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.
The future belongs to Putin’s view of the “deal”. Win, lose, draw.
What anybody else thinks is meaningless.
Supply routes? Putin thinks, or somebody shows him plans for, a super-fast route repair including more off-road trucks for the rough spots. If Putin’s convinced, and any deep wisdom outside his thinking is irrelevant, it will work. Until it doesn’t, but by then we’ve had another war.
I use supply as a stand-in for any obstacle Putin may see as a result of the war so far, or as a necessity for the next one.
If I recall Avalon Hill’s Tactics II, all the units performed as assumed. Until you rolled the dice.
And, to push a metaphor, if Putin thinks the dice are loaded in his favor, who’s going to call him up and explain the situation to him?
Say again, what Putin thinks of the ultimate deal determines the next couple of years and nobody can tell him what to think.
Since the only source of information about the ground truth in the Russo-Ukrainian War comes second hand, it is a source of unending controversy. Lots of cheerleading from the safety of the sidelines. However, I am inclined to think that anyone proclaiming Ukraine’s ability to “win”, by which I mean to drive the Russian forces out of former Ukrainian territory, is wishcasting. I have always been, and remain of the opinion that the USA has no national interest in the outcome. I recall that Ukraine was under the control of Moscow for much of the Twentieth Century and we here in the USA never cared about its independence. I am not sure why this changed, but the fate of two second-rate countries like Russia and Ukraine is their business, not ours. America survived 75 years of Russian/Soviet hegemony over Ukraine and I suspect it will do so again should that become the reality. And not to forget, three cheers for the South Park
“Underwear Gnome” reference by Turtler.
And we have two wide, wide oceans to protect us from Europe and China. After all, anyone
else is, at best, a second rate power.
Otay, that’s the ticket!
When NATO opposed an expansionist Communist entity which was the Soviet Union, our participation made sense. We were defending the free world from a vicious totalitarian force. In the present case, it doesn’t seem that Putin and his fascist authoritarian government want to take over the world. He did have his eyes on much of Eastern Europe, but his failure to take even Ukraine and his massive losses make this a regional war, not an existential European war. Western Europe is, meanwhile, going under the boot of Islam without a fight.
What this has to do with China I don’t know, except that our military unreadiness has become apparent.
Why huge fervor for Ukraine? I agree with Steve.
My gut feeling is Zelensky can’t agree to any peace deal, or he would get killed.
There are so many lies about Ukraine, it’s hard to tell the truth.
Russias fleet is just a lot of targets because of the advances in drone and missile technology, and have little significance in the war. Unfortunately anti missile and drone technology have not kept up with the advances in drone and missile technology. The ground war is where the action is. The U.S. has no defense against hypersonic missiles, and its anti missiles are too expensive and production too low. Using an expensive missile to shoot down a cheap drone is a loser in an industrial war. Seems are carriers have just become missile and drone magnets. Yes, I’m worried about that in the Yemen mess. U.S. carriers are stationed far away due to this, limiting their use. B-2’s are being used to attack Yemen.
Russia has built rail lines in Ukraine for logistics, reducing their need for the Kersch Strait bridge. For all the efforts to destroy the bridge, it still stands.
https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-06-21/russia-finalizes-train-line-to-connect-to-the-occupied-ukrainian-territories-in-the-sea-of-azov-and-crimea.html
Stalin slaughtered Ukrainians in the millions. Putin continues this. I marvel at the resistance of Ukraine in its protracted struggle against Moscow with doggone little help from Western Europe. But it is not America’s place to help Ukraine, which is the meat in the sandwich made with Russia as the bread.
Can the Ukraine drive the Russians out of the Crimea ? Maybe, maybe not.
If they do, can they keep them out ? That’s a big if, and also a totally different question.
Russian attempts to seize the Crimea have been going on for centuries; it seems unlikely that they’re going to stop anytime soon (IOW in our lifetimes).
@Richard Aubrey
Agreed on the whole save for
While nobody can tell him what to think, others can tell him what can or can’t happen, and both his inner circle and the Grim Reaper of natural causes can tell him what he can “be”. Hence the old saying that the enemy always gets a vote.
@Kate
I’d cautiously agree save for a few key issues that I think lead me to disagree with Steve.
Firstly: Even if Putin himself were not interested in taking over the world, he is clearly aligned with totalitarian anti-US, anti-Western nutjobs that either do want to take over the world (PRC) or want to blow it up (Iranian Mullahs). And that makes him a problem.
Secondly: Even if Putin himself were not interested, that doesn’t preclude many people in his circle or chain of command who are possible successors or puppetmasters for when he goes from doing so. Indeed the sad, sobering reality is that in many ways Putin is among the less kill crazy or ambitious of the Kremlin and those in its orbit, with the likes of Prigozhin, Medvedev, and a host of others being much nastier and more open (at least rhetorically) to world war.
Thirdly: Like it or not, we guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and independence alongside the UK and Russia in 1994 in exchange for denuclearization. And we already have enough credibility issues with betraying our allies or those that have relied on us. I don’t want to hurt that further.
Fourthly: The Kremlin is actively in bed with and has actually helped finance creeping Islamicization in Europe, and has allowed the Kadyrovsty Wahhabists to spread their toxic influence throughout Russia. So I think the problem – while not dependent on Russia’s government – is tied to them and particularly their allies.
Mercifully the PRC as well as Comrade Lavrov and his bosses in the Kremlin have made that fairly clear.
https://tass.com/politics/1770583
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZof7coMgVE
Simply put, back near the start of the century Mark Steyn predicted that Putin’s Russia would oppose alliance with the West in favor of joining the counterbalancing force against the US, most likely the PRC. That conclusion has been evergreen. It’s an uneasy, not particularly happy marriage of convenience that is quite unpopular among the Russian public (or at least Chinese in general are) but the Kremlin is yoked at the knee to it.
So they’re a joined problem we will likely confront jointly. That I think also argues in favor of making common cause or at least trying to coordinate with enemies of the PRC, Russia, Iran, etc.
I see your points, Turtler. Thanks. What I don’t see is how Ukraine can, at this point, regain Crimea or some of its eastern fringe provinces. What I hope is that there is some kind of effective pressure the US can put on Putin to make him stand down for now. What that is, I don’t know.
The black earth seems to only permit hard men to rise thats as true with chechnya and ukraine as with Russia
The first conflict seems to have arisen as much as a competition between the solnetvo moscow mob and the obshina (some call it thr logonskaya the chechen mob) plus a short decisive war to distract the people from the yeltsins regime mismanagement but there were other players to the south and east who didnt let it stop there (turkey and the gulf states for shorthand) of course the conflict renewed in 99 for similar reasons whether putin actually had a role in provoking the conflict is less clear (maybe he encourages the uncertainty like certain western outlaws) wars in the caucasus have a way of going on and on
Spelunking around, it appears Russian war dead in the Ukraine are about 95,000 to date, or > 4x Soviet dead in the Afghan war. It also appears Russia’s diversion of productive resources in order to fight the war has been comparable to that of the Korean War in this country.
==
It’s a reasonable inference Iranian policy (which is not driven by reasons of state) has been frozen in amber due to the unusual durability of the top man. Imagine Pres. Johnson contending with a man who had been Lenin’s deputy in 1920. Guy is 86 years old and the man who appeared to be his designated successor was killed in a helicopter crash last year. They can attempt a monarchical succession as at least one of his sons is a Muslim cleric; that plan did not work out too well when Hosni Mubarak tried it in Egypt.
Khamenei yes hes a shrewd player you might call him a gerontocrat supposedly he has still continued the fatwa against nukes for nearly 30 years (if you believe that)
Asisi has prevailed in a similar way to sadat perhaps if obama had not gotten involved although mccain might have been as obvious a mark
@Steve
I thank you kindly Steve, and I cheer for you too. Unfortunately, I fear I will have to gainsay and criticize your stance a fair bit.
I wouldn’t go quite that far. We have multiple sources of secondhand info, as well as some firsthand. And why you see quite a lot of blogging and commentary (and yes even memes) from the front lines. Of course that has its own problems due to how all sides have been utilizing them to the tilt and trying to weaponize their narrative, but it does mean we aren’t limited to one source.
Agreed there.
It’s a logical inclination, even if overstates it. If we went purely by the material I might even agree. But I imagine even more people felt that any predicting that Croatia or especially Bosnia-Herzogovinia would be able to drive Serb forces out of their territory in 1992 was guilty of even greater wishcasting due to the even greater technological and material disparities. But they did, though it was a bloody and horrifying mess that lasted years and required quite heavy investment and aid.
I have always disagreed massively. Even if we were to overlook the role Ukrainian soldiers played fighting alongside us in Afghanistan and Iraq….
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/6942
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/post-misleads-on-ukraines-role-in-iraq-war/
.. and the significant resources it has, the grim fact is that we did sign an agreement with Ukraine, Britain, and Russia in which we would oversee Ukrainian denuclearization in exchange for pledging support for its territorial integrity as of 1994 and independence. Whether or not you think that was a good idea is its own can of worms, but we did, and now the Russian government betrayed it. So the US and UK are bound to try and support the Ukrainians diplomatically and materially. And I also think it helps undermine a major strategic enemy and ally of our mortal enemies.
You might recall incorrectly. The US rarely put Ukrainian independence on priority, but it generally supported Ukrainian independence quite consistently from 1917 onward, most notably by serving as a sponsor to Ukrainian anti-Soviet guerillas (including the infamous “Banderaists” of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army) and refuge for anti-Soviet dissidents.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/AERODYNAMIC%20%20%20VOL.%209%20%20(DEVELOPMENT%20AND%20PLANS)_0001.pdf
Even with the infamous “Chicken Kiev” speech by HW Bush cautioning about Ukrainian nationalism it had less to do with opposition to Ukrainian Independence per se and more to the possibility of a more radical or anti-Western (or at least belligerent/territorially aggressive) Ukraine emerging from the USSR.
And we had good reason to lament Soviet control over Ukraine, given the sheer resources as well as the Soviets making Ukraine a mini-me puppet in teh UN.
Probably changed by degrees from 1917 onwards. Especially the negotiations over independence and denuclearization like the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
Unfortunately they can readily make it our business, especially given the Kremlin.
I agree we can and should survive it. But that doesn’t mean it would be optimal or not damaging. Moreover, we didn’t have more Western Hemisphere enemy clients outside of Cuba like we see with Nicaragua, Venezuela, and the other “Bolivarians.”
@Ray-SoCa
I disagree with Steve, but for reasons I’ve mentioned before.
As for why the huge fervor for Ukraine, I think it’s a bunch of reasons. For one the Ukrainians have fought and died alongside us (albeit in small numbers) in Afghanistan and Iraq. For two their country is a valuable prize no matter who has it, for reasons both legitimate and “Hunter Biden’s Job at Burisma.” For three there are significantly more Ukrainian tied people in the US and elsewhere than many think and have for decades, so the kinship is there. And for four I think there’s the fact that the Kremlin did this after Georgia, only got so far, and did it in such a naked and hard-to-justify fashion.
Brian F and a few others like to emphasize the turmoil and questionable legality of Euromaidan and especially the final declaration that Yanukovych was deposed after he fled both the Kyiv mobs and his own Legislature’s summons and East-West/Blue-Orange tensions, but at the time the Kremlin refused to openly acknowledge it was intervening in Ukraine (Even if it so obviously was), claimed the annexation of Crimea was legitimately grassroots and so was the Donbas, and even extended diplomatic recognition to the new democratically elected Ukrainian government constituted under Poroshenko after Yanukovych, even as the war was ongoing. This means a lot of the usual excuses of “Banderaists persecuting Ethnic Russians!! (in spite of how many of the Banderaists are in fact Russophone Ethnic Russians)”, “This was totes grassroots My Droog” (Yes, I am sure that the high end Electronic Warfare equipment exclusive to the Russian Federation just fell off the back of a truck, and that it’s normal for Russian Divisional Artillery to fire over the border into Ukraine), and “We are intervening to oppose the Maidan Coup and support the Legitimate President of Ukraine” (that…we won’t even acknowledge and will cast aside to recognize the new elections).
It was only after 2022 we really see a lot of these old canards dusted out and trotted for.
I think that’s overstating it but it is a risk. Especially since Zelenskyy got into office pledging he would make peace and was willing to hold elections to divide the Donbas and forgo attempts to reclaim Crimea outside of diplomacy. That backfired badly.
But more importantly I think is that a lot of the paramilitaries, militias, national guard, and so on would be unlikely to agree to such a peace deal even if it was inked. Most notably the Ukrainian loyalists but also a lot of Russian paramilitaries that flatly reject the idea of an independent Ukraine.
Which is a fair point and why it’s worth studying carefully.
Agreed.
Not sure I’d go that far, the bigger issue is we don’t have sufficient coverage with the defenses we do have.
Agreed, and it’s the slack production I think that is the bigger issue. Especially with aging work forces and infrastructure worldwide.
I wouldn’t go quite that far. Nothing else can really deliver coordinated strike packages across the Ocean Blue or support amphibious ops quite like this.
Indeed, and that’s a problem. And also why it’s infuriating why we haven’t dealt with the Houthis. They’re savage slaving pirates and are the kind of people that should be stomped out and would have been in the 19th or early 20gh centuries. Moreover if things ever do escalate anywhere, we won’t want to have to deal with them on one of the world’s great naval lifelines.
Indeed, and well pointed out. Which is one reason why I pooh pooh mkent’s claim that cutting off Crimea and reclaiming it would be so easy. I DO think Ukraine can definitely cut Ukraine off, and even retake it, but that would be a long and difficult campaign involving hitting the two or four major overland routes of transport plus naval transport and preferably the airports, and it’ll take a long time to bear fruit.
Baker came from the school of businessman turned politicos like the wisemen notably harriman and lowell they were not aggressive cold warriors they swallowed reagans coalition but did not digest it chaos in a nuclear rich land mass was probably his primary concern
They really didnt expect the soviet union to fall probably in their lifetime recall the opposition to the berlin wall speech
The Houthis are a whole another fish of kettle
@miguel cervantes
Which is a fair point but I think at least part of it is due to how violent it is as well as intentional image cultivation. The people there are hard in part because they had to be (whether by government dictate or because if you weren’t you’d probably be overrun by slavers from Crimea and marched to the slave markets there, or have your throat cut where you lay) and in part due to the messaging warfare. But beat them hard enough and they will give in.
I’d say that’s partially true but we shouldn’t underestimate Dudayev etc. al.’s ambition or radicalism. At least a decent chunk of the early conflict was Yeltsin supporting more-loyalist Chechen opposition to Dudayev’s increasingly separatist, criminal, and Islamist dictatorship and it’s a shame it didn’t work.
Agreed there. And now Kadyrov is trying to take the toxic model forged as a “golden medium” between Moscow and Grozny and internationalizing it. God Help Us All.
Agreed there, though I don’t believe there was a real fatwa on nukes. And I do think Khamenei is a lot more ideologically radical than many give him credit before.
Agreed, and I think that’s a major reason for a lot of their caution and relatively friendly relations to the powers that be or the “centers” in both Moscow and Belgrade, for fear of greater instability. I can understand and even sympathize with that to a fair degree but I do think they took it well too far.
Agreed, but due to the Iranian Mullahcracy their kettle is associated with and adjacent to the Ukrainian kettle.
@Kate
No worries Kate, and thanks for your kind words.
It’s not going to be easy, no matter what. Moreover I think Ukrainian public opinion has acknowledged there’s going to be some border readjustment on the mainland on the Donbas, with some towns or cities given up. That was something Zelenskyy ran on and while it was a pinch earlier it worked, and practically speaking there’s not much guidance on where to stop. I don’t see the Ukrainian Loyalists willingly giving up title entirely to Donetsk or Luhansk or their capitals (one of which they held since the start), let alone Kherson (which they overwhelmingly hold), but I imagine some border adjustments would be on the cards.
Crimea’s a harder sell both due to how distinct it is geographically and the importance it has for both Ukraine and Russia. It also poses a lot of challenges that in some ways are more formidable than “Advance across the trenches here” but also less so (since at least you have an idea on where to stop). It’ll be tricky since it largely means destroying the Russian Black Sea Fleet and Shipping (doable and the Ukrainians have made good work towards that), and simultaneously cutting the rail and bridge comms from Russia to Crimea (doable but not done yet and costly).
From there it’s a matter of how fast the Ukrainians or their backers want it back, how costly and risky there is tolerance for it being, and what the Kremlin does. Retaking and rebuilding the dam to cut Crimea off from water would help (though then they’d need to protect it from attack).
The big issue is that no matter what you do, there’s going to be a sizable and real pro-Kremlin, Pro-Russian population in Crimea, many of whom will fight or be made to fight by the authorities there. That’s not to justify the seizure of Crimea, or to say the “referendums” were totes legitimate and fair representations, but just that we can’t discount the problem.
In any case it’d be tricky at the best of times, especially without massive amounts of foreign support and a fair bit of time and patience.
Agreed. I think Putin’s a monster but not an overly apocalyptic one so I think there normally would be pressure. The big issue I see is he is nearing the end of his life and yoked to far riskier, more apocalyptic allies. So he’s probably far less open to pressure to stop than he’d be otherwise, is at risk of being replaced by people worse or at least more daring than he is, and might decide to roll the dice in conditions he otherwise wouldn’t because he’ll be dead soon anyway. That doesn’t mean he’ll launch nukes tomorrow without some major prodding, and it definitely doesn’t mean he can’t be defeated, but it does mean it’ll be tricky going.
I really did want the post soviet russia to do well (but there were too many hungry ghosts) who really knew about the russian mob before say 1986 they filled the vacuum like sharks circling. The holomodor the chechen deportations all of that is prologue
The liberal parties largely discredited themselves by their association with economicmismanagement gaidar chubais is the last of the three well sobchak is no longer around.
Of course who gave the advice summers and sachs and you see how shameless they still are thirty years later
A similar dynamic occurred in ukraine with kuchma another mudzik who crawled up to the top and the men who arose out of the scramble akhamatov pinchuk and kolomoisky to pick three
The “using an expensive missile to shoot down a cheap drone” blah, blah, just shows someone who isn’t paying attention to anti-drone systems. The US defense industry has developed add ons for 70 mm dumb rockets that allow them to intercept and destroy airborne drones. The same 70 mm dumb rockets that have been fitted with warhead add ons that allow precise targeting (see last week’s Perun topic).
The USN has used the anti-drone 70 mm rockets against Houthi drone attacks. Not as cheap as a drone (depens on the type) but orders of magnitude cheaper than a Sidewinder for example.
Bullets work on drones too (machine guns, auto cannons, radar guided rotary cannons).
But in military systems no system is without a counter for long.
Sheesh.
mkent got banned!?!
@Karmi:mkent got banned!?!
mkent was never banned, that’s his imagination. Asked and answered at the link. You might try reading the rest of the thread first before saying something like that.
Niketas Choniates
I asked – not said…
@Karmi
Welcome back. I admit I have mixed feelings given previous experience and your farewell blog post that did not go unnoticed. But for whatever our differences I hope you are doing well, and we largely agree on this conflict.
@Turtler
Not really back … saw mkent ‘checking‘ to see if he was banned ‘n thusly humble me checked to.
Niketas ‘The Rude‘ Choniates informed—Ditto on the humble me—that mkent had not been banned. Will not take sides on either side of that issue…
Yeah, I also “have mixed feelings” replying here to you and/or posting on this ‘R-Pea‘ in the pod again; anyway, had/have continued reading the posts ‘n many comments…
@Karmi:Not really back … saw mkent ‘checking‘ to see if he was banned ‘n thusly humble me checked to.
But you obviously didn’t check, because neo’s comment saying mkent was never banned was way before the time you commented.
To request an answer, again, to a question already answered in the thread is either inconsiderate and inattentive, or it’s bad faith. Which doesn’t exactly excuse my curtness to you, I suppose.
Jesus H. Christ!?! How did many of you people get college degrees?!? To this:
To which Niketas Choniates responds:
Ditto on the Jesus H. Christ!?! I did check, like was stated. I checked to see if I was still banned. Was not that clear enough? Apparently not…
@Karmi:I checked to see if I was still banned.
When you were ever banned? Perhaps I missed it, but I thought you flounced after being warned, rather than actually got banned. And so there’s a piece of context I would have been missing. If you did actually get banned and I actually missed it, then consider me sorry and crying about it…
Is Karmi sincere or seeking attention?
After all, neo quickly took the time to specifically answer mkent; that he wasn’t banned and had done nothing to warrant being banned.
You lied about us flagrantly then you come back here
I have differences of opinion on many subjects but there is such a thing as integrity which you showed you dont have
@Miguel cervantes
Your imagination is running away with you again.
Show me one lie…you are a R-Pea in a Pod w/ a D-Pea…
”I have no record of you ever having been banned here; you are not on the list.”
That’s good to hear.
What caused me to think so is that for the last few weeks every attempt to post a comment here resulted in nothing. I’d type my comment, edit it, hit the “Post Comment” button, the circle thing would go indicating that the browser was busy, then it would stop and my comment would disappear from the text box but never appear on the page. Hitting “Refresh” would not make my comment appear, either in the text box or on the page.
I’d come back later and other comments would appear but not mine. Trying again over the course of a week or more yielded the same result. I could post at other sites during this time, just not here. Finally I gave up.
I’m glad to hear it’s not intentional.
mkent:
Posting comments appears to have its own Interweb gremlin, a capricious sprite IMO. Especially so when posting from my smart phone in my experince. Keep the faith and don’t give up. 🙂
mkent:
Interweb gremlins. Keep the faith and don’t give up. 🙂
For what it is worth I have generally had no problems posting here, and the few times a post of mine has not shown up it has been notable. So I can understand mkent’s frustration and assumption even if it was false.
Turtle.
’bout three years ago, Putin got a lot of information on what could or could not be done.
May have new advisors now. But what does he want hear.?
Much May well be about how weak western leaders are.