Well, the common theme in both messages is pretty clear: Russia acknowledges that it is losing. I also disagree about Putin not being a rational actor. Every decision he has made has been in strict accordance with a rationale. There’s been nothing crazy or weird about anything he has done from his perspective. Let’s not confuse rationale for liberal norms of behavior.
First, according to Duggers and his sound sources, Russia has suffered a mortality figure of 12 soldiers, all of whom actually passed away from natural causes. Russia has not, however, offered to revert to the agreed upon 1991 boundaries. Obviously Lavrov made the comment intentionally and deliberately, and I suspect there is much more dialogue going on way behind the scenes given that statement. It’s the essence of true diplomacy, right? But, if the War ends by Ukraine getting its land back free of the Russians, and gives up t to join NATO, then that is a proposal that HAS to be accepted and implemented.
I suspect that, since the views are 180-degrees apart, that one is Putin's mouth-piece and the other is his ass-piece. The west just has to figure out which is which.
I think Russia (as well as Putin and his inner circle) knows that the dam is about to break. They are running out of fingers to put in the dyke.
A good article on why the Russians are likely afraid of the Abrams tanks that are about to go into action. I just can't understand why the U.S. couldn't spare more than 31 of them--there are thousands of them in storage, unlikely to ever be used in combat. I would have started with 50-100 of them, and promised to send 10 more per month once they started using them. Abrams tanks were 'built to kill' Russian armor, but Ukraine has its work cut out for it keeping them in the fight
I hope that is the case, but as usual I am less optimistic that a decisive Ukrainian victory on the ground is coming. I think it’s exactly what Medvedev said: Russia is running out of realistic options. Despite the tough talk, the casualties, the limited mobilization, and the economic warfare against Russia are not sustainable, so an indefinite stalemate is not acceptable. Russia has to win and probably within the next 12 months (total guess there, but it is a finite amount of time). Problem there is, they really can’t get moving; the threat of military rebellion precludes doing much except for defending, which — again — is not a long-term plan. I think it comes down to how long Russia can hold its current position and hope that Ukraine’s reach exceeds its grasp on one of these counteroffensives.
so few Abrams were sent - 31 tanks. Mostly political as some countries were waiting on us before they sent tanks. ie Germany.
I agree. It’s important but not decisive. The Abrams is incredibly hard to destroy apart from air attack, and the Russians are having real difficulty pulling that off. But 31 is roughly a battalion’s worth of them. That will help, but it won’t be the thing that pushes Ukraine over the top. The thing that would — and I’m not saying this is realistic — is being able to achieve periods of local air superiority. If they can do that, then they can physically cut off Crimea.
I have no idea. Are you willing to fly the plane that finds out? (I’m not) I think you have to assume that you can’t ever quite get all of the missiles and that Russia would scramble interceptors to deal with CAS aircraft. There are other enablers such as EW we would have to give Ukraine, and I think that would be a bridge too far.
I’m almost certain it is not. That’s not really the point. If they floated it as a ruse to their own people so they can say “Look! We offered them Crimea, Donbas, and an end to the bloodshed for a reasonable assurance that Ukraine would not join NATO, and they answered us with sullen contempt. As we said from the beginning, NATO will accept nothing short of destruction and dismemberment of Russia,” then publicly accepting their terms would disarm them and reveal the bad faith.
100% agree!!! It would be a no-brainer for Ukraine to say they’d end the War on those terms, meaning they get their land back and the Russian army leaves. No NATO, and who cares?
We should encourage the reformation of the old Warsaw pact. This time with the goal of containing the only true threat.
Looks like Slovakia, which shares a border with Ukraine, will go from being a pro-Ukrainian state with generous donations of weapons, to a pro-Russian state pinching pennies. They have an election coming up, and the likely winner is a former prime minister who supports Russia in this conflict. He quotes Russian propaganda almost as much as our own propagandist. A NATO country could soon have a pro-Russian leader | CNN
