3 ms·

Okay, let's not argue about the extend of the war, I am still not convinced that it could not get a lot worse, but if it already is as bad as it can get, that w

Okay, let's not argue about the extend of the war, I am still not convinced that it could not get a lot worse, but if it already is as bad as it can get, that would - in a certain way - be a good thing as it can not get any worse, at least besides lasting longer. This leaves the question, is your proposed end acceptable for Putin? In essence your are saying, if I do not misunderstand you, undo the last year, at the very least. What makes you believe that Putin would judge the situation differently this time, i.e. that this situation does not warrant the invasion of Ukraine?

jcranmer 4y ago
The reality of the situation is that Russia does not have the military capability to achieve its political aims. This has been clear to every observer since about March. Yet Russia has not attempted to moderate its political aims to reflect its actual military capabilities, and I think it is unwise for Ukraine or anybody else to humor Russia by considering these unrealistic aims as a viable starting position for negotiations. Sadly, given the delusions of Putin, this means having to prolong the war in Ukraine. Delivering yet more decisive defeats of the Russian military is likely to be the only thing that can shock him into realizing that what he wants is unachievable and he has to adjust his aims to reality.
- danbruc 4y ago
  [...] Russia does not have the military capability to achieve its political aims. What do you think this political aims are?
  - H8crilA 4y ago
    In Ukraine it was specifically a change to the political regime, which didn't work. Don't know what the current aim is, could be simply a suppression of Ukraine through continuous damage so that it slowly becomes another Syria over the next decade. There's also damaging "the evil West" in whatever way is possible, mostly by subverting the democratic processes. They did help with a few political movements (help, not necessarily start), we have evidence for that on both sides of the Atlantic. This goal probably didn't change.
    - rainworld 4y ago
      In Ukraine it was specifically a change to the political regime, which didn't work. You’re so anxious to proclaim this over, when the main course hasn’t even begun. And, having read the Zalushny interview, you should know full well that what they need amounts to yet another army, their third in this conflict pretty much. And there’s no indication that they will get it.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - danbruc 4y ago
      This seems a reasonable explanation to me, the troop size used is much more compatible with going after the government than wanting to conquer the entire country.
      - jcranmer 4y ago
        Russia believed that it could achieve a lightning-fast invasion of Kyiv that would enable them to install whichever puppets they wanted, and appear to have put more effort into planning their new puppet government than the actual military invasion. They still do not have the necessary military force to conquer Kyiv, which is a necessary precondition for achieving regime change. However, even a conquest of Kyiv isn't necessarily sufficient to effect regime change; you'd need to demonstrate control of sufficient parts of the country to make a rump government or government-in-exile infeasible. That's likely to require controlling more or less everything east of the Dniper, Kyiv, and Odesa. Or basically everything outside of Western Ukraine around Lviv. In short, Russia did not have anywhere near the military force needed to achieve even their most limited war aims if Ukraine were able to put together any kind of defensive force (which they did).
        danbruc 4y ago
        That all seems totally reasonable to me, much more reasonable than Putin just wants more land and after Ukraine he would move further west. I especially agree, even if you manage to overthrow the government, it will be a long uphill battle to achieve anything remotely resembling stability. This leads to the next question, why does Putin want a regime change, after all regime change is not an end goal? What other avenues are there towards the underlying goals, i.e. how could he change strategy or where could be ground for a diplomatic resolution?
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    Annexation of all or much of Ukraine, combined with elimination of the current regime.
    - danbruc 4y ago
      Replacing the government seems plausible to me, conquering the country not, way too few soldiers.
      - mannerheim 4y ago
        They did annex much of Ukraine, although have not been able to hold on to the annexed regions. Notably, they lost Kherson in November. However, this was probably a consolation prize after their decapitation strike failed, and may not have been their original plan. Russian ultra-nationalists do play up a notion of 'Novorossiya' which would include everything from Odessa to Kharkiv, however; this by now is utterly unrealistic, but Russia attempted to take both Odessa and Kharkiv early in the war. With the former, they were stopped at Mykolaiv, and with the latter they stopped short of managing to take the city itself. They also lost the parts of Kharkiv oblast (which they did not annex) they had occupied around September or so. This opens them up to counteroffensives in Luhansk oblast (which they annexed), specifically around Kreminna (where there is ongoing fighting and a reported Russian withdrawal) and Svatove.
        H8crilA 4y ago
        I can see that you're paying attention to what they "annexed" but nobody except maybe the defunct Syrian government and some other puppets care about what Russia "annexed" and what not. The Czech Republic has recently "annexed" Kaliningrad.
        mannerheim 4y ago
        Well, it's certainly more embarrassing for them to lose land they've annexed rather than land they're just occupying without having annexed it. Certainly puts a whole damper on the question of what would make Crimea a red line, if/when it comes to that, although I suspect Russia will try to settle for status quo ante bellum by the time that becomes a real question.

jcranmer 4y ago

The reality of the situation is that Russia does not have the military capability to achieve its political aims. This has been clear to every observer since about March. Yet Russia has not attempted to moderate its political aims to reflect its actual military capabilities, and I think it is unwise for Ukraine or anybody else to humor Russia by considering these unrealistic aims as a viable starting position for negotiations. Sadly, given the delusions of Putin, this means having to prolong the war in Ukraine. Delivering yet more decisive defeats of the Russian military is likely to be the only thing that can shock him into realizing that what he wants is unachievable and he has to adjust his aims to reality.

danbruc 4y ago
[...] Russia does not have the military capability to achieve its political aims. What do you think this political aims are?
- H8crilA 4y ago
  In Ukraine it was specifically a change to the political regime, which didn't work. Don't know what the current aim is, could be simply a suppression of Ukraine through continuous damage so that it slowly becomes another Syria over the next decade. There's also damaging "the evil West" in whatever way is possible, mostly by subverting the democratic processes. They did help with a few political movements (help, not necessarily start), we have evidence for that on both sides of the Atlantic. This goal probably didn't change.
  - rainworld 4y ago
    In Ukraine it was specifically a change to the political regime, which didn't work. You’re so anxious to proclaim this over, when the main course hasn’t even begun. And, having read the Zalushny interview, you should know full well that what they need amounts to yet another army, their third in this conflict pretty much. And there’s no indication that they will get it.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - danbruc 4y ago
    This seems a reasonable explanation to me, the troop size used is much more compatible with going after the government than wanting to conquer the entire country.
    - jcranmer 4y ago
      Russia believed that it could achieve a lightning-fast invasion of Kyiv that would enable them to install whichever puppets they wanted, and appear to have put more effort into planning their new puppet government than the actual military invasion. They still do not have the necessary military force to conquer Kyiv, which is a necessary precondition for achieving regime change. However, even a conquest of Kyiv isn't necessarily sufficient to effect regime change; you'd need to demonstrate control of sufficient parts of the country to make a rump government or government-in-exile infeasible. That's likely to require controlling more or less everything east of the Dniper, Kyiv, and Odesa. Or basically everything outside of Western Ukraine around Lviv. In short, Russia did not have anywhere near the military force needed to achieve even their most limited war aims if Ukraine were able to put together any kind of defensive force (which they did).
      - danbruc 4y ago
        That all seems totally reasonable to me, much more reasonable than Putin just wants more land and after Ukraine he would move further west. I especially agree, even if you manage to overthrow the government, it will be a long uphill battle to achieve anything remotely resembling stability. This leads to the next question, why does Putin want a regime change, after all regime change is not an end goal? What other avenues are there towards the underlying goals, i.e. how could he change strategy or where could be ground for a diplomatic resolution?
- jcranmer 4y ago
  Annexation of all or much of Ukraine, combined with elimination of the current regime.
  - danbruc 4y ago
    Replacing the government seems plausible to me, conquering the country not, way too few soldiers.
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      They did annex much of Ukraine, although have not been able to hold on to the annexed regions. Notably, they lost Kherson in November. However, this was probably a consolation prize after their decapitation strike failed, and may not have been their original plan. Russian ultra-nationalists do play up a notion of 'Novorossiya' which would include everything from Odessa to Kharkiv, however; this by now is utterly unrealistic, but Russia attempted to take both Odessa and Kharkiv early in the war. With the former, they were stopped at Mykolaiv, and with the latter they stopped short of managing to take the city itself. They also lost the parts of Kharkiv oblast (which they did not annex) they had occupied around September or so. This opens them up to counteroffensives in Luhansk oblast (which they annexed), specifically around Kreminna (where there is ongoing fighting and a reported Russian withdrawal) and Svatove.
      - H8crilA 4y ago
        I can see that you're paying attention to what they "annexed" but nobody except maybe the defunct Syrian government and some other puppets care about what Russia "annexed" and what not. The Czech Republic has recently "annexed" Kaliningrad.
        mannerheim 4y ago
        Well, it's certainly more embarrassing for them to lose land they've annexed rather than land they're just occupying without having annexed it. Certainly puts a whole damper on the question of what would make Crimea a red line, if/when it comes to that, although I suspect Russia will try to settle for status quo ante bellum by the time that becomes a real question.