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 West will concede, forcing Zelensky to concede.
Provided their Satellites and other Intel do not discover that Russia is preparing to take anything West of the four oblasts proper, or West of the Dnieper, or in particular the Black Sea seaports West of Crimea such as Odesa.
There is no way the West will give up access via Black Sea.
So much so that EU will likely send in non-Nato units to defend it.
This means Zelensky will be made to concede before then.
His early options are gone, no more options left before getting routed.
Unless RU is running dangerously low on weapons, which is extremly unlikely, and the West discovers that.
Zelensky isn’t an independent actor at all. Zelensky is doing exactly what the CIA is telling him to do. Which means, Trump and company are playing the “good cop”, pretending to want peace, while letting the war continue as always.
This also applies to the european lapdogs. The rothschild faggot macron and company aren’t acting on their own when they spout their warmongering crap. They are following the CIA script.
>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. š
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.
The effectiveness of that depends on how finished their nuclear program already is.
They have the rockets, and allegedly have the fissionables. In which case it is very near finished and they are just thinking about what might ensue if the actually finished it.
Or maybe that is all bluff and cow manure. Probably it is. But war tends to result in unpleasant surprises. Who would have thought that Serbia could hold off Austria, that Finland could hold off Russia. Or that Hungary could defeat the Mongols? If you go to war, expect the unexpected, and expect that the unexpected is going to be very bad indeed.
>Oh? I didnāt realize US was a belligerent in the war. US has no stake in peace negotiations.
It seems mr. imperialis completely lost the plot and is pretty detached from reality. The US shithole isn’t a belligerant in the US invasion of Russia? Right.
As to nuking Persia, what the hell. I thought the “Trump Revolution” included Emperor Trump roleplaying as a “Peace President”? But wait. In reality Trump is just another puppet of the neocon joos who rule the US. Shocking news.
We don’t know yet if he’s going to nuke Iran.
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).
The last Ukrainian government that won a free election was pretty much what Russia wanted. I figure they are hoping for the same again.
Did the novorussiyan oblasts vote in those elections? One big problem for pre-Maidan Ukraine seemed to be ethnic: 50% russians vs 50% others, with power flipping back and forth. Well, now rump-Ukraine no longer has so many russians.
I’m not convinced about the viability of rump-Ukraine. Much like Syria will become a Turkish province, it seems destined to become part of Poland, or possibly split among several adjacent nations. The sticky point (to some) is that these are backdoor ways to get the territory into Nato.
Strategically, Russia should take and annex Odessa before any peace deal and subsequently be the guarantor of rump-Ukraine’s independence.
Greetings,
The way to stop any army is to cut off their supply of gasoline. Mobility is always key in any endeavor. Without mobility a people will quickly become demoralized.
I admire your commitment to the bit Humungus.
You nudge me to remember, a real game changer is the first time the US loses a carrier. That’s the dance we’re already doing in the red sea, trying to keep sea lanes open, and cover for the 51st state, without letting the Chinese know it’s go time in Taiwan. And if the houthis can threaten US naval vessels enough to constrain their freedom of movement, what can the Iranians bring to bear when the war goes total?
Thank you for your reply. About Iran. That is a big question Humungus would have to ponder, but without knowing Iran’s entire military arsenal, it would be a difficult outcome to predict. America was once a sleeping giant. Using like analogy, Iran is a sleeping cobra. You draw the cobra out, distract it, then move to kill while respecting its ability to harm you.
The standard tactic is, cut off the leadership command and control first, then command air superiority. Fuel is always key be it gasoline, diesel, nuclear. You take their ability to generate power, then they will fall.
>Temporary truce leading to UN administration of the Ukraine
That makes liittle sense. The Russians have to liberate all of the ukrainian province, currently invaded by the CIA.
As a side note Supreme Emperor Trump promised to end the war in one day. He was either blatantly lying, or he’s taking orders from his neocon owners.
Trump thought he had leverage. He may have been following the mainstream coverage of the war with ‘Biden has been holding back’ and ‘Ukraine can win’- under those assumptions threatening to go all in to get the Russians to agree to a deal is viable.
Since those are total nonsense, he has been left holding the bad and trying to find a solution that looks good. There isn’t one.