Russia has apparently started a new offensive in Ukraine, but Russian objectives are not so clear. Is Russia trying to secure the borders of Luhansk and Donetsk by pushing back Ukrainian forces, or do the Russians see this new offensive as a prelude to regime change in Kiev?
So fast at least there are not any answers on what Russia is trying to achieve. If the idea is to drive the Ukrainians back from Donetsk and Luhansk, at the end of the day this could be a gift to Ukraine, allowing them time to continue building up their forces, with more weapons from the US and Europe.
Surely the Russians know that holding territory in Donetsk and Luhansk does not amount to a productive use of equipment and manpower, since these Russians gains will in future be reversed.
If the Russians want their offensive to crush enough of Ukraine's army to force changes in Kiev, that is a possibility but certainly a long shot, unless the Russians have some allies inside the Ukrainian military who want to end the war. It is hard to see how Russia could plan for such an eventuality.
If the Russians want to make a new run at Kiev after bringing further damage to Ukraine's army, that kind of objective would make sense, although it is far from clear if Russia has the ability to move on Kiev. So far at least, Ukraine's army has been holding the line and inflicting heavy losses on Russia. How long they can actually do it, suffering heavy casualties and losses of equipment, no one can say for sure.
Short of an outcome that would result in toppling the Kiev government, it is worth asking if there is a political solution that would permit both sides to cut a deal.
Kiev Agreements and Russian Demands
Russia has strongly supported the Minsk Agreements (Minsk 1, 2014; Minsk 2, 2015). Neither of these agreements was implemented for two reasons: the Ukrainians balked and refused, and the US never supported them.
In December 2021, with Russian troops massed on Ukraine's border, Russia made some strong proposals to the United States and to NATO. The essence of the Russian proposal was (a) no NATO in Ukraine and (b) rolling back NATO forces to the disposition of them that obtained before Eastern European countries joined NATO. Both the US and NATO summarily rejected the Russian proposals and refused to discuss them. Neither would negotiate with a gun to the head, and as a result Russia started its so-called Special Military Operation in Ukraine.
France (led by Emmanuel Macron) and Germany (led by Olaf Scholz) held a number of fruitless discussions with Russia's Vladimir Putin. No progress was made because neither Macron nor Scholz had US backing for any deal and the Russians knew their efforts were a lost cause.
Last March, Naftali Bennett, then Israel's Prime Minister, flew to Moscow and met with Putin. Bennett "coordinated" with the United States and thought he had American backing for his mediation effort. In his talks, Putin agreed that he would not kill Ukraine's President Zelensky. Bennet says that Putin agreed not to demand the disarming of Ukraine and Zelensky told Bennett that he would drop his push for Ukraine to join NATO. But then, just as quickly as the first part of a deal was in the works (the second part would have been how to handle the territories of Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea), the deal collapsed as the US opposed any further talks and Zelensky retreated to the American position of no talks until the Russians are driven out of Ukraine.
The American position has not changed --Russia has to leave all of Ukrainian territory and the US, additionally, will pursue war crimes against Russian civilian and military leaders. Naturally this leaves no room for a political settlement unless Russia is defeated decisively on the battlefield, perhaps not even then.
The problem with the US position, which also is supported to some degree by most NATO members, is that it means a long and bloody war. There is no evidence Russia will blink or pull back. If there is any effective opposition in Moscow, it is hard to see and seems to be fringe. While the US has tried to promote the idea of a coup in Moscow, none has yet materialized. (US propaganda also characterizes Putin as sick and likely to die, so maybe ambitious contenders for the throne in Russia will jump at the chance to overthrow Putin.)
Hopeless Biden Administration
The Biden administration does not want a political settlement, and appears to be willing to risk a war in Ukraine that could spillover into neighboring countries. Poland, Romania and Moldova are most frequently mentioned as possibilities for the war's expansion. The Ukrainians, however, would like to see a wider war, since that would mean NATO would come to their rescue. Anytime a Russian (or Ukrainian missile that the Ukrainians conveniently call Russian) crosses the border, Ukraine claims that Russia is attacking beyond Ukraine's borders.
Over time the US position on Ukraine has been consistent --namely, supporting Ukraine's argument that Russia must leave Ukrainian territory, supplying weapons to Ukraine, providing real time targeting intelligence to Ukraine's army, and training Ukraine's military. There is little doubt that many weapons supplied to Ukraine have been highly effective and have led to heavy Russian losses. Now the Biden administration wants to hand Ukraine weapons that can reach into Russian territory and, by doing so, expand the war in that direction.
Zelensky is completely dependent on the US for just about everything. This means he has no flexibility other than hoping to widen the war and bring NATO physically into the fight.
Is there a way out?
At the present time as the battle in Ukraine rages on there is no prospect for a political settlement. It isn't that the Russians oppose coming up with a solution. Putin has made it clear he is willing to do so, but Zelensky, NATO and Biden refuse any political approach.
The Biden administration continues to believe Ukraine can win and drive the Russians out. But for this to happen, Ukraine's military would have to be strengthened with new weapons, including combat jets and long range missiles. If the result is serious attacks on Russian territory, it is likely the war will widen. NATO would try and implement Article V of the Alliance agreement, and a general war would start in Europe.
A general war means nuclear exchange. Russia will not sit still and watch how Ukraine or NATO will bomb their country to pieces. That's good night for Europe and nuclear Holocaust isn't far away from that. It just shows that the US is the biggest threat to world peace.
People look at the trench warfare in the First World War and think how stupid it was because it was inconsequential, but all those lives were lost by the end. That was because a big battle would result in a movement of only a few hundred yards. What they don't realize is that teeny weeny bit of territorial gain would sometimes cost as many as fifty thousand lives on one or both sides in a big push.
Nothing much seems to be happening on the Eastern front in Ukraine because not much territory is being exchanged. But plenty is happening. The Ukrainian forces are staying in a fixed postion as are the Russians. Seventy five percent of troop losses in a ground battle are due to artillery. The Russians have a five to one artillery advantage over the Ukrainians. That means that one can expect a five to one mortality rate in a artillery battle with troops in fixed positions. The Russians are happy to have the Ukrainians try and hold on to places like Soledar and Bakhnut. The Russians are advancing half mile by half mile. But the Ukrainians are losing troops by the thousands, stuck in place trying to prevent it.
It is not American areo-space military against third world forces American style. It is NATO against a near peer with one of the best anti-air systems in the world. It is all about ground troops protected by artillery and very close air support which the Russians have in abundance and the Ukrainians do not. We know they don't have it because the Ukrainians are screaming at NATO to give them more or they will lose the war.