Agreed. The rabidly anti-Russia regime in Kiev must be eliminated once and for all. Leaving it intact is a major strategic mistake. A paper promise is as good as toilet paper if not reinforced by continued military presence or force, since the rabidly anti-Russian regime will salami-slice violate the terms of agreement after Russia unilaterally withdraws.Any idea of a negotiated settlement to this conflict seems absurd at the moment.
If Ukrainian guarantees meant anything to Russia, things would not have escalated to this point.
1000% agree. These sanctions won't be lifted for a long long time. Might as well go all-out given the sunk costs.Russia has already taken the brunt of all likely economic damage, so there is no reason for them to stop short of their goal since the damage has already been done even if sanctions are lifted tomorrow.
Yep, Russia is going to win. It's a matter of time. It will be costly in economics and human terms, but Russia is still going to win militarily.While the west is focusing all on the media perception war, the realities on the ground is that the Russians are winning.
For sure they are making a mess of it and taking needlessly heavy losses, but those are just cosmetic blemishes. On the grand macro strategic level, it’s all going one way.
The big tactical and strategic shift by the Russians is to slow down and advance more slowly but methodically rather than trying to do thunder runs.
But why did US say in December 2021 and early February 2022 before the invasion that US will not send any troops to defend Ukraine? Ukraine is a non-NATO member and Biden said there is no chance of US intervention to defend Ukraine.I think the main reasons for this shift are threefold.
First and most importantly, NATO has proven to be an even bigger paper tiger than Putin could have hoped for in his wildest dreams.
The primary reason for the initial mad dashes by the Russians were their fear of NATO boots on the ground.
Had NATO had the balls to send troops in to physically block the Russian advances, I think Putin would have backed down rather than order his troops to open fire on NATO soldiers in Ukraine.
Thus the opening strategic imperative was to rush, at all costs, to key strategic crossroads and core objectives to secure them as backstops against such a NATO move. That would have allowed Putin to secure enough of Ukraine to achieve the minimum acceptable strategic outcome from the war to avoid needing to fight NATO directly to avoid a net strategic defeat, as just grabbing a few miles of Ukrainian territory would not have been worth the massive economic and diplomatic costs of the invasion.
With NATO categorically ruling out such an intervention, that risk failed to materialise, so the primary need for haste is gone. Thus the Russians can afford to take their time and go about this campaign in a more traditional and safe manner.
December 2021:
Early February 2022:
Yes, I agree 1000%.The second reason for the initial overreach was a combination of over-estimation of Russian military capabilities and underestimating of Ukrainian capabilities and will to fight based on 2014 results.
The Ukrainians learnt from those painful lessons to not try to fight the Russians in open field traditional battles; while the Russians learnt the wrong lessons and took their very successful BTG formula and watered it down to the point of uselessness in order to apply it across the board to save money and time instead of investing to upgrade all their units up to true BTG standard properly.
That failure has already been well covered so I see no need to repeat.
Russia won Crimea without firing a single bullet, one of the most flawless annexations in modern history, with retaliatory Western sanctions almost toothless and symbolic. It incorrectly assumed Ukrainian resistance/willpower to fight will dissolve like sugar in water just like in 2014.
Russia expected to blitzkrieg the capital, surround Kiev, and to force a quick negotiated settlement (likely limited to DNR/LNR independence and recognizing Crimea and paper neutrality). HOWEVER, now it has turned to a prolonged siege of cities. Russia must increase it's demands to match the intensity of strategic bombardment and lives lost (collateral and Russian soldiers). Russia should seek the total regime change in Kiev, not just a paper promise of neutrality.
Agreed. There is strong elements of domestic politics involved here. There is also the mishandling of COVID-19 pandemic domestically which hurt Putin approval polls (lowest in recorded history). Also, pandemic has weakened growth globally (except China) so Putin likely used pandemic to exploit Western economic weakness and improve his domestic popularity. Quite brilliant actually with respect to pandemic timing of invasion. Too bad US telegraphed this invasion plan non-stop for 3 months, so EU was forced to suicide itself in name of moral faux outrage. Literally cucked due to peer pressure.The third reason for the change in approach is more of a reach, but I think Putin is now putting into motion broader and deeper strategic plans.
Putin is not Xi and Russia is not China. I think internally Putin has a lot more enemies and a lot less power than most western commentators and strategists would expect.
While the degree of western economic sanctions might have been unexpected, it would have been impossible for Putin to have not expected significant western sanctions and planned accordingly.
Such plans would not have been so small minded as to only move money and assets out of reach. I think someone like Putin would have also planned to use western sanctions to weaken or even take out many of his internal rivals and enemies. Most of whom probably had the bulk of their wealth and power based in the west, where Putin couldn’t reach. Now western sanctions and asset seizes are doing to them what Putin never could.
In the short-medium term, I agree.I also think Putin both firmly believes the future strategic position of Russia is best served allied with China and not the west; but also that much of the Russian elite have rose tinted glasses and an unhealthy obsession/worship of Europe and America.
After Putin is gone, there is every chance another Gorbachev would emerge. But not after Ukraine.
Russia is now so firmly wed to China that even Putin himself couldn’t undo the knot even if he wanted to, and I think that’s by design.
In the long-term, Russia and China would need to figure out weapon sales to China's enemies (e.g. Checkmates or Su-57 to India/Vietnam). How they handle competing national interests (Russian desire for export sales vs. China's core territorial disputes in SCS) will determine the viability of a long-term 'special relationship' akin to US-UK. UK doesn't sell America's enemies like Iran or Venezuela any Typhoons or Tempest in the name of export profits does it?I think the biggest longer term development from this war will be a new special-relationship forming between Russia and China much like the one between the UK and US, but where the junior partner gets actual respect and due consideration instead of being treated like a dog.
Agreed! A strong Sino-Russian strategic alignment is necessary to offset Western hegemony.Putin and Xi already announced a full spectrum cooperative relationship before the invasion, now we will actually see it.
100% agree!I do not, as yet, expect to see much if any direct military sales from China to Russia during the conflict both due to diplomatic considerations as well as practical. Since any weapons worth having for the Russians would take months to train and deliver. The only way such Chinese weapons could get on the battlefield in time to make much difference for this war is if Chinese operators went in with them. And I think that’s a much bigger escalation than anyone is yet envisioning as likely even if the Chinese went in as ‘volunteers’ again. Not without direct NATO combat involvement in the conflict first in any case.
Last edited: