit upon and fingers to pull the trigger and eyes to aim... It is hard to do that when one is tired, demoralized and swarmed by fast soldiers on motorbikes, eh?!
The other missing point in the analysis it that Javelins were easily countered in the first 6 months of the SMO. Russia found a workaround to them and added to that is the fact they had a high failure rate and were too complex for most Ukies. Remember the i'views with Ukies saying this? And the reports of them being dumped and left on the ground as too big and clumsy, and too complex.
Stingers of course are a different matter but also are not a wunderwaffen.
"The Stingers and the Javelines that Mr Korybko mentions will need sholders to sit upon and fingers to pull the trigger and eyes to aim..."
Well yeah, but Babushkas' eyes haven't failed (completely, yet); and there's no reason why two or three Babulyas working together couldn't haul Stingers and Javelins onto the battlefield... You're too cynical — a defeatist: there's still hope for the Ukraine!
The babushkas, especially east of the Dnieper river are likely ethnic Russians and they will target or rat on the Ukrainian rezistence.
Also, Russia can still leave Ukraine in big blackouts. See what becomes then the priority? To be able to flush the toilet in all those highrises, or to win the war? A theory about Marathon that I read was that the Persians were blocked from fully debarking and kept for days in the confines of that little plain, until, given their own shit and piss, they decided to leave. At which moment the Athenian hoplites attacked...
"...given their own shit and piss, they decided to leave."
I like it — very human strategy; yes, it sounds like just the sort of approach Putin might favour.
I was joking about Babulyi. I know exactly who they were/are, where they come from and how likely they are to do anything to make it any more difficult for the Russians to help them. But, they will soon be the only people alive, with the exception of множества геев, who have managed to avoid being press-ganged into service, in the Ukraine.
A compelling argument for Russia's dilemma. However, the clock is ticking on U$a's ability to strong-arm anyone. To impose a "peace deal" imposed by Trump & Musk without (as far as we know) any consultation with Russian leaders is a mistake. Russia will do whatever it needs to do to protect its sovereign existence, period. Meanwhile, U$a & NATO are running out of war materiel, public support & legitimacy of any sort. Getting bogged down in Ukraine will torpedo Trump's presidency.
I'm assuming that Russia still considers (rightly) any NATO presence in Ukraine to be an existential threat. I'm also assuming that the Russians have seen enough of the west, especially the United States, to know that they'll remain aggressive and dangerous. Therefore, immediate escalation is necessary. Pushing to the Dnieper and securing the entire Black Sea coast is a minimum. Losses will be high but the price of failing to act while holding the initiative will be higher.
"Losses will be high but the price of failing to act while holding the initiative will be higher. "
Yep, tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands even) casualties now, or millions later....
Russia does not need to negotiate anything whilst it is sanctioned. No negotions should start until all santions are lifted, foreign reserves unlocked, and full access to swift made available, plus damages for the theft that took place.
AND damages for the NordStream disruption.
Trump no va "a entrar" en Ucrania de motu propio. ¿Con qué tropas? ¿Bajo qué amparo legal?. ¿Tropas norteamericanas? Nada probable. ¿Tropas europeas? hay mil razones para pensar que eso es muy difícil que suceda. La OTAN siempre ha luchado con "enemigos" infinitamente más débiles y usando sobre todo su superioridad aérea. No está claro que en este caso eso le vaya a salir ni medio bien. Las tropas de la OTAN tienen una falta de coordinación y experiencias reales en guerras cuerpo a cuerpo que no van a poder suplir. ¿Cree Trump que se va a arredrar el derecho a imponer algo que los rusos no quieran o no puedan admitir? . Europa para poder sostener una guerra en Ucrania directamente con Rusia no está preparada ni materialmente ni siquiera psicológicamente. Su economía hace aguas por todos lados, tendrían que aprobar inversiones gigantescas, sus fábricas de armamento actuales no están ni de lejos preparadas y habrá que ver cómo le meten a su población el discurso de que tienen que gastar muchos cientos de miles de millones ... y ya no se trata de dinero: Es que no fabricamos suficiente material bélico para emprender esta acción, ni de aquí a cinco años y no tenemos suficiente ejercito en soldados formadas y preparados. Europa lo tiene crudo y EEUU, después de la pifiada de Ucrania, también.
I think there is no other way. There is a window of about two months to do it. Conisdering the minimal prep the operation would require, at least one to two weeks are needed to concentrate forces and ammo to the launching point. Hopefully General Gerasimov have already prepared troop this way. Then, make Operation Bagration great again. Russia needs that kind of achievement to buy enough buffer zone.
Well, there are other ways, but the one you outline here certainly is viable and discussed far less, as far as we're aware, than it should be.
"As such, there are really only three options left for Russia:..."
That's assuming the 'such' you posit above doesn't include NATO's military participation for the past 1,000 days. In fact, NATO's direct participation in making and supplying conflict in the Ukraine goes back much, much further than that, to AT LEAST 2014, as everyone is all-too-painfully aware (and, arguably, much further back than that). In military terms, what difference would it make if NATO openly admitted the extent of its participation? I don't think very much would change, at all. They (NATO) might feel compelled to expend munitions more quickly but I don't think that would be a great problem for Russia. It would just mean the NATO economies' demise becomes even more rapid than it already is. So? That's no skin off Russia's nose.
As to this idea that the Americans will resort to nukes when they're really REALLY mad... Sounds like something every schoolyard bully who's ever 'borrowed' a zombie-knife or set of knuckle-dusters from a degenerate father or 'uncle' to scare lunch-money (or dime-bag) paying 'clients' back into line always says. So?
D e f i e s C r e d u l i t y
» only three options left for Russia
» plan a little less bitter for Putin to swallow
Like being stuck at the side of the interstate, out of gas, with a beat up old car.
What do you do?
You call the turnpike authority, and say ‘OK, You have only 3 options’:
-Come here with a jerry can and give me gas
-Provide me with an alternative vehicle
-Close the turnpike to all traffic
The monumentally delusional character of these rantings (which represents the farthest they dare fantasize)!
-To appease Putin [who has no political considerations; all Russians are virtual avatars]
who doesn't want NATO in the Ukraine, we insert NATO troops in Ukraine -- Brilliant!
-Insert the enemy as peace-keepers.
-But only Europeans without Americans: BOOM, there goes NATO.
Instead of the old deal (Ukrainian meat + Western arms)
here comes the new deal (European meat - guns or ammunition -- the stocks have been depleted)
There was just an exchange: 683 UA KiA exchanged for 37 Russian.
And it's the elite brigades they are sacrificing in Kursk to the old Varangian battlefield ancestor gods.
NATO can't even get 1 mechanized brigade into Lithuania before 2027.
How on earth do these people expect to do battle?
-The Russians will wipe them out when they try to muster.
-The Russians will start attacking their logistics in Poland and Romania before they set foot in UA.
-If Americans try to move forces, the Russians will target the ships, harbors, and logistics.
These people are such inbred supremacists that they think their thoughts are like God's -- thought and action are the same. They are proposing nuclear armageddon because that is the only NATO power at their disposal.
All you are saying is that Trump and NATO will declare war on Russia. A "peacekeeping" force is no such thing if BOTH sides have not agreed to it in advance, it is simply an attack on Russia at that point. This is idiocy and WWIII and NOT started by Putin but by the "West."
"Russia is not sulking. She is composing herself."
;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Gorchakov#:~:text=Not%20long%20after%20his%20accession,recueille%20('Russia%20is%20not
The Clock is ticking for America, to receive what it exports at will. Death & destruction. Being attacked by a barrage of powerful missiles. Not being able to defend itself as it has hardly any air defences. America to be a victim of this kind of attack or the severe threat of it. Stops it right dead in the water, any chance it has of trying to dictate anything to Russia. Russia isn't running out of time, America is it can't compete with Russia on the battlefield. It's impossible for it to do so on European soil. Logistics make that do if nothing else. Russia has a much more modern missile force than America. Why would it copitulate?
I keep coming back to the idea of how nuking Washington could be the answer: the election demonstrated doing so would certainly enjoy the support of the vast majority of the US electorate. If the Russians were careful to contain the damage, as much as possible, to the 10-mile squared diamond, the basis of which Washington was built on, I'm sure the American people welcome it as delightful liberation.
I'm not so sure. The are mostly dumbfucks and easily nudged in any direction the MSM want them to be. They will rally around their silly little flag.
Yes, you're right, of course.
I was sort of semi-joking, just musing with the idea.
The BEST NATO Salesman is BACK...
https://voza0db.substack.com/p/morons-just-dont-get-it-340
Of course mutTrump will do something like that since that provides an ENDLESS STREAM OF PROFIT to his Billionaire Friends from the USofT M.I.C..
Vote accordingly... Nope that's gone!
You write as if Trump was already President
Moreover had decided on a policy as to one the WSJ reports on
Moreover had put into place......a strategy without, as far as one knows, talking to the Pentagon
Yet you speak as if this was 'likely
And that the RF is hence staring defeat in the eye
All this sounds very very unreasonable - and quite unlike your general reports
'It’ll still take some time for the US to get key stakeholders like Poland on board, where 69% of the public is against dispatching troops to Ukraine in any capacity, so this likely won’t happen by mid-January.'
You haven't contradicted a single one of the points that I made about why Russia is presently unable to obtain its maximum goals in the conflict despite 2,5+ years, almost 1,000 days now, of trying. I also didn't characterize a compromise as a "defeat", those are your words.
From your response, I assume that you get your insight from the "usual suspects" in the Alt-Media Community (Pepe, Ritter, Martyanov, MacGregor), all of whom are "5D chess master plan" conspiracy theorists whose takes have repeatedly been discredited.
They regularly spin every setback and challenge as part of some "master plan", going on and on about how Russia is always supposedly on the brink of achieving its maximum goals. I simply don't see that happening anytime soon, I explained why, and the clock is now ticking.
There is no precedent thus far of Putin reciprocally escalating in response to yet another "red line" being crossed or egregious provocation being made such as the dispatch of conventional Western/NATO forces to Ukraine as peacekeepers.
To the contrary, every precedent from 24 February 2022 to this day suggests that he'd accept that in order to avoid World War III. To date, Russia won't even strike bridges across the Dnieper and rarely if ever intercepts NATO arms crossing the country en route to the front.
Quite clearly, with these informal rules being adhered to (not to mention letting Zelensky and company continue to live lives of luxury and safety), it would be a totally unexpected break from character and precedent for Putin to risk World War III over such an escalation.
It's possible that he could, after all, maybe he's finally had enough and wants to put his foot down once and for all. I don't rule it out, which is why I included that scenario in my analysis. But I personally very much doubt that he'd do that. What I foresee is an inevitable compromise.
This is a war of attrition. Ukraine and indeed half of nato is being demilitarised. When they run out of men and weapons it's over.
This takes time, not sure why people keep saying "Russia can't achieve its objectives in 2.5 years, its a failure"
Quite the opposite, things are progressing along very well.
Monkey brains indeed 🧠 🐵
Ah here he is. The delusional conspiracy theroy peddler. Don't you have some koolaid to prepare for your cultists
“There is no precedent thus far of Putin reciprocally escalating in response to yet another "red line" being crossed or egregious provocation being made such as the dispatch of conventional Western/NATO forces to Ukraine as peacekeepers.”
There are least two such precedents. First is the Munich speech, where President Putin openly declared that Russia will pursue sovereign policy, also in then sphere of security. The other was the SMO itself, which was not cancelled even in the face of full scale economic war and enormous military involvement of the NATO resources.
The policy we see is to avoid unnecessary escalation and avoid waste of resources. Eg. the drone attack on Kremlin - the best response was to continue the SMO unabated. Any attack on Zelensky’s palace or similar place will be waste of Iskander or Kindzal missile, one less missile to target actual military target in order to achieve attrition.
If Russia will target American AWACS planes over Poland or Romania, it may be easily a Perl Harbor moment for the Neocons. However, when NATO troops will intervene in UA, the western societies won’t consider it as war declaration.
"...when NATO troops will intervene in UA, the western societies won’t consider it as war declaration."
Good point.
If there are indeed red lines, likely they were made known to the Americans via their own channels. But all the red lines crossed, where those promulgated by the west as red lines.
And we all remember the strikes that killed soo many French "instructors" that really upset Macron... I don't yet see material evidence convincing enough for Russians to accept compromising their position.
And then there is also their achievements in the Sahel.
This was meant to be a Jocke right? Time is ticking for the US/NATO-Bloc and Kellog's Peace non-sense