Will Russia deal over Ukraine?
I dunno, but there are indications that the answer is “yes”:
In an excerpt of an interview that is set to air in full on Sunday, Lavrov told CBS News that he agreed with President Donald Trump’s assertion that talks between Ukraine and Russia were “moving in the right direction.” …
However, Lavrov also told CBS News that there were “some specific points, elements of the deal, which need to be fine-tuned,” but did not explain what was being negotiated.
Lavrov also apparently made it clear to CBS News that Russia would not give up Crimea, which the country seized from Ukraine in 2014. However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said this week that his country would not recognize Russian control of Crimea, as it would go against Ukraine’s constitution. Trump slammed Zelenskyy over the “inflammatory” remark and said in a post on Truth Social that the comment was “very harmful” to peace efforts.
Note that Crimea was lost during the Obama administration – and of course the present Ukraine war began during the Biden administration.
I don’t see that there’s any way whatsover that Ukraine is getting Crimea back, and I don’t mean just through diplomacy. I mean that it wasn’t happening through war, either. And I believe any negotiated settlement will include an agreement that Ukraine will not become a NATO member. Zelensky talks tough on Crimea, but that may merely be his initial bargaining position.
Time will tell.
Of course the big problem is that without acknowledgement of Ukraine being in NATO or some wider and more toothy protection agreement, the Kremlin really does not have much incentive to break the agreement down the road like it has multiple times before, including Budapest, Helsinki, Astana, and Minsk I and II. And that’s a big issue I see. Neither Ukraine nor Russia really want to continue the war per se due to how costly it is, but also neither want to really cement their positions and forgo the possible future. Which I think has been the continuous problem with these peace proposals.
As for regaining Crimea, I think the chance is there for Ukraine to retake it, even by force of arms, but it would be impractical given what we know since it’d involve destroying the Black Sea Fleet and then having enough support to try and force a push through the Isthmus and onto the beaches to take it, which as we know from history would probably be a protracted and bloody campaign like we saw in the 1600s, 1700s, 1850s, and 1940s. And there doesn’t seem to be much buy in for that, at least for now. But it’d be tricky to do. In any case it’s been devastating to both Russia and Ukraine but also to the credibility of the US and UK that this was allowed to happen.
And it’s also worth noting that the Ukrainians would be mad to not seek nuclear deterrence now, especially if they cannot join NATO in spite of the obvious reasons for it and their rights as enumerated at Helsinki and Astana.
In any case I believe it’s in the interests of both Russian and Ukrainian governments to gesture and indicate they are open to negotiations or a peace deal over Ukraine to end the war, but I’m less convinced either see finalizing such a deal as actually their interest. Especially as the situations lie now.
Let’s see if I’m still banned…
”I mean that it wasn’t happening through war, either.”
This is just flat-out false. Russia’s hold on Crimea is already marginal. Its naval combat vessels have been driven out of Russia’s main naval base in Sevastopol, its large combat vessels have fled Russia’s secondary naval base at Feodosia and headed back to Russia, and the shipyards at both Sevastopol and Kerch have been struck, destroying vessels under repair and construction. As a naval base, Crimea is already done.
Russia’s hold on Crimea is almost entirely through the Kerch Strait bridge, which has already been struck twice and is at reduced capacity. A couple of Mk-84 JDAMs could take it out completely. Russia’s hold on Crimea is far less tenable than its hold on any other area of Ukraine, and its ability to project power into the Black Sea from Crimea is just about zero.
Why MAGA wants to reverse this is completely beyond me.
@mkent
Define “marginal.” Its logistics situation on Crimea was marginal to moderate, which is why we see such things with the Kerch Bridge and the ability of drones to intercept naval transport, let alone move them further. But in terms of political or military control no. The Kremlin got its military into position with the help of local collaborators, including paramilitary “Self Defense Forces” and with an incapacitated and uncertain Ukrainian military command they quickly seized control of the peninsula outside of the Ukrainian military bases. Then they moved in and took the Ukrainians by surprise with little bloodshed (to the point where the infamous prosecutor Pokolonskaya had to consider if a Russian soldier shooting and killing a Ukrainian one during the takeover could be prosecuted for murder).
And they have had control over the government ever since, especially since a good number of the pre-existing autonomous government officials turncoated, and how Crimea was legitimately one fo the most pro-Russian, pro-Kremlin, pro-Blue, Russophone, and ethnically Russian areas.
I make absolutely zero justification or defenses for this, nor do I endorse it. But that doesn’t change what it is or the fact that outside of a bunch of spies, some protestors and guerillas, and the like the Kremlin has had solid control over Crimea and the Ukrainian loyalists have at best been able to nonlethally protest and have usually gone underground to conduct sabotage against the occupation.
True to a point, as long as the drones and missiles keep going. But as a population center and base it is anything but. Which is why it’s one of the nodes for force.
Moreover, ever since the open invasion of 2022 and the Kremlin’s troops surging across the isthmus to seize the dam and demo it to reopen waterflow to Crimea and positions around to help secure that, they have a fairly tolerable situation.
Its supply PRIMARILY but not ENTIRELY through the Kerch Bridge, which has had a host of problems.
But
A: Its supply is not ENTIRELY through the Kerch Bridge and never has been. This has been borne out by the Ukrainians, who have regularly pegged it as having as little as half or one fourth of the supplies to Crimea going across it.
https://www.internationalsecurityexpo.com/news/kerch-bridge-sustaining-russian-presence-crimea
B: SUPPLY is different from CONTROL. And notably, in plenty of the campaigns in Crimea from the 1600s onward, the forces controlling the peninsula tended to stick around long after supply diminished or was cut entirely. See: The Sieges of 1941-2, and 1944.
And again, the Kremlin has firm military and government control over the peninsula and has since early 2014. You don’t like this, I DON’T LIKE THIS, but that is what it is. Its writ cannot be openly challenged except at grave risk, which is why most of the loyalist opposition has gone underground to avoid ending up like Reshat Ametov.
“Could.”
“Could.”
That word is doing almost as much lifting as Atlas.
Sure, it could. Fortunate flukes have happened like the Moskva’s destruction. But it hasn’t happened yet, even with the damage done. The Kremlin screws up a lot of things, but it generally knows how to do repair, as shown during the lengthy logistics grind for Kherson lasting months, where the Kremlin held in for about a year before withdrawing (over much of the same targeted infrastructure) and blew it up. All in spite of how virtually all of the factors for Kherson were more favorable for Ukraine than trying to isolate Crimea would be.
And even if THAT happy circumstance happens, the Kremlin still has other ways to get supplies in, even sans a land bridge.
https://www.key.aero/article/why-russias-airlift-and-helicopter-fleets-are-struggling
Absolute bullshit.
If I'm really generous it might be less tenable than some areas of Ukraine, even those with contiguous mainland contact with Ukraine proper. The Northwestern Donbas comes to mind.
But it's a lot more tenable than most given areas of the frontline or even deep in the Donbas, as shown by the much more active and numerous Ukrainian Loyalist partisans or Belarus. Which is in sharp contrast to Crimea, not so much because there are fewer loyalists (though to be honest there probably are) but because the Kremlin's aerial recon and ground based occupation are that much more solid.
That CAN change and be “fixed” (read: broken) with enough resources, time, and effort. But it’ss dependent on acknowledging reality and the advantages that have helped the Kremlin retain its illegal hold on Crimea.
And that’s something you are flat out doing, because you are peddling outright delusional hot takes that are far more radical and baseless than even the most pro-Ukrainian of informed commentors, like the Ukrainian government itself.
Then why the heck is the Kremlin still holding down the Southeastern bank of the Dnieper and regularly airlifting in and out of Crimea?
You have no answer. Because you have kneejerks.
Of course it is. But that is a greater indictment of you than it is of “MAGA”.
And that shows because you really have no good explanation or idea on how to liberate Crimea from the Kremlin beyond outright magical thinking of “Blow Kherson Bridge, wait for the Kremlin to run out of supplies, Profit.”
Which isn’t going to work and which the Ukrainians have at best put on the back burner as a strategy, precisely because they’ve realized their effort and resources are better spent on other things because the Kremlin can strain to supply Crimea even if only by other means.
I’m probably one of the most vocally pro-Ukrainian and anti-Kremlin advocates on these comments, and certainly among “MAGA” (which I admit has a huge amount of appeasers and even Kremlin apologists, some of whom comment here), and I remain far more hope than many that the Ukrainian government will be able to and should liberate Crimea eventually. But not only is that stance not shared by all “MAGA” but also many Americans (see: the Squad) and even Ukrainians (heck, I still remember some Ukrainian loyalists arguing taking back the Donbas would be a net loss).
But I try to remain more up to date than this optimistic wishcasting.
Time will tell, at least until the Kerch Straits Bridge joins the Moskva.
mkent:
I have no record of you ever having been banned here; you are not on the list. Nor do I have any memory of anything you’ve said to have caused a banning.
The last time you commented here until today was on April 4, approximately 3 weeks ago. Here is your comment. It is quite innocuous and inoffensive. Before that, you commented that same day here about Trump’s tariff policies – a comment of the type that would never get anyone banned. I ordinarily only ban someone as a last resort after a long history of insulting me or vicious fighting or anti-Semitism or other troll-like behavior. If you – or anyone else, for that matter – finds that you are locked out of commenting here, and you don’t know why, the best thing to do is to email me and ask. It happens sometimes that there’s a glitch and a person’s comments are put in the spam folder or the trash even though I haven’t done anything to put them there. I don’t know whether that’s happened to your comments because I empty those folders out quite often, but at the moment there’s nothing there from you (but it only represents the last couple of days).
As for the substance of your comment today, Turtler gave it the lengthy treatment so I’ll just add that I think you are succumbing to wishful thinking.