Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
I snipped to get to what I thought the central point of the post, but I did refer back to your point of war crimes in your post.
Understood, but I don’t think it moves the discussion on.
If a negotiated settlement is categorically off the table, and always will be.
And if it is acknowledged that Ukraine by itself cannot retake Russian gains including Crimea
And if it is further acknowledged that only a total win for Ukraine, regaining all lost territory pre-2010 is acceptable, although also acknowledged Ukraine by itself is incapable of achieving this goal.
And if it is acknowledged that for Russia, keeping what they have gained is an absolute minimum acceptable result.
And it is also acknowledged that direct assistance of Ukraine by foreign ( probably NATO)
Powers would result in, or endanger the globe, to nuclear Armageddon and would therefore be avoided.
And it is also acknowledged that Russia is capable of holding this out For as long as they want.
If there is no negotiation, how do you see it being resolved?
|
The argument against military support for Ukraine has since day one been predicated on some or all of the premises you have outlined.
Military support began flowing when it became clear Ukraine could avoid being overwhelmed. Military support ramped up when it became clear Ukraine might even be able to push Russia back, with the appropriate tools (HIMARS and similar long range precision munitions).
The Russian army has been broken on a Ukrainian anvil - Putin has made ever more bloodthirsty threats aimed at choking off Western support because that support has turned the tide in Ukraine’s favour.
It is notable that today Putin has begun explicitly rowing back on his leaden hints about using a nuclear weapon. The threats did not cause Western disengagement and in fact have most likely resulted in direct threats to Russia from China and India. That’s what the new narrative about a dirty bomb is all about - it’s nuclear blackmail 2.0. It, too, will not work.
The Russian army is broken, its precision weapon stocks are depleted and the national economy is on a precipice. The country relies on Western electronics to build its missiles and it is hard-to-impossible to source those components now. And there are signs amongst the Russian elite that the question of who comes after Putin is now a valid (albeit hushed) conversation point.
How does it end?
It ends with Russia expelled entirely from Ukraine, Putin taking the fall, to be replaced with someone willing to row back on his insane invasion, then a very long, very slow process of normalisation of Russian relations with the rest of the world. Based on my reading, Russia’s complete defeat in Ukraine may occur before this time next year. It is likely by the end of this year that they will control little more than they did at the beginning.
That is not the over-confident prediction you perhaps think it is - it simply gives due weight to what has actually happened so far this year (including the complete failure of all the received wisdom that confidently predicted Ukraine would be a Russian vassal by now).