The War in the Ukraine

Abominable said:

Two interesting revelations about this war from Pepe Escobar. One there's rumours of a Blinken proposing a Ukrainian surrender deal. The article, posted by deep state neocon David Ignatius appeared in the Washington Post.

The Ukraine would be partitioned and Russia gets to keep the territories it liberated: Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye. The rump Ukrainian state would also be demilitarised.

Sounds like a bad deal to me, at a minimum it should have included Kharkov and Odessa, and it does nothing to address the denazification of the Ukrainian state.

Also:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1619421836613419008

Click to expand...

sheogorath said:

Mobilization efforts within Ukraine seem increasingly aggressive

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1620461877670334465

Click to expand...

Abominable said:

The Ukraine would be partitioned and Russia gets to keep the territories it liberated: Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye. The rump Ukrainian state would also be demilitarised.

Sounds like a bad deal to me, at a minimum it should have included Kharkov and Odessa, and it does nothing to address the denazification of the Ukrainian state.

Click to expand...

Atomicfrog said:

Without a gun on their back, these conscripts will flee the front when any chances happens. All the mobilized, conscripts and the big before war army are gone ???

Click to expand...

Overbom said:

It sounds like a bad deal because it actually is a bad deal. Russia at minimum must execute its much-talked about offensive and see how far it can and how much success it has.

Keep marching until you are bogged down, then make a deal with more Ukrainian concessions.

Click to expand...

Abominable said:

One there's rumours of a Blinken proposing a Ukrainian surrender deal. The article, posted by deep state neocon David Ignatius appeared in the Washington Post.

Click to expand...

Secretary of State Antony Blinken outlined his strategy for the Ukrainian endgame and postwar deterrence during an interview on Monday at the State Department.

Russia’s colossal failure to achieve its military goals, Blinken believes, should now spur the United States and its allies to begin thinking about the shape of postwar Ukraine — and how to create a just and durable peace that upholds Ukraine’s territorial integrity and allows it to deter and, if necessary, defend against any future aggression. In other words, Russia should not be able to rest, regroup and reattack.

Blinken’s deterrence framework is somewhat different from last year’s discussions with Kyiv about security guarantees similar to NATO’s Article 5. Rather than such a formal treaty pledge, some U.S. officials increasingly believe the key is to give Ukraine the tools it needs to defend itself. Security will be ensured by potent weapons systems — especially armor and air defense — along with a strong, noncorrupt economy and membership in the European Union.

The Pentagon’s current stress on providing Kyiv with weapons and training for maneuver warfare reflects this long-term goal of deterrence. “The importance of maneuver weapons isn’t just to give Ukraine strength now to regain territory but as a deterrent against future Russian attacks,” explained a State Department official familiar with Blinken’s thinking. “Maneuver is the future.”

Crimea is a particular point of discussion. There is a widespread view in Washington and Kyiv that regaining Crimea by military force may be impossible. Any Ukrainian military advances this year in Zaporizhzhia oblast, the land bridge that connects Crimea and Russia, could threaten Russian control. But an all-out Ukrainian campaign to seize the Crimean Peninsula is unrealistic, many U.S. and Ukrainian officials believe. That’s partly because Putin has indicated that an assault on Crimea would be a tripwire for nuclear escalation.

The administration shares Ukraine’s insistence that Crimea, which was seized by Russia in 2014, must eventually be returned. But in the short run, what’s crucial for Kyiv is that Crimea no longer serve as a base for attacks against Ukraine. One formula that interests me would be a demilitarized status, with questions of final political control deferred. Ukrainian officials told me last year that they had discussed such possibilities with the administration.

As Blinken weighs options in Ukraine, he has been less worried about escalation risks than some observers. That’s partly because he believes Russia is checked by NATO’s overwhelming power. “Putin continues to hold some things in reserve because of his misplaced fear that NATO might attack Russia,” explained the official familiar with Blinken’s thinking. This Russian reserve force includes strategic bombers, certain precision-guided weapons and, of course, tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.

Click to expand...

FairAndUnbiased said:

IMO, if Russia doesn't get at least Zaphorozhia City and entire Donbass, it's not worth. Kharkov would be nice but without more troops commitment is unlikely.

Click to expand...

Overbom said:

I would say ideally Odessa should be on the cards. Yes I know, Odessa was lost when Russia lost Kherson, but a man can still dream

Click to expand...

Abominable said:

Two interesting revelations about this war from Pepe Escobar. One there's rumours of a Blinken proposing a Ukrainian surrender deal. The article, posted by deep state neocon David Ignatius appeared in the Washington Post.

The Ukraine would be partitioned and Russia gets to keep the territories it liberated: Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye. The rump Ukrainian state would also be demilitarised.

Click to expand...

But in the short run, what’s crucial for Kyiv is that Crimea no longer serve as a base for attacks against Ukraine. One formula that interests me would be a demilitarized status, with questions of final political control deferred.

Click to expand...