Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mark Maguire's avatar

It is hard to see what Russia would gain from a cessation of hostilities and a 'negotiated settlement'. The purpose of the SMO was the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine, at this time, the AFU is still resisting (with the help of NATO) and the Bamderites remain in power. To coin a phrase, the only way this conflict can be resolved is via the unequivocal defeat of one of the combatants on the battlefield. Any negotiations which take place will ALWAYS be predicated upon a temporary ceasefire which will allow Ukraine to re-arm and start the conflict again in 5-10 years whilst 'frozen Russian assets' are used to bolster the Bamderites via reconstruction.

John W Waring's avatar

Ukraine has lost too many trained soldiers of all ranks to be able to fight effectively and mount a credible defense. The.steady increase of territory conquered by Russia and the increasing rate of casualties inflicted on the Ukrainian forces both indicate the Ukrainian army is now being overwhelmed. If Zelensky wants to preserve any future economic viability, he will sue for peace immediately, before the Russians seize the Black Sea port city of Odessa. There will not be a deal, except the one Putin and Lavrov have outlined over the past three years: Ukraine shall be neutral going forward; Ukraine shall be disarmed, maintaining only a force necessary to keep domestic security; and the heirs of Stefan Banderas will be purged from both army and governmental ranks. Ukraine will be striped of the four oblasts Russia has absorbed. If this sounds as if Russia will dictate terms, you would be correct. You get to do that when you crush your foe on the battlefield. Let’s stop kidding ourselves. We lost all leverage on the battlefield. We will not be able resurrect lost leverage at the conference table.

25 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?