The longer that Ukraine refuses to agree to peace on Russia’s terms, the more land that it stands to lose, which might ultimately be much more than anyone expects if the US soon abandons Ukraine in order to cut its losses.
Ukraine is betting that Western support will hold indefinitely. But with U.S. election dynamics shifting and strategic fatigue setting in, that’s a dangerous assumption. If Washington pivots, whether out of economic self-interest or geopolitical realignment, Kyiv could find itself negotiating from a much weaker position, or worse, no position at all.
The “buffer zone” isn’t just a tactical move; it’s a negotiating tool. It's Russia saying, you don’t want peace on our terms? Fine, we’ll redraw the map until you do. And unlike 2022, they’re now doing it from a place of relative strength (economically, diplomatically, and militarily).
It’s not about whether this is “fair” or “just.” It’s about whether it’s effective, and so far, it is. Ukraine’s refusal to engage on new terms risks not only more territory but potentially the very coherence of the Ukrainian state if key regions fall in rapid succession.
The lesson? In great power politics, idealism won’t hold the line.
Thanks for all your comments, Paulo, but I can't help but ask whether they're AI-assisted or -written? I don't mean to offend you, but they're all formatted the same and usually include the dead giveaway of a confidently declared contrast or contradiction, in this case, "The 'buffer zone' isn't...; it's a...", "It's not about..., it's about...", which current generation AI is trained to include in many prompted responses.
I've noticed in recent months that there are so many "witty", "clever", and "deep" comments on X, all these geniuses coming out of nowhere impressing everyone with their written word, but then I discovered through my own research that all these posts share the same pattern described above as well as other features and concluded that it's just AI. Reread all your comments in recent weeks, they're all modeled the same way and are indistinguishable from common X posts nowadays.
I can definitely see how the patterns you mentioned (things like the “not this, but that” framing or the excessive use of em dashes) might raise some eyebrows these days. Those stylistic choices have become pretty common, especially with AI-generated content becoming more prevalent.
But just to be clear: I don’t use AI to write my comments. That style is just how I like to write on social media, trying to be clear, maybe a little punchy at times. I know it can resemble the patterns people associate with AI now, and that’s a weird side effect of how digital communication is evolving, I think. Still, I enjoy the process of writing and shaping ideas myself, and I’m careful about making sure what I post actually reflects my own thoughts.
Also, thank you for the dedication and effort you put into your posts each day!
Ok, thanks for clarifying, all your prior comments were very uncanny though. I honestly don't know what to think. The "punchiness" is so overdone, in my personal opinion, that it really does come off as AI.
I don't want to offend Paulo Aguiar either, and I don't know if Andrew Korybko is right or wrong, but I like the latter's "put-that-in-your-pipe-and-smoke-it" remarks. Refreshing.
Im a little bit confused. Granted, I’m typing this while still in bed.
Russia has said it will take 8 regions next. But on that little map, I only see 2 regions more. And I cannot believe they will Not take Odessa. So my question is:
Historically, stable national borders depend on natural obstacles. If not for the difficulty of crossing such obstacles, then at least for the landmarks that are easily trackable and difficult to move. In the current Ukrainian situation, I think Russians have to reach the Dnieper. However, range of drones will improve, and maybe Ukraine will acquire intermediate-range missiles.
I have some ideas about the WW2 USSR "army" organization. Currently, The Russian MoD wants to keep some "tactical ambiguity", so I cannot figure out the size of the Russian reserves to be launched. My own intuition is that it will take 3 or more WW2 "army". Pacification work may be too difficult for the current Russian conscript force, and they need extra training as well.
Dniepropetrovsk is much more likely than Chernigov - there are more Russian speakers there, more industrial potential, and it would consolidate Russian hold on both sides of the Dnieper.
It's going to be extremely difficult for Russia to cross the river and hold land on the other side. We all saw what happened in November 2022 with its setback in Kherson Region. I hope they can take Odessa, but I'm also not getting my hopes up. I'm also burned out after so many top "Non-Russian Pro-Russians" predicted countless times with supreme arrogance that Russia will take Odessa "soon", always "soon", and nothing happened thus far.
Odessa can and will only happen when and if Ukraine army collapses. Everything else doesn't make sense considering casualties and logistics. Now, the fact that Ukraine's army is still resisting is impressive. I thought they would have fallen apart by now.
Andrew! Don’t know if you’ve seen this, but I only just read it from Kit. Warfare is changing ever so fast. What does the future hold for this conflict?
Yes, in general I do share your pessimism about Odessa and an associated lack of activity, but the war is changing! In that article is even stated that tanks are now obsolete!
The Russian side is currently gaining experience on successful crossing Oskol and Zherebetz. By the way, if I look at the maps in Volchansk in the Kharkov region, the Russian side still hasn't crossed the river that runs through the town?
Ukraine is betting that Western support will hold indefinitely. But with U.S. election dynamics shifting and strategic fatigue setting in, that’s a dangerous assumption. If Washington pivots, whether out of economic self-interest or geopolitical realignment, Kyiv could find itself negotiating from a much weaker position, or worse, no position at all.
The “buffer zone” isn’t just a tactical move; it’s a negotiating tool. It's Russia saying, you don’t want peace on our terms? Fine, we’ll redraw the map until you do. And unlike 2022, they’re now doing it from a place of relative strength (economically, diplomatically, and militarily).
It’s not about whether this is “fair” or “just.” It’s about whether it’s effective, and so far, it is. Ukraine’s refusal to engage on new terms risks not only more territory but potentially the very coherence of the Ukrainian state if key regions fall in rapid succession.
The lesson? In great power politics, idealism won’t hold the line.
Thanks for all your comments, Paulo, but I can't help but ask whether they're AI-assisted or -written? I don't mean to offend you, but they're all formatted the same and usually include the dead giveaway of a confidently declared contrast or contradiction, in this case, "The 'buffer zone' isn't...; it's a...", "It's not about..., it's about...", which current generation AI is trained to include in many prompted responses.
I've noticed in recent months that there are so many "witty", "clever", and "deep" comments on X, all these geniuses coming out of nowhere impressing everyone with their written word, but then I discovered through my own research that all these posts share the same pattern described above as well as other features and concluded that it's just AI. Reread all your comments in recent weeks, they're all modeled the same way and are indistinguishable from common X posts nowadays.
I can definitely see how the patterns you mentioned (things like the “not this, but that” framing or the excessive use of em dashes) might raise some eyebrows these days. Those stylistic choices have become pretty common, especially with AI-generated content becoming more prevalent.
But just to be clear: I don’t use AI to write my comments. That style is just how I like to write on social media, trying to be clear, maybe a little punchy at times. I know it can resemble the patterns people associate with AI now, and that’s a weird side effect of how digital communication is evolving, I think. Still, I enjoy the process of writing and shaping ideas myself, and I’m careful about making sure what I post actually reflects my own thoughts.
Also, thank you for the dedication and effort you put into your posts each day!
Ok, thanks for clarifying, all your prior comments were very uncanny though. I honestly don't know what to think. The "punchiness" is so overdone, in my personal opinion, that it really does come off as AI.
I don't want to offend Paulo Aguiar either, and I don't know if Andrew Korybko is right or wrong, but I like the latter's "put-that-in-your-pipe-and-smoke-it" remarks. Refreshing.
It could be due to translation tools - these do use AI on autopilot.
IOW, the war will end on Russian terms, and those terms must mean that Ukraine cannot become an existential security threat to Russia again.
The Russian logic on the Ukraine situation is no different from that of John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Im a little bit confused. Granted, I’m typing this while still in bed.
Russia has said it will take 8 regions next. But on that little map, I only see 2 regions more. And I cannot believe they will Not take Odessa. So my question is:
What is going on?
Thanks for your great work Andrew! We've shared the link on our daily report.
A Skeptic War Reports
https://askeptic.substack.com/
Historically, stable national borders depend on natural obstacles. If not for the difficulty of crossing such obstacles, then at least for the landmarks that are easily trackable and difficult to move. In the current Ukrainian situation, I think Russians have to reach the Dnieper. However, range of drones will improve, and maybe Ukraine will acquire intermediate-range missiles.
I have some ideas about the WW2 USSR "army" organization. Currently, The Russian MoD wants to keep some "tactical ambiguity", so I cannot figure out the size of the Russian reserves to be launched. My own intuition is that it will take 3 or more WW2 "army". Pacification work may be too difficult for the current Russian conscript force, and they need extra training as well.
Dniepropetrovsk is much more likely than Chernigov - there are more Russian speakers there, more industrial potential, and it would consolidate Russian hold on both sides of the Dnieper.
There is also the issue of Odessa, although it is much less defined than the regions you have referenced.
It's going to be extremely difficult for Russia to cross the river and hold land on the other side. We all saw what happened in November 2022 with its setback in Kherson Region. I hope they can take Odessa, but I'm also not getting my hopes up. I'm also burned out after so many top "Non-Russian Pro-Russians" predicted countless times with supreme arrogance that Russia will take Odessa "soon", always "soon", and nothing happened thus far.
Odessa can and will only happen when and if Ukraine army collapses. Everything else doesn't make sense considering casualties and logistics. Now, the fact that Ukraine's army is still resisting is impressive. I thought they would have fallen apart by now.
The more resistance now the less threat they'll be able to pose post-capitulation.
Andrew! Don’t know if you’ve seen this, but I only just read it from Kit. Warfare is changing ever so fast. What does the future hold for this conflict?
https://open.substack.com/pub/kitklarenberg/p/how-russia-quietly-revolutionised?r=3uqqaf&utm_medium=ios
Yes, in general I do share your pessimism about Odessa and an associated lack of activity, but the war is changing! In that article is even stated that tanks are now obsolete!
The Russian side is currently gaining experience on successful crossing Oskol and Zherebetz. By the way, if I look at the maps in Volchansk in the Kharkov region, the Russian side still hasn't crossed the river that runs through the town?