What next for Ukraine?

Here's my fear for both Ukraine and us in the West. This Sunday on the tv the Ukrainian ambassador to the US viewed the opinion that the war will last till the last Russian soldier has gone not only from the newly gained territory but also the whole of Donbas and Crimea. That means that they're now not only going to fight a war that started way back in 2014 but also that they'll keep the West under a blanket of constant moral chantage. They are the democracy that needs to be saved, as the grand damsel in a fairytale. However, lets not go into that rabbit hole. Realpolitik has been in existence since Cardinal Richelieu supported the protestant side in the Thirty Years War in order to weaken the Habsburg monarchs. Whatever the detail of the Israeli policy towards Ukraine is today, it will for sure be in the interest of the country first. Does one actually need to get the Russian Army reduced to almost nothing in the long run, but rather have the conflict settled with the less death possible and as soon as possible? Remember, the summer months of July and August will favour the Russian armoured columns the most, and furthermore, they consider the battlefield tactical nuclear strike as mere the another artillery option. Obviously Ukraine won't defeat Russia on their own. Will their next step not be trying to directly involve the West in the war? That will mean that the war will only end by either regime change in Moskow, or by the West really taking the crazed bet that the Russians won't use the nuclear option whilst they bomb their army out of Ukraine.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SomeMichGuy · M

Does one actually need to get the Russian Army reduced to almost nothing in the long run, but rather have the conflict settled with the less death possible and as soon as possible?

You are assuming that there are two possibilities

1) the Russian Army is essentially devastated into virtual non-existence, or

2) this war is settled with less death and ASAP

and, by implication, that option 1 is long & drawn-out.

First, I don't believe that this constitutes the Universe of possible alternatives, but

A) It has been noted that the performance of the Russian military has been MANY orders of magnitude worse than what Putin surely figured (except for its ability to bomb hospitals, apartments, etc.). So the Russian Army has already lost much of the reputation with which it was formerly credited (and Ukrainian citizens have surely shown THEIR mettle, and earned a HUGE amount of respect, a fine reputation, etc.). So perhaps the devastation of the Russian Army's reputation can accelerate the end of the conflict, and surely your point 1 seems far more achievable than anyone thought on Day 1 of this horrible new phase of the long Russian-Ukrainian War.

B) If you want a quick end (option 2), consider that the West and most of the rest of the world has essentially set before Russia the obvious choice of regime CHANGE (not shift to another oligarch, but change, à la Navalny). Do not think that the many sanctions against Russia have gone unnoticed by average Russians AND oligarchs. So go implore the Russian people to make the change you seek!

In the end, Russia has to be stopped, not because of the Russian Army, but because the current regime has emitted MANY statements over the past few years (in particular) which have transmitted to the world the intent to reclaim--or threaten to reclaim--the former Soviet "sphere of influence" via reclaiming the same territory, either directly or by fiat. It isn't the Russian Army, per se, which is the problem; it is having a regime which is willing to use the it and other Russian military units to continue this war of re-acquisition of territories lost when the Berlin Wall/Iron Curtain fell 33 years ago.

Putin ultimately must go, because it seems he will NEVER accept the notion that ANY other nation in the last incarnation of a Russian empire should be allowed independent sovereignty. The US, NATO, the EU, the UN cannot tolerate a rogue leader in the Kremlin any more than the rest of the world can tolerate a rogue leader in the White House.

val70 · 51-55

@SomeMichGuy Still means that Ukraine will only gain the victory that it wants not alone, and that there's a real possibility that they want Nato allies to actively participate in their hot war which will indeed mean a direct war between the West and Russia, and thus the nuclear option in th conflict very much closer than even during the Cuban Crisis.

SomeMichGuy · M

@val70 No, but I understand that I tend to write sentences with relatively complex structure, and comcomitantly low Flesch Reading-Ease Scores (< 0 in a test paragraph).

Putin being relieved, internally, would likely not trigger the ICBMs.

Even if Putin attempted to use strategic nuclear weapons, it has been mentioned here that the evidence from this phase of the war suggests that

• military personnel might well NOT follow such an order, and
• even if they DID follow such an order, the complex bombs + launch vehicles might not operate properly.

AND...the longer this drags on WITH Putin, the more likely that he will use tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield.

val70 · 51-55

@SomeMichGuy If you say that you could absolutely guarantee that the military or rather the security forces could/would oust Putin, sure, let it all drag on till then. However, I'm far from sure (nor should you be) that this will happen before Ukraine actually trips itself up by putting Russia before the painful, yet necessary decision of using their tactical battlefield nuclear weapons as their last defence/offence to counter Ukraine's power. Those nukes are indeed part of the Russian battlefield artillery thinking after all. All that you would then create is the first step up the ladder, and that's just what we've tried to avoid since the Cuban Missile Crisis. One can't start to bet on Putin's removal with that on the table.

SomeMichGuy · M

@val70 I'm not able to state any future with any degree of certainty, but an unhappy segment of the population, disaffected military, sthg like 8 *generals* dead...not good signs. Putin even was criticized by some of the oligarchs.

So, unhappy co-rulers, unhappy military, unhappy peasants/normal people, and Putin's actions causing problems with access to international banks, credit & markets, seizure of assets, and fundamental shifts in those underlying markets (the European sea change on dependence upon Russian reserves)...

Would you say *that* is looking good for Putin?

val70 · 51-55

@SomeMichGuy Some are just lucky in survival, some are just there to stay, and then there are others who are constantly planning ahead.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

val70 · 51-55

@SomeMichGuy I don't think that you even understand the Russian Orthodox Church.

SomeMichGuy · M

@val70 So what part are you saying the ROC plays in this?

val70 · 51-55

@SomeMichGuy Whatever happens next, it will need to have broad support.

SomeMichGuy · M

@val70 Why did the invasion not require it? Or require it to keep going?

Why would the ROC want to have the original seat of its patriarch attacked?

val70 · 51-55

@SomeMichGuy Because they went along with the program. Just look it up. They're fighting fascism yet again.

SomeMichGuy · M

@val70 Patriarch Kirill is an ass who is preaching against the Bible.

val70 · 51-55

@SomeMichGuy Yes, but that statement doesn't help things along either. One has to stay realistic.

SomeMichGuy · M

@val70 I looked at his appalling twisting of the Bible to support Putin, and I hope the Russian people are wise to his false teaching...so sad.

The Œcumenical Patriarch, at the time, should never have acknowledged the independence of the Russian Orthodox Church...so sad.

val70 · 51-55

@SomeMichGuy LOL... you sound like the Donald there.

SomeMichGuy · M

@val70 "so sad"?

DJT has no g-d clue what the Tetrarchy & Pentarchy are/were, the difference between όμοουσιος and όμοιουσιος, what "Œcumenical Patriarch" is, or how to spell it.