Ukraine Watch...

[UndercoverElephant]

American was happy to tolerate a Russian Crimea since 2014, with a good chance Republicans will win next year, I can't see the US making the necessary investment.

You're right, I am not considering the possible impact of a Trump victory on the situation. I personally don't think he is going to get back in, but if he does then who knows what he will do. Presumably he will win the republican nomination though.

[Default0ptions]

How long it takes Ukraine to regain control of the temporarily occupied territory remains to be seen.

This strikes me as unduly pro- Ukrainian, I can't see how Ukraine will ever have the resources to dislodge Russia from the Donbas, or possibly the south as well. Most likely is a long term armistice at approximately the current front line.

It was intentionally pro-Ukrainian.

As I have said before, I think the situation in the Donbas is unclear, in the sense that taking back all of that territory might be more trouble than it is worth. What is abundantly clear to me at least is that the Americans will not tolerate a new status quo where Russia retains control of Crimea. It is too important, strategically. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think the Americans will withdraw support for Ukraine while Russia occupies Crimea.

Here’s a very much pro-Ukrainian article that expresses some pretty major doubts:

“Kyiv’s war aims—the expulsion of Russian forces from Ukrainian land and the full restoration of its territorial integrity, including Crimea—remain legally and politically unassailable. But strategically they are out of reach, certainly for the near future and quite possibly beyond.”

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ ... ss-ukraine

[UndercoverElephant]

This strikes me as unduly pro- Ukrainian, I can't see how Ukraine will ever have the resources to dislodge Russia from the Donbas, or possibly the south as well. Most likely is a long term armistice at approximately the current front line.

It was intentionally pro-Ukrainian.

As I have said before, I think the situation in the Donbas is unclear, in the sense that taking back all of that territory might be more trouble than it is worth. What is abundantly clear to me at least is that the Americans will not tolerate a new status quo where Russia retains control of Crimea. It is too important, strategically. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think the Americans will withdraw support for Ukraine while Russia occupies Crimea.

Here’s a very much pro-Ukrainian article that expresses some pretty major doubts:

“Kyiv’s war aims—the expulsion of Russian forces from Ukrainian land and the full restoration of its territorial integrity, including Crimea—remain legally and politically unassailable. But strategically they are out of reach, certainly for the near future and quite possibly beyond.”

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ ... ss-ukraine

That is an opinion piece written by somebody who wants the West to change its strategy. So what?

I never denied the existence of western voices who see the war as an endless waste of money. They have been there from the start.

[UndercoverElephant]

OK, some predictions.

What is not going to happen is that Ukraine and/or its western backers decide that the position is a stalemate, and agree to let Russia officially keep Crimea and its gains in the south, and for relationships between Russia and western nations to become "normal" (relatively) once more. The reason this cannot and will not happen is because it does not end the conflict. Both sides would simply use the peace to re-arm in anticipation of future conflict, which would be inevitable.

It is perfectly possible that a stalemate does develop, in which case we will end up with a frozen conflict with no renormalisation of relations, such as exists in the case of North Korea. Ukraine would end up joining both NATO and the EU and everybody would then wait for Putin to die and see what happens next in Russia (which is unpredictable). This situation would be unstable. The UN security council would be fatally and permanently compromised, with no obvious means of resolution.

I still think it is more likely that Ukraine can militarily break through in the south, forcing the Russians out of Crimea, which would presumably be the end of Putin.

Either way Ukraine ends up in NATO and the EU.

[Default0ptions]

“US Mission To NATO Signals Zelensky Must Sit At "Negotiating Table" In First”

“Certainly, at the very least this will include Kiev permanently giving up any future claims on Crimea.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... able-first

[Default0ptions]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-g ... -9j6g22b9x

“US and Germany ‘pressing Kyiv to end war in Ukraine’
The two nations are limiting arms supplies to President Zelensky”

“The United States and Germany are in talks over an effort to persuade Ukraine to negotiate a peace deal with Russia broadly along the lines of the present battle front, according to a report.”

“The two largest states in Nato and Kyiv’s biggest military backers are said to be deliberately limiting arms deliveries to make it clear to President Zelensky that the conflict is now “frozen”.”

[UndercoverElephant]

The two nations are limiting arms supplies to President Zelensky”

This statement has been true since the beginning.

“The United States and Germany are in talks over an effort to persuade Ukraine to negotiate a peace deal with Russia broadly along the lines of the present battle front, according to a report.”

Which report? Where did the report come from? Who wrote it? What was their motive?

It is very easy to come to your own desired conclusions if you selectively choose the "reports" you wish to take notice of and those which you choose to ignore.

[Default0ptions]

The two nations are limiting arms supplies to President Zelensky”

This statement has been true since the beginning.

“The United States and Germany are in talks over an effort to persuade Ukraine to negotiate a peace deal with Russia broadly along the lines of the present battle front, according to a report.”

Which report? Where did the report come from? Who wrote it? What was their motive?

It is very easy to come to your own desired conclusions if you selectively choose the "reports" you wish to take notice of and those which you choose to ignore.

I’m merely quoting an article in The Times. The significance is that it’s in the Times. It’s not just my opinion- it’s mainstream news.

[UndercoverElephant]

The significance is that it’s in the Times. It’s not just my opinion- it’s mainstream news.

It is one article, which I haven't read, because it is behind a paywall. I am merely asking the rather obvious question of who commissioned this report, who produced it, and what their motives are. Without that information it is no use at all as information. Saying "it's mainstream news" doesn't make it factual.

It has been a characteristic of this conflict from the start that some people in the western world do not want to foot the bill for Ukraine's war. Putin believed they were going to be a majority, or would not have so seriously under-estimated the level of resistance Russia would face. That those people are still saying the same thing now -- only louder -- does not fundamentally change the dynamics. Or at least I see no reason to believe that is the case yet.

[Ralphw2]

The original article is in the German paper Bild, and states that US and Germany are deliberately rationing support to Ukraine, supplying just enough to keep the war in stalemate, to force Zalinsky to the negotiating table with Putin.

I have not read it, and I do not know what they say their sources are, but this has been my interpretation for a long time, mentioned several times on this thread, that Ukraine is being drip fed just enough weapons to keep the war going, but not to make victory quick or easy. The West is very happy to see Putin waste his historic stocks of weapons fighting an attrition war against Ukraine using second hand NATO equipment that was heading for mothballs at best, or the scrap heap.

I do not know if US and Germany are tiring of this strategy and want to wrap it up as too expensive, but another interpretation might be that NATO do not warn Russia to lose all their gains because that would be fatal to Putin, and if he is “retired”, his replacement might be much more unpredictable and dangerous. It might be that Russian forces are now weakened to the point that Ukraine actually stands a chance of abreakthrough, perhaps in Kherson, which would trigger Putin’s demise, and so now is a time for talks. Personally I doubt it. This war will go on for many more months yet

[UndercoverElephant]

I have not read it, and I do not know what they say their sources are, but this has been my interpretation for a long time, mentioned several times on this thread, that Ukraine is being drip fed just enough weapons to keep the war going, but not to make victory quick or easy

Exactly. The decision from the start was to supply just enough weapons to make sure Russia could not win. If the priority had been a quick Ukrainian victory from the start then far more would have been supplied from day one.

I suspect this was not so much to prolong the war, but to try to reduce the risk of the Russians panicking and responding with nuclear weapons.

I do not know if US and Germany are tiring of this strategy and want to wrap it up as too expensive, but another interpretation might be that NATO do not warn Russia to lose all their gains because that would be fatal to Putin, and if he is “retired”, his replacement might be much more unpredictable and dangerous. It might be that Russian forces are now weakened to the point that Ukraine actually stands a chance of abreakthrough, perhaps in Kherson, which would trigger Putin’s demise, and so now is a time for talks. Personally I doubt it. This war will go on for many more months yet

I agree with this assessment. What I have been disagreeing with is the idea that Ukraine has reached some sort of breaking point, or that the west actually wants the war to end with Crimea in Russian hands.

Trying to predict what is going to happen inside Russia is a mug's game though. It looks to me like Putin is already severely weakened, but that datum of information doesn't help much.

[clv101]

or that the west actually wants the war to end with Crimea in Russian hands.

The west doesn't want that, but aren't willing/able to provide the necessary resources to liberate the territory.

[UndercoverElephant]

or that the west actually wants the war to end with Crimea in Russian hands.

The west doesn't want that, but aren't willing/able to provide the necessary resources to liberate the territory.

That sounds like you think a significant Russian military reverse from this point is no longer possible. I don't see any reason to conclude that yet. The war is not a total stalemate yet. Ukraine is steadily building from a Bridgehead on the Russian side of the Dnieper in the south-west, and Russia now has to choose between trying to elimninate that bridgehead or retreating several miles to the next row of hills, because their current defensive line is vulnerable to Ukrainian artillery on the high ground on the other side of the river. Russia's fleet that had been based in Sevastopol has either been destroyed or forced to move much further east. There is a drip drip effect of Ukrainian progress, and the goal of effectively cutting off Russia's land bridge to Crimea is tantalisingly close. If I believed it has become impossible for Ukraine to retake Crimea I would be advocating peace talks.

[clv101]

In my opinion the war has been effectively 'stalemate' for about a year now. The failed spring/summer offensive being Ukraine's last chance to significantly change the trajectory of events.

This stalemate scenario is unstable though, as it depends on continued support form the US. The west is more likely to reduce support than increase it enough to make a strategic difference.

This is quite a remarkable narrative of events:
https://braveneweurope.com/michael-von- ... or-ukraine

[UndercoverElephant]

This is quite a remarkable narrative of events:
https://braveneweurope.com/michael-von- ... or-ukraine

It also looks rather biased to me.

He said: “At the peace negotiations in March 2022 in Istanbul with Rustem Umerov (then security advisor to Zelensky, now Ukrainian defense minister), the Ukrainians did not agree to peace because they were not allowed to. They first had to ask the Americans about everything they discussed,” and continued: “But at the end (of the peace negotiations) nothing happened. My impression was that nothing could happen because everything else was decided in Washington. That was fatal.”

This is seriously misleading. Ukraine isn't a vassal of the United States. The US cannot decide things on behalf of Ukraine's sovereign government. The US was never in a position to force Ukraine to refuse to negotiate a peace settlement. What actually happened was that Ukraine had a real choice between becoming a neutral state which had given up on the hope of membership of NATO, or following instructions from Washington. If that wasn't a real choice then Ukraine's fate must have already been decided beforehand via some sort of backroom deal that was not official.

6) Ukraine’s negotiating position today is far worse than it was in March 2022. Ukraine will now lose large parts of its territory.

Also misleading. Yes, if there is a peace deal now then Ukraine will lose territory, but it was going to lose quite a lot of territory anyway and the path it has chosen may well yet lead to NATO membership. If Ukraine's borders officially change then so must its security status, meaning in effect that NATO's border will go all the way to where the current front line is. From Russia's point of view, is that really a much better outcome?

What that article leaves out is that Ukraine has had a free choice whether it wants to be under effective control from Moscow or from Washington. And it has chosen Washington. In other words it really is about political systems and freedom, especially from the perspective of Ukraine. I am of course open to being convinced otherwise. The article does not seem to care about the will of the Ukrainian people to remain free of Russia.