And with the Ukrainian army disappearing on the battlefield, and the Russian army growing and becoming better equipped, if there is change in future, those terms will change for the better for Russia, the worse for Ukraine, and the worse for America.
Zero: No deal with Zelenksy.
One: Temporary truce leading to UN administration of the Ukraine to hold free and fair elections in the Ukraine, in which the Russian speaking plurality of Ukrainians will be free to participate and organise.
Two: Negotiations with the newly elected government leading to international recognition, including recognition by Ukraine, of the four now Russian oblasts of the Ukraine, and an independent and non aligned Ukrainian government in the Ukraine recognised by all, with boundaries recognised by all.
Or else.
Or else what?
The total annihilation of all of non Russian part of Ukraine, and its replacement by an empty wilderness. If Russia cannot have neutral states as a buffer zone, it will have a desolate wilderness as a buffer zone.
Georgia has wisely opted to be a neutral buffer state. I formerly recommended that to ensure continuation of that status, they should kill every ngo operative they find on their soil, but with USAID shut down, such drastic measures are less urgent.
On the other hand, Poland shows what happens if you do not take firm measures against ngos. After Ukraine, next up is Poland or Latvia. Probably Latvia.
Let me give you the terms…
The EuroWest is going to put a line of troopes in UA barely even 10km away, and if Putin fire on them, he’s going to get smashed back out of UA, and take all his “Russian Speakers” with him. [Similar bombast deleted*]
It appears that the Eurowest can put at most thirty thousand troops into Ukraine.
The Ukraine appears to be losing more than thirty thousand per month (dead, irrecoverably wounded, deserted, missing in combat, taken prisoner), because the Ukrainians are rounding up thirty thousand cannon fodder a month, yet their army is shrinking while the Russian army is growing.
So European intervention would postpone Ukranian collapse by at most a month.
However I believe that Europe’s spear has no tip, that this would be thirty thousand logistics workers, camp followers, and brass covered bureaucrats. Which would not postpone Ukraine’s collapse for a day.
I am curious what path a reduced Ukraine can take but as for the peace, I think option 2 is the only one that’s even actionable.
Currently, Russia is building rail lines through occupied Ukraine.
The front has been static for a while due to the lack of logistics capacity and, with that issue soon to be resolved, Russia will be able to seize by force the remaining Oblasts that are viewed as part of Novorossiya.
I think this is the last piece missing before Russia makes the final push to take Odesa and cut Ukraine off from the sea. Why would Russia de-escalate with victory so near to hand?
I maintain that this ends either when Zelensky picks sanity and surrenders, or gets done in by his own men for failing to.
“I maintain that this ends either when Zelensky picks sanity and surrenders, or gets done in by his own men for failing to.”
I bet he gets fragged by his own guys. Or they’ll force him to surrender by shoving an actual, physical gun into his face and explaining that a surrender will be issued, either by him or by his successor after he’s dead.
>The front has been static for a while due to the lack of logistics capacity
Exchanges of bodies indicate over a 10 to 1 kill ratio in Russia’s favor. In a war of attrition, why ever would Russia decide to change up the front lines drastically when it has been working out so well for them. Remember, one of Russia’s war goals was demilitarizing Ukraine. If the Ukrainians wish to fight in unsustainable positions, why change them… I don’t wish to accuse you of map autism (because I largely don’t know your position), but much of the Western analysis of the front lines has been driven by map autism.
>worse for America
Oh? I didn’t realize US was a belligerent in the war. US has no stake in peace negotiations. 🙃
Especially now that we are at war with Iran.
A war that ends in a quick victory and hopefully a full withdrawal from the middle east. After all it would not be appropriate to keep US bases downwind of nuclear fallout, or even have them there since the ‘Axis of Evil’ was removed. Btw Europe, have fun trying to trade with and through that region now that it’s “salted”.
For (real) real, the only bad outcome for America is an actual “peace” treaty in which we have any interests (boots on the ground) in the Ukraine. We can simply choose to not acknowledge interest in the same way Putin has hinted he can choose to not acknowledge US interest in Greenland. Peace between Moscow and DC will be unspoken, informal gentleman’s assumption, much to Europe’s chagrin. What’s more important for the US is an exit strategy from Europe itself. One that is as profitable as possible.
I have been listening to Iranians on Youtube.
Quick victory is not an option, even if we lead with nukes. Recall how Hungary defeated the Mongols. They just kept on fighting with more than half their population dead and most of their buildings levelled.
The enemy gets to decide whether a quick victory is on the table.
The mongols lost because of logistics. Their supply chain was too long and too exposed. How are American logistics?
The Iranian plan in the event of war is to prevent anyone from moving stuff in or near the middle east. It is reprise of the Hungarian plan against the Mongols. Could work. Will be ruinously painful for everyone.
I believe Pax is acknowledging that nuking Iran and leaving is not actually removing Iran or creating anything but chaos and enemies in the region. From what I can gather, the intent is not to permanently pacify them, but to destabilize them enough and destroy enough infrastructure that they cannot finish their nuclear weapons program.
Why this is necessary for the US, I’m not sure. He says that the decision makers are concerned of a “rout” and want to retreat instead. This makes little sense to me. The world has already seen the results of Afghanistan, and now Ukraine, Yemen, and even the skirmishes over African Uranium. Looks like the GAE has already been defeated abroad, and everyone knows it. So what’s the point of blowing up Iran on the way out? How does a destabilized and permanently enemy-oriented Middle East help US empire in retreat? Preventing the oil from running properly if Russia expanded there? This really seems like an actual ZOG maneuver with a thin veneer of justification. It’s consistent with the other actions of those involved with the province of Judea, bloodlust and handwaving away the consequences of attempting battery on the local 400lb gorilla.
Zero is plausible. How about the following?
One: The military decides they had enough. Some general takes over, Zelensky is killed.
Two: The new junta is not interested in elections, but wants peace with Russia. They take any deal they can get and fulfill all Russian demands (except free elections, they like their new jobs too much).