I wish they would publish this on the front page of the NYTimes, so there could be a rational discussion. One point on the end game- how does the West perpetuate an endless war, as it is in their interest to do so? How does Russia avoid an endless war? Any ideas?
Putin called for demilitarization of Ukraine. Had Ukraine accepted terms, demilitarization would have taken the form of removing offensive gear and capability. Since they didn't accept, it is taking the form of destroying the gear and the soldiers who would be able to field it.
When America invaded Iraq, they bypassed the tough spots and headed straight to Baghdad. The goal was regime change. The reason this conflict is merely inching along is because the goal is demilitarization. All the gear gets destroyed. The will of the guys to fight is either removed, or they are destroyed.
NATO reequipping Ukraine is fairly straightforward. They simply bring in the gear and begin training Ukrainian soldiers. By the end of the action, all that will be left are conscripts. Most will be too old and too unwilling. NATO will be left with deciding whether to commit their own men to the fight.
Given that there will always be money and weapons from the West, it does seem that manpower and motivation is the point to push on. Looking at another long-term stalemate- N Korea/ S Korea- the North has the ability to destroy Seoul in minuets. This very high immediate cost is part of the strategically acceptable stalemate. I'm wondering if a similar situation- Russian forces within shelling distance of a future peaceful Wester Ukraine Kiev- would be one component of a peaceful stalemate/ceasefire. From you maps it would require occupying some Pro-Kiev territories. I guess time will tell.
No matter which line Russia eventually uses as a final border, the Ukranian government will sign up to what they have to. If not, Russia can go on shelling and missile attacking anything that moves in the un-occupied areas, including electricity and fuel resources, until they do agree. Once a treaty is signed, any backtracking or insurgent attacks will be dealt with, under the terms of the treaty, by a return to the previous conditions.
I wish this were presented in any legacy Western media. The world needs to come to a mutual understanding that Russia needs to "fast-forward" socially, just like Islamic nations. But our media is preventing that by happening though censorship and "narrative." It is sad to watch, we used to be better.
The map seems about right but I believe that NovoRussyia will eventually extend up tthe Dneiper before passing by and isolating Kiev and eventually bordering with Belarus. There is no way Russia proper will ever let Ukraine border on its western front again.2
I wish they would publish this on the front page of the NYTimes, so there could be a rational discussion. One point on the end game- how does the West perpetuate an endless war, as it is in their interest to do so? How does Russia avoid an endless war? Any ideas?
Putin called for demilitarization of Ukraine. Had Ukraine accepted terms, demilitarization would have taken the form of removing offensive gear and capability. Since they didn't accept, it is taking the form of destroying the gear and the soldiers who would be able to field it.
When America invaded Iraq, they bypassed the tough spots and headed straight to Baghdad. The goal was regime change. The reason this conflict is merely inching along is because the goal is demilitarization. All the gear gets destroyed. The will of the guys to fight is either removed, or they are destroyed.
NATO reequipping Ukraine is fairly straightforward. They simply bring in the gear and begin training Ukrainian soldiers. By the end of the action, all that will be left are conscripts. Most will be too old and too unwilling. NATO will be left with deciding whether to commit their own men to the fight.
Great compilation, by the way.
Given that there will always be money and weapons from the West, it does seem that manpower and motivation is the point to push on. Looking at another long-term stalemate- N Korea/ S Korea- the North has the ability to destroy Seoul in minuets. This very high immediate cost is part of the strategically acceptable stalemate. I'm wondering if a similar situation- Russian forces within shelling distance of a future peaceful Wester Ukraine Kiev- would be one component of a peaceful stalemate/ceasefire. From you maps it would require occupying some Pro-Kiev territories. I guess time will tell.
No matter which line Russia eventually uses as a final border, the Ukranian government will sign up to what they have to. If not, Russia can go on shelling and missile attacking anything that moves in the un-occupied areas, including electricity and fuel resources, until they do agree. Once a treaty is signed, any backtracking or insurgent attacks will be dealt with, under the terms of the treaty, by a return to the previous conditions.
I wish this were presented in any legacy Western media. The world needs to come to a mutual understanding that Russia needs to "fast-forward" socially, just like Islamic nations. But our media is preventing that by happening though censorship and "narrative." It is sad to watch, we used to be better.
The west is going backwards with liberalism socially.....Russia and China both know this.
The map seems about right but I believe that NovoRussyia will eventually extend up tthe Dneiper before passing by and isolating Kiev and eventually bordering with Belarus. There is no way Russia proper will ever let Ukraine border on its western front again.2