I understand your (and supposedly Zelensky's and Kyrskyi's) logic, but I don't understand the overall strategy.
So, a thirty-day cease-fire, a demilitarized 30 clicks zone, British and French soldiers occupying that zone to maintain the cease-fire.
And then?
Either the British and the French retreat after thirty days, and both Ukraine and Russia re-enter the zone, and continue fighting, or the cease-fire will be prolonged.
But if it is prolonged, Russia will have, if not by treaty but by facts on the ground, conquered the parts of Ukraine on their side of the zone.
Am I missing something here? The last thing Zelensky should want is some kind of de facto surrender of Ukrainian soil to Russia, out of reach because Brits and French are literally standing in the way of capturing it by military force down the road (and it will have to be captured by military force, because Putin is not going to give it back on his own accord).
Isn't freezing the battlefield - whereby the thirty-day cease-fire is possibly a prelude to an indefinite cease-fire, comparable to Korea - the same as giving away parts of Ukraine to Putin?
But I would think that a forever-continued hot shooting war with a country that has a population exceeding 140 million people from which a continued river of soldiers can be recruited, and which continues to mercilessly send missiles at Ukrainian civilians and energy infrastructure, would be even less acceptable to Ukraine.
I understand your reasoning, but Ukraine cannot have it both ways - stating that Russian occupied territory is inalienable, while also accepting a de facto departure from said territory.
Unless Zelensky thinks the international community can persuade Putin, or his successor, to somehow give up the occupied territory. That won't happen. Or better still, it would be the first time in history Russia would part with territory through negotiation.
And by the way, Russia is declining in military strength (and more importantly, economic strength), and Ukraine is growing in strength. That 140 million people means little as long as Europe stands behind Ukraine. Putin can send as much bodies as he wants. Canon fodder is just that - cannon fodder, no matter how much of it you can muster.
And European (military) support is only (finally) growing...
I would suggest that “stating that Russian occupied territory is inalienable, while also accepting a de facto departure from said territory” is in fact possible. It would be a course of action that would operate at less than 100% integrity, yes, but Zelenskyy would still be operating at a much higher degree of integrity than Putin or Trump or the German ex-chancellor Scholz with his „Zeitenwende“ announcement that was not followed up with a corresponding level of action, or many other Western European politicians.
That said, I’m certainly hoping for the Russian occupation to collapse. I can see how it could happen in regard to Crimea. (I imagine that Ukraine will sooner or later be able to both destroy the Kerch bridge —either with e.g. Taurus missiles that Germany might now finally provide, or with a homegrown system— and reduce supply via the “land bridge” to a trickle. Ukraine is already now able to essentially prevent supply by ship or plane. Geography makes retaking Crimea near-impossible as long as there are well-supplied defenders, but if the Russians are eventually without functioning supply lines I would expect that to be different.) But in regard to the Donbas, I don’t see how it can happen as long as Putin is in power. Sure a severe fiscal crisis in Russia is not only possible, but in fact it looks inevitable if the current macro parameters (continuation of active warfare, sanctions, oil prices) remain unchanged. But even in that case I don’t see how the Russian economy would be degraded so much that as a result, the Donbas could reasonably be retaken.
What if the Russian economy gets bad and ever worse until eventually Putin’s hold on power becomes untenable? Maybe at that point a new Russian government wants good relations with the west and an end to the drain of economic resources which the war represents. As you wrote, it would be the first time in history Russia would part with territory through negotiation. The scenario of that happening doesn’t look any more plausible in my eyes than in looks in yours. A potential post-Putin government in Russia might well be the result of a military coup. (Who else would have enough power?) We know a bit of the mindset in which military people in Russia are educated. That mindset is not compatible with giving up any of the occupied territory unless they’re absolutely forced to do so.
I agree with just about everything you say, but my point remains - freezing the battlefield through a cease-fire could equal giving up Ukrainian territory, possibly forever.
I don't believe Zelensky will agree to that, not even as a de facto reality, especially now that Ukraine is growing in relative strength.
I also believe that the West, including the US, wouldn't mind very much if Ukraine gave up territory in return for an end to the war, but then it's not our territory.
We underestimate how unwilling the Ukrainians are giving up territory - any territory.
So in my opinion, Zelensky is following a different strategy here, one of keeping Trump onboard by showing willingness to sacrifice, until he doesn't need Trump anymore...
Do you see any plausible path that leads to Ukraine regaining effective control of the Donbas without Russia as a whole disintegrating into various components?
(Russia disintegrating after Putin’s rule ends is a possible scenario in my eyes, but I don’t think that hoping/waiting for that to happen could plausibly be part of Zelenskyy’s strategy.)
Yes. By military strength alone (and that will result in Russian disintegration).
I think, with Trump in the WH (which could change over the course of the next few months, by the way), the EU has committed itself to serious investments. It hadn't, until now, not really, or better still, really not.
The fear in Europe is real, as is the propaganda machine, and the resulting investments. It'll take awhile for the military industrial complex in Europe to take off, but once it does, no amount of Russian investment or personnel can counter the flood of hardware Ukraine gets to work with.
A summer offensive to take back the Donbass is not very realistic, in my opinion. But Ukraine will be able to crush Russia in 2026.
The question is - what will Putin do when he is actually losing the war? Which is why I have argued in one of my posts that the West (the French and the Brits) should promise to provide nukes to Ukraine if and after(!!!) Putin drops them on Ukraine.
The only way known to mankind to stop a nuclear power from using nukes is a nuclear counter threat.
Mind you, I'm not saying we should provide Ukraine with nukes now, but we should instill in Putin that if he uses them, we will provide Ukraine with nukes too to hit back, so that if he uses them, he can say bye bye to Moscow too.
That's the only way to make sure he won't use them, not even, or especially, when he is losing the war...
I have changed my mind a bit in regard to the aspect of integrity: I now think that it is possible to be in 100% integrity while “stating that Russian occupied territory is inalienable, while also accepting a de facto departure from said territory”. Just like if a thief steals a recognizable unique object from me, I can be 100% in integrity if I claim that I am still the owner of the object even while admitting that I may currently be unable to get it back. I would inform the police accordingly and if they ever find the object (possibly while investigating a different crime) there will be a way for me to get the object back.
Of course the situation is different in regard to state crimes committed by Russia (a veto power in the UN security council) because in that context, there is currently no entity that could reasonably play the role of a police institution. But it is possible for Russia to disintegrate into a number of countries and it is possible that at that time, the UN security council or a successor institution might recognize Ukraine’s claim. I’m not asserting anything anything about whether such a scenario is likely or not, but it’s possible. Just like in the case of a thief, it is always possible that the thief will get caught while the police are investigating a different crime. For the purpose of being able to be in integrity while maintaining a claim of ownership, the mere possibility of the claim potentially becoming enforceable in the future is enough.
Ukraine is gaining strength. A possible offensive this summer is taking shape. Why would Ukraine agree to a ceasefire that would legitimize a permanent loss of territory?
I don’t understand why are always negative about Washington and the president!
The Korean zone was created by Americans so EU and Zelensky are just copying just what was/ is working so well!
Actually, I would like to know whom you are giving the credit what is happening now?
Sure it’s a team work but it was a US president who stopped Zelensky’s wining and got him out of the White House. So now we are where we are. A former russian satellite subject who is loving what’s going on.
Ukraine is in a “ no win” situation here! They’re finally taking charge of the battlefield and Russia pushes for 30 days, what, to regroup, to retool, to rebuild North Korean forces!
OK. I hear you. will address all the questions tmrw. Easier to address all of them in 1 single story. Thx.
I understand your (and supposedly Zelensky's and Kyrskyi's) logic, but I don't understand the overall strategy.
So, a thirty-day cease-fire, a demilitarized 30 clicks zone, British and French soldiers occupying that zone to maintain the cease-fire.
And then?
Either the British and the French retreat after thirty days, and both Ukraine and Russia re-enter the zone, and continue fighting, or the cease-fire will be prolonged.
But if it is prolonged, Russia will have, if not by treaty but by facts on the ground, conquered the parts of Ukraine on their side of the zone.
Am I missing something here? The last thing Zelensky should want is some kind of de facto surrender of Ukrainian soil to Russia, out of reach because Brits and French are literally standing in the way of capturing it by military force down the road (and it will have to be captured by military force, because Putin is not going to give it back on his own accord).
Isn't freezing the battlefield - whereby the thirty-day cease-fire is possibly a prelude to an indefinite cease-fire, comparable to Korea - the same as giving away parts of Ukraine to Putin?
I think Zelensky has agreed to a thirty-day cease-fire, because he knows Putin won't. Zelensky is buying time until he no longer needs Trump.
I think the moment he no longer needs Trump (the US) militarily to take back Ukrainian territory any cease-fire is off the table...
But I would think that a forever-continued hot shooting war with a country that has a population exceeding 140 million people from which a continued river of soldiers can be recruited, and which continues to mercilessly send missiles at Ukrainian civilians and energy infrastructure, would be even less acceptable to Ukraine.
I understand your reasoning, but Ukraine cannot have it both ways - stating that Russian occupied territory is inalienable, while also accepting a de facto departure from said territory.
Unless Zelensky thinks the international community can persuade Putin, or his successor, to somehow give up the occupied territory. That won't happen. Or better still, it would be the first time in history Russia would part with territory through negotiation.
And by the way, Russia is declining in military strength (and more importantly, economic strength), and Ukraine is growing in strength. That 140 million people means little as long as Europe stands behind Ukraine. Putin can send as much bodies as he wants. Canon fodder is just that - cannon fodder, no matter how much of it you can muster.
And European (military) support is only (finally) growing...
I would suggest that “stating that Russian occupied territory is inalienable, while also accepting a de facto departure from said territory” is in fact possible. It would be a course of action that would operate at less than 100% integrity, yes, but Zelenskyy would still be operating at a much higher degree of integrity than Putin or Trump or the German ex-chancellor Scholz with his „Zeitenwende“ announcement that was not followed up with a corresponding level of action, or many other Western European politicians.
That said, I’m certainly hoping for the Russian occupation to collapse. I can see how it could happen in regard to Crimea. (I imagine that Ukraine will sooner or later be able to both destroy the Kerch bridge —either with e.g. Taurus missiles that Germany might now finally provide, or with a homegrown system— and reduce supply via the “land bridge” to a trickle. Ukraine is already now able to essentially prevent supply by ship or plane. Geography makes retaking Crimea near-impossible as long as there are well-supplied defenders, but if the Russians are eventually without functioning supply lines I would expect that to be different.) But in regard to the Donbas, I don’t see how it can happen as long as Putin is in power. Sure a severe fiscal crisis in Russia is not only possible, but in fact it looks inevitable if the current macro parameters (continuation of active warfare, sanctions, oil prices) remain unchanged. But even in that case I don’t see how the Russian economy would be degraded so much that as a result, the Donbas could reasonably be retaken.
What if the Russian economy gets bad and ever worse until eventually Putin’s hold on power becomes untenable? Maybe at that point a new Russian government wants good relations with the west and an end to the drain of economic resources which the war represents. As you wrote, it would be the first time in history Russia would part with territory through negotiation. The scenario of that happening doesn’t look any more plausible in my eyes than in looks in yours. A potential post-Putin government in Russia might well be the result of a military coup. (Who else would have enough power?) We know a bit of the mindset in which military people in Russia are educated. That mindset is not compatible with giving up any of the occupied territory unless they’re absolutely forced to do so.
I agree with just about everything you say, but my point remains - freezing the battlefield through a cease-fire could equal giving up Ukrainian territory, possibly forever.
I don't believe Zelensky will agree to that, not even as a de facto reality, especially now that Ukraine is growing in relative strength.
I also believe that the West, including the US, wouldn't mind very much if Ukraine gave up territory in return for an end to the war, but then it's not our territory.
We underestimate how unwilling the Ukrainians are giving up territory - any territory.
So in my opinion, Zelensky is following a different strategy here, one of keeping Trump onboard by showing willingness to sacrifice, until he doesn't need Trump anymore...
Do you see any plausible path that leads to Ukraine regaining effective control of the Donbas without Russia as a whole disintegrating into various components?
(Russia disintegrating after Putin’s rule ends is a possible scenario in my eyes, but I don’t think that hoping/waiting for that to happen could plausibly be part of Zelenskyy’s strategy.)
Yes. By military strength alone (and that will result in Russian disintegration).
I think, with Trump in the WH (which could change over the course of the next few months, by the way), the EU has committed itself to serious investments. It hadn't, until now, not really, or better still, really not.
The fear in Europe is real, as is the propaganda machine, and the resulting investments. It'll take awhile for the military industrial complex in Europe to take off, but once it does, no amount of Russian investment or personnel can counter the flood of hardware Ukraine gets to work with.
A summer offensive to take back the Donbass is not very realistic, in my opinion. But Ukraine will be able to crush Russia in 2026.
The question is - what will Putin do when he is actually losing the war? Which is why I have argued in one of my posts that the West (the French and the Brits) should promise to provide nukes to Ukraine if and after(!!!) Putin drops them on Ukraine.
The only way known to mankind to stop a nuclear power from using nukes is a nuclear counter threat.
Mind you, I'm not saying we should provide Ukraine with nukes now, but we should instill in Putin that if he uses them, we will provide Ukraine with nukes too to hit back, so that if he uses them, he can say bye bye to Moscow too.
That's the only way to make sure he won't use them, not even, or especially, when he is losing the war...
I have changed my mind a bit in regard to the aspect of integrity: I now think that it is possible to be in 100% integrity while “stating that Russian occupied territory is inalienable, while also accepting a de facto departure from said territory”. Just like if a thief steals a recognizable unique object from me, I can be 100% in integrity if I claim that I am still the owner of the object even while admitting that I may currently be unable to get it back. I would inform the police accordingly and if they ever find the object (possibly while investigating a different crime) there will be a way for me to get the object back.
Of course the situation is different in regard to state crimes committed by Russia (a veto power in the UN security council) because in that context, there is currently no entity that could reasonably play the role of a police institution. But it is possible for Russia to disintegrate into a number of countries and it is possible that at that time, the UN security council or a successor institution might recognize Ukraine’s claim. I’m not asserting anything anything about whether such a scenario is likely or not, but it’s possible. Just like in the case of a thief, it is always possible that the thief will get caught while the police are investigating a different crime. For the purpose of being able to be in integrity while maintaining a claim of ownership, the mere possibility of the claim potentially becoming enforceable in the future is enough.
I disagree, respectfully!
Ukraine has all of Europe behind them, with German artillery shells and Ukrainian-made drones pushing the Putin Bear out!
No ceasefire!
Ukraine is gaining strength. A possible offensive this summer is taking shape. Why would Ukraine agree to a ceasefire that would legitimize a permanent loss of territory?
I completely agree!
We’re finally on the offensive, and we’re going to call it off!
No way!
I don’t understand why are always negative about Washington and the president!
The Korean zone was created by Americans so EU and Zelensky are just copying just what was/ is working so well!
Actually, I would like to know whom you are giving the credit what is happening now?
Sure it’s a team work but it was a US president who stopped Zelensky’s wining and got him out of the White House. So now we are where we are. A former russian satellite subject who is loving what’s going on.
Is there any real chance Putin will agree to this? Or will the world make him such a pariah if he refuses that he will have no choice?
Ukraine is in a “ no win” situation here! They’re finally taking charge of the battlefield and Russia pushes for 30 days, what, to regroup, to retool, to rebuild North Korean forces!
WTF!🤬